Ben_Novak_1987

Thinking way into the future, gene-editing will likely be the dominant medical tool. Recent advancements in gene editing show that it can be used to change single base pairs or genes in living patients. In cell lines CRISPR-Cas systems have been used to change large sections of chromosomes, up to 150,000 base pairs in size, and altered versions of Cas proteins can alter gene expression without changing the genetic code. These capabilities open up the possibility of treating any disease that has a genetic or epigenetic root, which means things like cancer can be treated with gene-editing in addition to genetic disorders. The pace at which CRISPR advances as a medical tool will depend upon the pace at which we understand genetics. The idea of regrowing limbs, however, will rely on advancements in stem cell technologies. Stem Cells, gene-editing, and tissue 3-D printing are likely to become the major foundations of medical techniques moving into the future.

CRISPR was pioneered at UC Davis and Harvard. So those schools are of course near the top of the list. But CRISPR is so easy to use in the laboratory that just about any university now has labs using it for various research. For a PhD you don't want to be focused on the school, but the professor that you want to work with. Read into publications that interest you and see who the scientists are that do the work - those are the people that could mentor your PhD. Graduate school is about people far more than it is about institutions.

Knowledge is the bottleneck. We don't understand what genes underly some of these issues. With down syndrome we do not yet have a way to remove or suppress expression of the extra chromosome, but CRISPR will likely allow methods to do this. In order to develop any gene-editing solution to a problem the exact nature of the underlying genetic cause needs to be identified. Many developmental problems in humans are caused by a number of defective or improperly expressed genes interacting together and we just don't know which genes those are yet. The next hurdle is developing better means to repair those genes in the right cells in the human body and gaining government approvals to do so.

The biggest hurdle is understanding genomics. It's far more complicated than any other science. It's not difficult to learn how to design and use CRISPR in bacteria, but its very hard to make changes in a genome that result in a change to the organism (it's actually most common to end up disrupting a key gene that kills the bacteria). Editing more complex organisms requires extensive reproductive knowledge and technology that biohackers simply do not have the infrastructure to achieve (for instance, the microscope to manipulate a mouse zygote costs $150,000 USD just to purchase). But some other types of organisms will become accessible models to biohackers with major financial means in coming years.

Monsanto crops have not caused the problems you cite because they are GMO. Problems related to Monsanto crops are inherent to the way we do agriculture - resistance to glycosphate among weeds was inevitable due to evolution, but it was an advancement that has helped produce more food and reduce the toxicity of herbicide use on landscapes. There are many environmental tradeoffs due to human population expansion and how we generate the resources we need, but these are different dynamics than altering the genes of an organism. In actuality, the GMOs that exist are environmentally friendly both biologically and ecologically. Your "wall of text" certainly deserves more response, but in general CRISPR methods are precise tools for alteration, which means they can be used to generate exact desired outcomes. If the goal in mind is one that thinks through the environment, then it can be achieved without negative environmental consequences. It's just a tool. It's only as good as we use it. But the nice thing is that it's a precise tool, so we actually can use it without negative side effects if we put in the effort.