UM_Teach_Out

Another consideration to build on Professor Baylis's point - are we discussing CRISPR to treat a disease/disorder? Or for enhancement? For some of the things you mentioned, the answer is not so clear. Further, there is a argument to be made that trying to "edit out" certain traits/disorders implies a perceived lack of value for the person who has that trait/disorder - many in the disability rights community have made such an argument. -From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

I also dont know that this is as simple as governments regulating/slowing this down. There are mixed data on how interested the public is in gene editing (particularly for things for which other options already exist). Many in the scientific community are quite optimistic/hopeful about the possibilities of gene editing, but some concerns still certainly remain. The scientific community still is generally opposed to germline gene editing, though conversations are beginning about how it might be able to proceed in a safe, thoughtful, and ethical fashion. I'm not sure, but I still think we're a ways away from germline gene editing - From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

I believe that this is actually further along than many realize. Groups have begun to discuss "DIY CRISPR." And some academic groups (including individuals from the George Church lab and others) have argued for a similar "open revolution" in CRISPR and related technologies. Whether such a revolution is "good" for science and good for society, however, is a very different question.... -From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

there are a few different layers to that question:

1) are you performing somatic CRISPR (meaning it would affect the genes of just the person treated) vs germline CRISPR (meaning it would affect the person as well as their future children). The latter is more complex, ethically and otherwise, since those future children no longer would have a choice in the matter

2) And as for the difference/distinction between CRISPR and a corrective measure like a cochlear implant, that's a fantastic question. One of the many reasons that the germline editing of the babies in China (the "CRISPR babies") was considered so unethical was that there was another viable option to prevent HIV transmission beyond gene editing. So why go for CRISPR if another option is possible? Is CRISPR in this particular case better/different than cochlear implants in that way?

All that is not to say that CRISPR might not be still ethically supportable for conditions for which alternative options are available - but we should think hard about these questions before proceeding...

-From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

Yes, but it'll move from Coursera to our Michigan Online website with all of our Teach-Outs: https://online.umich.edu/teach-outs/

You'll be able to access all the content, just without live discussion forums.