Crispr-Cas9
Vs. PFOA, PFOS, C-8, Gen X, Fluoridation, etc.
Due
to the massive effort to map the entire human genome in 2000/3 which was funded
by government tax revenue sponsorship via the USA,
UK, Japan, France, Germany, Spain and China; the exploration of which
has gone on to open up the ability to cure heredity diseases.
A
process in 2015 by researchers used a gene editing tool named Cripr-Cas9 to
change the DNA of embryos. The ability to alter the DNA with the possibility of
eradication permanently identified ‘defeats’ from a heredity line, was held as gaining
a near god like power to shape the direction of human development. This
potentially Frankenstein ability, should something go wrong, was not generally
welcomed within the UK, so strict protocols were put in place to control
further research and use.
This
for the moment is severely limited. The process is not perfected due to the
unknown influencing power of gene strings or the role of blind / spares genetic
components that reside in the DNA /RNA map.
The
worry is that once such an editing tool becomes wholly reliable, there will be
the pressure to seek out debilitation gene structures and correct them or
insert completely new ‘attributes’ all of which will be pass forward onto the
next generation of humans. So there is great intent to proceed with maximum
caution. Only a few countries have allowed altering research to the human DNA
although there are many pursuing the potential application and none have so far
leaped to the progeny stage.
That
the legislative oversight within countries is varied, the power of the ability
to change the human structure and it impact is acknowledged and not to be underestimated.
Being aware of societal concerns are also of consideration but no real mutual engagement
with the public is taking place discussing how, when, where, or to what extent
should or could such power be used. There is a very strong undercurrent of
scientific disagreement on the direction of gene editing and limited global
public apprehension. In some way this unengaged public obscurity may well be
deliberate as the ability to shape the hard ware of a human form, runs into the
very essence of what a human is and the irrationally the gamut of religious indoctrinations.
Now
in November 2018 a Chinese researcher and biotech entrepreneur He Jiankui
announced he had already created genetically modified humans, twin girls. This
announcement prior to a scientific meeting in Hong Kong on human gene editing
has been met with considerable furore and is being investigated. If it is true,
he has been the first to step over the moral precipice, He might not turn out
to be the first but one can be sure that when another follows the implications
will be profound and governments will most defiantly have to take a much stronger
directive hand than now.
This
technology is at the stage where it can be monitored and directed, albeit that
the global oversight is weak but there are three massive problems that government
will find difficult to overcome:-
a)
Governmental legislative power always lags behind speed of science developments
and applications; in this case it may be that within 5/10 years this knowledge
and its application will allow considerable certainty in correcting / inserting
gene editing for a known outcome by any country.
b)
At the moment it is expensive, not risk free and a much specialised process,
this will inevitable change as Crispr-Cas9 shows.
c)
There are the unresolved public moral religious imperatives and the forces that
will object.
In
considering the above and in an attempt to discern just what may unfold from
the direction of the above, one might find it instructive to view an issue
which is immensely important, on the same effectual basis as the above, with
human global impact but which has to a great extent been disregarded by governments
(too late) and unseen by the general public.
In
the late 1930’s 3M Co. produced a chemical substance PFOA (perfluorooctanoic
acid) also known as C8, that offered a protective coating to a variety of
materials that it sold onto DuPont Co for applications. In 1950 PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) was produced, a
‘beneficial’ similar product which DuPont used in products under the trade name
Teflon. The chemicals belong to a group known as perfluorinated chemicals
(PFCs). Both PFOS and PFOA are very persistent in the environment. PFOS was
widely used in the past in products to provide protective coatings to materials
such as textiles and leather. It was also used in some fire fighting foams.
Most production of PFOS ceased in 2002, manufacture and all uses are now banned
in the EU under a Directive (2006/122/EC) that came into force in June 2008.
PFOA is still manufactured and is used to produce other chemicals such as
fluoropolymers, which are used in electronics and non-stick cookware, the main
producer being DuPont. DuPont has recently created separate off load company,
Chemours Co. to make and use a new product called Gen X.
From
the late 50’s concern was growing that the early products were accused of being
a cause in the physical defects and death of animal and deformities in babies
in areas of high production manufacture and water contamination discharges.
The
American companies denied any responsibility and fought off challenges from the
public for many years with the connived help of the EPA until law suits were
filed. As a result of requested forced disclosures of company documentation, it
was shown that there was a case to answer; risk information was being hidden
and the company was forced into victim compensation.
As
part of the research into the possible effects of these chemical, in 2012 after
7 years some 70k people from around the world who had been tested to ascertain
potential suspected spread contamination, it was found from that, all had, within
the blood, a small amount of PFC’s derivative and the estimate is that the
whole of the human population also has a minuet but detectable level in blood. Only
when a sample from 1930 was fortunately tested could clean blood, free of PFC’s
be seen. It is as yet unknown how such a worldwide dispersal and absorption can
occur. Its proliferation use and possible bio migration suggest a vector. To
this Gen X is suggested, under testing, also causing some concerns creating physiological defects
in test animals.
Due
to several reports on PFOS etc the physical and chemical properties of these
products are seen as potential risks contaminants to the environment and human
health. Under “normal” circumstances the general public is not thought to be at
risk as the chemical are stable and are not unintentionally reactive with other
chemical states.
It
is assumed thus far that at the extremely low level of contaminate detected in
the blood, everywhere, that there is no correlated evidence to any indicative danger
to be effected on the human population or procreation. The fact is, one might
suggest, is that science does not have the ability to establish long term
causative impacts other than in extreme historic cases to consider such
chemicals are benign, even though over some 50 years some would argue that the
world bio sphere has been irreversible changed.
None
of the above is to suggest that those producing and applying such a product,
initially did anything wrong. Any company with a unique product that has wide spread,
popular commercial uses will do what it thinks needs to be done to safeguard
its own interest. And if that company provides extensive employment, financial
returns and has influential power with governments, it will try to dominate the
overall discourse in the furtherance of its profitable existence. Companies in
key market position have too much to lose to unravel their own products and
have a natural propensity to dissemble contradictory negative evidence of the product
if accused of doing harm.
How
such global contamination happened could be due to the early lack of
legislation, government ignorance, pitiable investigative powers, a reluctance
to face off a valuable corporate interest, selective political importance, and
the irresistible uses applied to consumers’ goods. It, as a product was and is
just too good to ignore so inevitable the marketable exploitation / penetration
was fast.
Although
governments world wide are now aware of the contamination and steps taken to
control obvious dangers, the (inaccessible) damage with these chemical has been
done but this saga might illustrate that for many commercial uses of chemicals there
is simple insufficient intrusive investigation by governments to secure the
human / environment and they are much too slow to observe or act on any warning
indicators.
Where
there is substantial commercial gain, where there appears to be a beneficial
use, where there is rapid market penetration and popular use take up, where
there are financial / practical gains to exert pressure to put a product into
play and where there is poor reflexive legislative oversight, may overrun and
outweigh any tentative objections; until of course the shit hits the fan.
A
further point to consider in this discourse is, just as a view of the scope of the
direction of ‘applied experimental technology’ like Cripr and using an example
from within the UK albeit that it also has applied to many other countries.
Consider
this: - From the 1950’s it was noted that there was a wide disparity in different
parts of the country in the state of people teeth. It was found that in some
parts where there was a natural level of fluoride, teeth were in much better
condition, substantially less deterioration, interpreted as, i.e. drinking
fluoridated water kept teeth stronger. (Fluoride
is a natural mineral, an inorganic, monatomic anion with the chemical formula
F−). After a great deal
of political discussion and public consternation / concern, the strength of the
issues “to fluorinate or not” or “the compulsory medicinal adulteration of
water supplies” of areas deficient in fluoride; came down to the long term
benefits outweighing general anxiety. It was economical viable, helped save
some NHS / dental cost, easy to administer and had gone through scientific -
political- public- debate prior to implementation.
The first substantive UK scheme was established in Birmingham
in 1964 to bring fluoride level up to a 1 ppm concentration and now covers many
parts of the country’s water supply where the level is too low, with some 7m
people in
the UK receiving water with fluoride content, whether
naturally occurring or added. It is, in 2015, assessed that this has reduced tooth
decay by 25% in children and adults and is seen as a great success. (1)
The point
one would suggest now is this; as an observation, all governments are entirely
negligent in their ability to monitor the application of scientific and
commercial applications of artificial compounds injected into the bio sphere
and are unrealistic of the dangers until there is a point of exposure. There is
very weak referral warning obligation hidden under the commercially
confidentiality tag. With imperative commercial or ‘demand’ pressures it is
either too late to stop, may be too financially destructive or too important to
take action on or cannot be reversed or is assumed to be a good thing.
As seen
with PFO’s it was the deniability, the cover up and the reticence of government
department that allowed the contamination of the blood of the human population
to take place. There should be no comfort in assuming that as a “stable”
compound, it has, at the very low detectable level, no impact on a mature body;
rather that bullet just missed, but no one really knows for sure.
Compare
this with the time taken to consider and implement in the UK the “adulteration”
of water, in this case for a beneficial outcome albeit there was also an
economic advantage and is used by many other countries now given to people that
drink such water with or without their consent.
This now
come back to gene therapy and Crispr: Gene therapy is already in use and is
proving very useful in replacing ‘faulty’ genes in babies / adults. This technique
is in its early stages of use and is not a universal application and is only a
life time fix. It is not transferrable to the next generation so is cautiously
welcomed as a tool to improve human health. However as stated, Crispr and
future derivative is a far greater tool of complete genetic editing or allow new
‘adaptations’ and is generational transferrable (as possibly PFO’s etc maybe)
and it is this ability that startles the scientific community, worries governments
and will raise the apprehension of the ungodly or god fearing populace.
Balanced against this though is the probability to eradicate throughout
generations many diseases caused by what is thought to be (if and when
identified) faulty genes.
Given
what has happened before in the application or misuse of bio affecting
chemicals one may have no doubt that although there will be tenaciously erudite
discussion in the efficacy of its use (gene therapy) and limitations placed on
how gene splicing is extended, a more resolute argument will remain in the potential
alteration of the human gene pool.
However
one can be certain that although the technology is indicative of huge
potential, scientists and governments will fight to control its exploitation. Even
though the uncertainty of predictable safe outcome is still immature, it will
be improved within the next 5 years, that then will lead to either a renegade
implementation (as Jiankui seems to have done) or an rich
individual / government / corporation will secretly employ its use. What is
definite, one thinks, is that it will become a common selectable tool within
possibly 20 years; for the pressure to use it for financial gain will be too
great and this idea is supported with one prime observation, disregarding
government’s potential loss of control.
The provision
of health care of a modern nation is, for those that have state funded or
contributory schemes, very expensive and an expanding drain on a nation wealth.
If, just like in the fluoride or the dubious PFO’s cases, there is an extensive
beneficial / financial result from using such techniques, it will happen. But one
is not sure if the gods will want a pretender alongside, humans might be about to
have outlived their usefulness.
© Renot
112181511
(1)
Various sources:-
Public
Health England
https://www.epa.gov/fedfac
https://theintercept.com/
posted by Renot at 2:34 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home