I say edit away once it is 100% safe and effective!!!! I think it would be absolutely stupid not to!! if you take the religious and subjective opinions out of it and replace it with objective science it's a no brainer. To say improving ourselves as a species is unethical or to use religion as a some source of argument would just be ignorant. We already use so many things that improve our lives physically and extend our lives. All these things were discovered with facts, science and research. If we are going to explore the universe or survive as a species these things need to happen before we destroy ourselves either it be climate change or some other means. Science is very real with facts and research and it has already been improving humanity in so many ways for thousands of years. GO CRISPR!!
I'll say, we have no idea of the consequences. DNA is full of moving parts. Far mor complex than sending a man on the he moon. DNA is not just text, it write it self.
@@aurelienyonrac At the moment yes. I agree. I'm sure it will take years mabie even decades before something like this is truly viable for humans. Biggest fear I have and it was touched in the video is technology like this being used as a weapon against humanity. Either way nature is going to take it's course. I just hope with all our advancements and technology we use it to advance ourselves. Things like this might be what prevent us from becoming possibly extinct.
@@SDesigns2023 the problem is we have no idea what is good for us. Weeds grow well, cultivar grow poorly. Resistant germs grow stronger with each antibiotics. What kind of resistance are we going to generate in microbia? What we do to oneself, we do to others. A father had a son and that son broke his leg in the field. The neighbors lamented for the tragedy. But the father replied Is it a good thing? Is it a bad think? I don't know. Next day all able men where called to ware. Lucky you said the neighbors to the father. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Who knows....
@@SDesigns2023 you see the biggest trouble is Blind Faith in scientists and is the same problem as Blind Faith in a religion they both kill you in the end
@@kendalbridges897 Agree! Blind faith in anything is never a good thing. It's a convoluted world out there. Lot's of quackery, pseudo religion, science, politics etc. I hope CRISPR is based on real facts, math and research!
We need quantum computing and AI in place before we get too far down this road, because we cannot yet model or predict the cascading and related side effects caused even by modifying a few short sequences in the context of the organism itself, nor the organism and its environment- let alone the extent of the overarching nonlinear systemic changes we are already making. Using a language metaphor, we are currently at a stage where we have discovered how letters are generally related to words in this newly discovered language, but we have little idea of the larger contexts nor how the epigenetic and other factors will further express to accommodate even seemingly small, innocuous changes. It is somewhat analogous to discovering a trove of Shakespeare’s writings where we don’t yet speak the language of English, let alone Shakespearian English, but we can now start to read the letters and understand how letters and punctuation come together to form larger strings of themselves, and in certain, constrained instances, we are able to pull some meaning- although generally substantially devoid of larger contextual meaning. However, although we now know how to change letters, we have little if any idea of the effect of letter changes on context and meaning on the words, sentences, paragraphs, story and the whole book. Despite this almost complete lack of understanding of these contextual, nonlinear and heuristic complexities, we decide to begin making changes to letters that we know the “meaning” of. Although we think the changes we make result in new terminal expressions in isolation of all of those factors- generally they don’t. It is not how most complex, nonlinear systems work- especially those systems that are neither isolated, nor closed loop. In general, such changes are then processed by the organism in the context of its overall genetics and its environment to further adjust itself using Darwinian and Lamarkian principles, to subsequently reach a new equilibrium. As a result, some of the changes we make will continue to cascade; resulting in new, unanticipated changes to the organism. This is before we even really address how the larger ecosystems, including bacterial and virally driven re-expression to our changes, will create unintended consequences to other organisms. So, prior to having the necessary quantum-AI tools to more fully and accurately model and predict such things, we are making changes while being effectively blind to these important factors. As such, many of the actual systemic results will be unanticipated as well. Finally, there are often deep fundamental differences in engineered c=genetic changes and changes that come from typical meiosis and mitosis in the organisms’ environment. One jet difference is that often nature will not allow the expression of various types of engineered genetic changes we are now able to, and do, make. In the traditional, non engineered context, there is no statically or otherwise likely way to combine spiders and tomatoes. Even in the context of a single species, the types of changes we can engineer can, and have, led to genetic expressions that are either not heritable, or that result in an organism (or its progeny) that are either infertile or cannot produce to term offspring. In some instances, it can take multiple generations for cascading genetic changes to result in offspring that are unable to procreate. We have had an instance where genetically engineer food (corn) caused later generations of a species (cattle) to express as infertile. Nature finds a way to cull certain non-equilibrium and newly expressed traits that are not viable in the context of the organism and its environment. It is just that with our new genetic engineering methods we can create a multitude of new combinations that would not normally happen via traditional breeding and cross-breeding. We are then left with the fact that the overriding genetic algorithms and their interplay with the environment will further operate on the things we create. As such, we have already seen the mechanism expressed by which we could engineer genetic changes to a food source, and as a result, find that our next, or some subsequent generation of our offspring expresses with changes to our average fertility rate- all from a seemingly unrelated genetic change to our food source. We have not seen anything like this ever happen in nature, without genetic engineering, but have already seen it happen with cattle (who all had to be destroyed), in our limited span of genetic engineering. As such, it is not just “social biases” or “a lack of understanding by the public” which lead people to react differently to genetic engineering. The methods used by genetic engineering and the results made possible are often fundamentally, functionally snd otherwise different.
jay - i just finished reading it- at least through Chapter 9 of Part II. It‘s fundamental premise is based on the reexpression of a theory that has lost a lot of favor because of extensive analysis of peer review studies and public and privately funded research. I had hoped it would be well researched and informative; since in addition to yourself, several other people had mentioned it to me. I won’t waste time with all the issues with the book here, as even his conception and explanation of RNA, its history, its interrelationship within and across genomic expressions are not supported by research, observation or studies. Given that most of his assertions are built upon that, it became increasingly off putting to read; which is why I finally stopped. Unfortunately, I am not reading it as a layman could, and as such, the compounding effects of his erroneous beliefs, unsupportable assertions, misuse of terminology and a lack of proper validation of core assertions became like nails on a chalkboard after a while. Also, he is not wrong that we are at a historical crossroads, where many things are about to change- just not based on the mechanism underlying his book. However, I can recommend that you stay interested and become increasingly informed, as we have entered a unique time in our history that begs for all of us to learn what is happening. I can also recommend books and studies written and executed by people who have an overriding interest in finding and sharing factually supported information.
The problem with GMO is they engineer its genes to be immune to pesticides, herbicides and fungicide. And because of this the crops are sprayed relentlessly with such things. the problem isn't with the whole GMO idea, the problem is how they are implementing these modifications.. And what modifications they are making. If you designing plants to be immune to large quantities of poison being sprayed on it. then of coarse the problem is going to be that crops are going to be covered in 5 times more herbicides, pesticides and fungicides comparable to a normal crop. Crop rates are actually higher with the same crop but non GMO on average over here in Europe, So the GMO's made by certain companies are literally only done so they can pattern a seed and hold farmers ransom to their products and all the herbicides, fungicides and pesticides that work with it.
This biotechnology is going forward, whether we like it or not. CRISPR is revolutionary, the same as when humankind discovered the cosmos. With so many players out there, good intentions or greedy intentions, change is inevitable for our species. What an incredible time to be on this pale, blue spot!
It's not whether we like it or not, there is always a choice. The problem is when we think we have no choice, say, or voice to be heard. The dangers of rising technology are real, and must be approached with the greatest and utmost of caution.
They bring it up as an excuse to justify tampering with things genetics, it's a frequent ploy. It doesn't make crisper or "GMOs" safe. What we call GMOs today is not the selective breeding we used to get corn or broccoli, dogs or pigs.
Super excited about the technology but I believe there should be more awareness in the population because many ones may be quite frightened, wonderful lecture.
An example of natural gmo's are hot plants that have been cross pollinated to make 1 or more plants have better healthier/tastier plants (See how the hottest peppers are grown)
Wow! It was just awesome and so fascinating.. Can I ask a question? About editing the HIV positive genes of a person and administering them so that they replicate..., What will happen to the other multitude of cells which are affected but not edited? And about the discussion, gene editing is revolutionary for curing diseases so true but about correcting mutations, how will we understand which mutations will be better for future variation and which won't be? By mutation, there is variation and by restricting mutation , will we stop the existence to develop and adapt altogether? Plus if we desire to do mutations which are supposed to take millions of years in a second, is the organism going to be able to cope up with nature, is nature going to change the change that was reserved for million of years in a second? Pls this is so fascinating..
At 20:57 they're talking about comparisons between countries and diseases in studies on GMOs and someone mentions obesity. See, the thing is that if you compare people, the US has a higher rate of obesity. But if you compare people with similar dietary habits, you find that the types of food and quantities of food are more important than whether the food was genetically engineered. If obesity is less common somewhere, it's because there's healthier available options that require little effort or time to get. Take Japan for instance, vending machines tend to have half their content be types of tea and water, and the other half soda. They have smaller restaurants as easy to reach and as cheap as any other fast food place, and they serve healthy meals (by comparison, tends to have lots of salt and sugar). An example of something similar: when soda cans first had tabs, the tabs peeled off completely and people would toss them wherever, and other people would slice their feet on them. Soda companies accused people for causing this problem and ran campaigns to motivate people to throw the tabs away safely. Eventually the tabs were re-designed so they are attached to the can and push inward, fixing the problem. Obesity is a regulatory problem, not the responsibility of individuals to solve. If the only cheap options for food you can walk to is deep fried, filled with sugar, and generally bad for you, you're not likely going to travel much further to pay a higher cost for something that doesn't taste as good. GMOs provide a way for us to make healthy food taste as good as we want it to. Make it so commonly available that it's cheaper than processed food. If regulations can limit serving sizes then the obesity problem would be solved.
Whats the status of crispr research on malaria..they said that they could add a gene that would make the mosquitoes malarial resistant and is added to a population.. anyone?
@@gamerfortynine ok I get it..but what the status of the research...is it still going on or not..if not i would like to give a try as my final year project
Anti_Gov - Very true. However, the core principles, mechanism and finally the heritability of epigenetically induced genetic changes are broadly understood and have been accepted by the broader community. However, you are so right, and we have the same problem in my fields of R&D of quantum mechanics and quantum-AI.
No. It won't help muscular dystrophy after it starts. Muscular dystrophy causes nerves to loose a protein due to damage. Fixing the DNA will not fix the damage. However a company has a cure now using molecular medicine. They designed a custom molecule to repair the damage. CATABASIS THERAPEUTICS is on the 3rd testing. Working 100%, no side effects. I invested heavily in it.
Since the 90's we have the sickest kids in the world, why is this and with all the great wonderful advancements science has given us, may I ask, why is the fertility rate so low and why is obesity so prevelant?
Scientists: - we invented a great new cure Ethicists: - we can't use it because there are still some starving people in the world Scientists: - okay we can solve hunger also with the same technology Concerned public: - no, we do not know how it will affect us in 100 years
CAN THEY USE THIS TECHNOLOGY TREATING CANCER CELLS IN THE DNA LEVEL ? SURELY MILLIONS WILL BE THANKFUL IF THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT , SOMETHING VERY SIGNIFICANT THEY COULD DO ...
The problem now is an ethical one. Along with curing diseases and illnesses, it can also cause diseases to start, it can be used to edit and create new problems. If we can cure something like Neurodiversity (ex. Autism) is it ethical to do so, or should we allow 'designer babies')
Interesting comment and genuine concern. The answers likely have many dimensions depending on the angle. One no less easily resolved than the next; and not likely to present themselves until the positive results and negative consequences are irreversible.
Also to add, in response to your mention of autism. It has many advantages and should not be eliminated altogether, but perhaps it can be made easier to bear, if nudged to it's highest functioning; enabling those afflicted to live more productive and functional lives. It might be prudent to take a mid-ground stance where it's much easier to enhance pre-existing things slightly, as opposed to trying to eliminate or alter them altogether. This prevents aiming too high. We can already see in the past that prevention and management is much easier than an all out cure. Similar to a vaccination, building resilience and resistance to disease, paired with non-genetic environmental factors like education customized to individual health, may be the safer bet. In this way, disease is not directly eliminated, but the influence of a particular disease is nullified. In a sense there would be no direct intervention that may bring about unintended consequences; but rather, an llness could be rendered harmless in some fashion, so that it's effect could not exert or manifest; and if it does the impact would be dramatically lessened, or made more manageable.
That was a lengthy and well informed look, thank you, I do think it could be used this way, but the current price of the editing tools still makes me think of the quick mutating problem HIV has and how Crispr can cause an epidemic like a second Aids outbreak with mixing the abilities of strain mutation into the Crispr system with say a nano machine plague, it's not unimaginable to see Crispr as a great thing, but bioweapon manufacturing also is easier to design with it as well.
Because we can do this doesn't equate to we should do this and has humanity thought this through? Lastly may I ask, how healthy are children in the USA today with all the food upgrades?
@@taylor2622 lol I was making a point about the crazy possibilities for rogue scientists . However I asked the bears and they believe it would be very beneficial.
Fascinating! But is it OK that watching this just makes me want to watch Lister's curry get transmorgafied into the mutton vindaloo beast? Time for another Red Dwarf marathon...
Equivalence or not between a human-selection-pressure DNA code set on one hand, and a GMO DNA code set on the other hand IS THE ISSUE; say THAT, for clarity and truth.
19:47 You hear so many people complaining today about bloating , indigestion and constipation, it's rampant in the last 10 yrs . Any chance it coincides with GMO food becoming more prevalent ? Same as diabetes was something you didn't see so much of before the 90's ...now type II diabetes is VERY common.
Steve's Mixed Bag I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with GMO foods. Genetic modifications that are taking place in foods are far less dangerous than the processed foods, saturated fats, high fructose corn syrup, etc. In my opinion, we are barking up the wrong tree regarding what is truly affecting our health negatively. If you look at the peer reviewed research and the actual modifications that are being done, there really isn’t any evidence that it is having negative impacts on humans and animals. That isn’t to say that can’t be used nefariously. There is definitely evidence that corporations like Monsanto cannot be trusted.
GMO corn since 1996? Could help explain the Soy Boy generation and the large number of masculinized-looking/ behaving females that didn't exist like this before that time.
That's due to various problems including insulin resistance in fat cells. Or eye color, bone density, etc. Maybe we will have templates like that old twilight zone...
Lmao, "they" being tens of thousands of scientists from tons of varying backgrounds from nearly every country on the planet? Do they all gather in Antarctica every year for their yearly conspiracy meeting? That is just one of the oldest examples when it comes to human ancestors. They have found evidence of cancer going back HUNDREDS of millions of years in the "era of the dinosaurs" as well, and everything in between on top of that, hundreds of thousands of examples in tons of different animals, everything from hundreds of millions of years ago, to thousands of years ago. All of them far, far before humans could "create" any possible diseases. You are right, ignorance is a popular disease, you should go get yourself checked out for it immediately. @@NaturalEarthTones
How so (and not that I agree with some of the uses of CRISPR...CRISPR with out the "e", just so we're on the same page). Would love to read your research on the issue....what journal(s)have you published in so I can look it up
@no no you just don't get it. The US Military is under Billionaires control. The only factor to change this is New American Civil War. Or maybe not. Americans are just too lazy and ignorant.
I went to breed a Scottish Highland cow for a guy only upon arriving to find him impaled on a support beam by one of his cow's horn! The cow flipped its head to rid itself of a bee and the man was standing in the wrong spot and that's all it took! Let me tell you... When you have to cut a cow lose from an unconscious person you appreciate no horns cattle! It wasn't pretty!
I react with disgust and feeling angry with that to be what we are - to change how we are. if we change what we are there is not us anymore because we change it to be other different
Taylor26 Schwab : right it may evolve him past the point of two word sentences followed by give me lunch money. But the you mentioned the fact nerds may be giving him the tools to modify his own genetic makeup. That may be fun to watch but for the sake of common basic humanity I don’t think we should.
I say edit away once it is 100% safe and effective!!!! I think it would be absolutely stupid not to!! if you take the religious and subjective opinions out of it and replace it with objective science it's a no brainer. To say improving ourselves as a species is unethical or to use religion as a some source of argument would just be ignorant. We already use so many things that improve our lives physically and extend our lives. All these things were discovered with facts, science and research. If we are going to explore the universe or survive as a species these things need to happen before we destroy ourselves either it be climate change or some other means. Science is very real with facts and research and it has already been improving humanity in so many ways for thousands of years. GO CRISPR!!
I'll say, we have no idea of the consequences. DNA is full of moving parts. Far mor complex than sending a man on the he moon.
DNA is not just text, it write it self.
@@aurelienyonrac At the moment yes. I agree. I'm sure it will take years mabie even decades before something like this is truly viable for humans. Biggest fear I have and it was touched in the video is technology like this being used as a weapon against humanity. Either way nature is going to take it's course. I just hope with all our advancements and technology we use it to advance ourselves. Things like this might be what prevent us from becoming possibly extinct.
@@SDesigns2023 the problem is we have no idea what is good for us. Weeds grow well, cultivar grow poorly.
Resistant germs grow stronger with each antibiotics.
What kind of resistance are we going to generate in microbia?
What we do to oneself, we do to others.
A father had a son and that son broke his leg in the field.
The neighbors lamented for the tragedy.
But the father replied
Is it a good thing?
Is it a bad think?
I don't know.
Next day all able men where called to ware.
Lucky you said the neighbors to the father.
Is it a good thing?
Is it a bad thing?
Who knows....
@@SDesigns2023 you see the biggest trouble is Blind Faith in scientists and is the same problem as Blind Faith in a religion they both kill you in the end
@@kendalbridges897 Agree! Blind faith in anything is never a good thing. It's a convoluted world out there. Lot's of quackery, pseudo religion, science, politics etc. I hope CRISPR is based on real facts, math and research!
We need quantum computing and AI in place before we get too far down this road, because we cannot yet model or predict the cascading and related side effects caused even by modifying a few short sequences in the context of the organism itself, nor the organism and its environment- let alone the extent of the overarching nonlinear systemic changes we are already making.
Using a language metaphor, we are currently at a stage where we have discovered how letters are generally related to words in this newly discovered language, but we have little idea of the larger contexts nor how the epigenetic and other factors will further express to accommodate even seemingly small, innocuous changes. It is somewhat analogous to discovering a trove of Shakespeare’s writings where we don’t yet speak the language of English, let alone Shakespearian English, but we can now start to read the letters and understand how letters and punctuation come together to form larger strings of themselves, and in certain, constrained instances, we are able to pull some meaning- although generally substantially devoid of larger contextual meaning. However, although we now know how to change letters, we have little if any idea of the effect of letter changes on context and meaning on the words, sentences, paragraphs, story and the whole book. Despite this almost complete lack of understanding of these contextual, nonlinear and heuristic complexities, we decide to begin making changes to letters that we know the “meaning” of.
Although we think the changes we make result in new terminal expressions in isolation of all of those factors- generally they don’t. It is not how most complex, nonlinear systems work- especially those systems that are neither isolated, nor closed loop. In general, such changes are then processed by the organism in the context of its overall genetics and its environment to further adjust itself using Darwinian and Lamarkian principles, to subsequently reach a new equilibrium. As a result, some of the changes we make will continue to cascade; resulting in new, unanticipated changes to the organism.
This is before we even really address how the larger ecosystems, including bacterial and virally driven re-expression to our changes, will create unintended consequences to other organisms.
So, prior to having the necessary quantum-AI tools to more fully and accurately model and predict such things, we are making changes while being effectively blind to these important factors. As such, many of the actual systemic results will be unanticipated as well.
Finally, there are often deep fundamental differences in engineered c=genetic changes and changes that come from typical meiosis and mitosis in the organisms’ environment. One jet difference is that often nature will not allow the expression of various types of engineered genetic changes we are now able to, and do, make. In the traditional, non engineered context, there is no statically or otherwise likely way to combine spiders and tomatoes. Even in the context of a single species, the types of changes we can engineer can, and have, led to genetic expressions that are either not heritable, or that result in an organism (or its progeny) that are either infertile or cannot produce to term offspring. In some instances, it can take multiple generations for cascading genetic changes to result in offspring that are unable to procreate. We have had an instance where genetically engineer food (corn) caused later generations of a species (cattle) to express as infertile. Nature finds a way to cull certain non-equilibrium and newly expressed traits that are not viable in the context of the organism and its environment. It is just that with our new genetic engineering methods we can create a multitude of new combinations that would not normally happen via traditional breeding and cross-breeding. We are then left with the fact that the overriding genetic algorithms and their interplay with the environment will further operate on the things we create. As such, we have already seen the mechanism expressed by which we could engineer genetic changes to a food source, and as a result, find that our next, or some subsequent generation of our offspring expresses with changes to our average fertility rate- all from a seemingly unrelated genetic change to our food source. We have not seen anything like this ever happen in nature, without genetic engineering, but have already seen it happen with cattle (who all had to be destroyed), in our limited span of genetic engineering.
As such, it is not just “social biases” or “a lack of understanding by the public” which lead people to react differently to genetic engineering. The methods used by genetic engineering and the results made possible are often fundamentally, functionally snd otherwise different.
@jay -- Thanks, I will check that out. Thanks!
jay - i just finished reading it- at least through Chapter 9 of Part II. It‘s fundamental premise is based on the reexpression of a theory that has lost a lot of favor because of extensive analysis of peer review studies and public and privately funded research. I had hoped it would be well researched and informative; since in addition to yourself, several other people had mentioned it to me.
I won’t waste time with all the issues with the book here, as even his conception and explanation of RNA, its history, its interrelationship within and across genomic expressions are not supported by research, observation or studies. Given that most of his assertions are built upon that, it became increasingly off putting to read; which is why I finally stopped. Unfortunately, I am not reading it as a layman could, and as such, the compounding effects of his erroneous beliefs, unsupportable assertions, misuse of terminology and a lack of proper validation of core assertions became like nails on a chalkboard after a while.
Also, he is not wrong that we are at a historical crossroads, where many things are about to change- just not based on the mechanism underlying his book.
However, I can recommend that you stay interested and become increasingly informed, as we have entered a unique time in our history that begs for all of us to learn what is happening. I can also recommend books and studies written and executed by people who have an overriding interest in finding and sharing factually supported information.
ohh man I love soaking up all this knowledge here!
Premiere for re-upload??
@WSF it is cluster rather than culture
2:22
The problem with GMO is they engineer its genes to be immune to pesticides, herbicides and fungicide.
And because of this the crops are sprayed relentlessly with such things.
the problem isn't with the whole GMO idea, the problem is how they are implementing these modifications.. And what modifications they are making.
If you designing plants to be immune to large quantities of poison being sprayed on it. then of coarse the problem is going to be that crops are going to be covered in 5 times more herbicides, pesticides and fungicides comparable to a normal crop.
Crop rates are actually higher with the same crop but non GMO on average over here in Europe, So the GMO's made by certain companies are literally only done so they can pattern a seed and hold farmers ransom to their products and all the herbicides, fungicides and pesticides that work with it.
This biotechnology is going forward, whether we like it or not. CRISPR is revolutionary, the same as when humankind discovered the cosmos. With so many players out there, good intentions or greedy intentions, change is inevitable for our species. What an incredible time to be on this pale, blue spot!
It's not whether we like it or not, there is always a choice. The problem is when we think we have no choice, say, or voice to be heard. The dangers of rising technology are real, and must be approached with the greatest and utmost of caution.
at 9:00 they talk about corn, the plant is originally from Mexico and after breeding they made it corn, after many years.
They bring it up as an excuse to justify tampering with things genetics, it's a frequent ploy. It doesn't make crisper or "GMOs" safe. What we call GMOs today is not the selective breeding we used to get corn or broccoli, dogs or pigs.
I'm excited about the potential of CRISPR; and apprehensive about the eventual abuses for which it will be used.
Watch this space for ethnically targeted bio-weapons...
Super excited about the technology but I believe there should be more awareness in the population because many ones may be quite frightened, wonderful lecture.
An example of natural gmo's are hot plants that have been cross pollinated to make 1 or more plants have better healthier/tastier plants (See how the hottest peppers are grown)
Wow! It was just awesome and so fascinating..
Can I ask a question? About editing the HIV positive genes of a person and administering them so that they replicate..., What will happen to the other multitude of cells which are affected but not edited?
And about the discussion, gene editing is revolutionary for curing diseases so true but about correcting mutations, how will we understand which mutations will be better for future variation and which won't be? By mutation, there is variation and by restricting mutation , will we stop the existence to develop and adapt altogether? Plus if we desire to do mutations which are supposed to take millions of years in a second, is the organism going to be able to cope up with nature, is nature going to change the change that was reserved for million of years in a second?
Pls this is so fascinating..
It is crazy that crispr foods can be labeled non-gmo! You do it to a human you call it a GMO baby. Not the same as breeding at all
At 20:57 they're talking about comparisons between countries and diseases in studies on GMOs and someone mentions obesity. See, the thing is that if you compare people, the US has a higher rate of obesity. But if you compare people with similar dietary habits, you find that the types of food and quantities of food are more important than whether the food was genetically engineered.
If obesity is less common somewhere, it's because there's healthier available options that require little effort or time to get. Take Japan for instance, vending machines tend to have half their content be types of tea and water, and the other half soda. They have smaller restaurants as easy to reach and as cheap as any other fast food place, and they serve healthy meals (by comparison, tends to have lots of salt and sugar).
An example of something similar: when soda cans first had tabs, the tabs peeled off completely and people would toss them wherever, and other people would slice their feet on them. Soda companies accused people for causing this problem and ran campaigns to motivate people to throw the tabs away safely. Eventually the tabs were re-designed so they are attached to the can and push inward, fixing the problem.
Obesity is a regulatory problem, not the responsibility of individuals to solve. If the only cheap options for food you can walk to is deep fried, filled with sugar, and generally bad for you, you're not likely going to travel much further to pay a higher cost for something that doesn't taste as good.
GMOs provide a way for us to make healthy food taste as good as we want it to. Make it so commonly available that it's cheaper than processed food. If regulations can limit serving sizes then the obesity problem would be solved.
Thank you Rogan
Super hyped for this!!!
Are you volunteering?
where can you find the vid at 21:42
Seems odd to discuss GMO on plants and life saving Crispr for humans on same stage/presentation.
Not really as you are essentially genetically modifying humans with Crispr, still generally under a similar umbrella.
Genetic modification is not inherently bad. We just have to look out for the all consequences
Life is life. So they are discussing the scopes of genetic engineering other than crispr for plant life too.. what's odd in that?
Nice presentation, crisp flow, thanks.
Whats the status of crispr research on malaria..they said that they could add a gene that would make the mosquitoes malarial resistant and is added to a population.. anyone?
@@gamerfortynine ok I get it..but what the status of the research...is it still going on or not..if not i would like to give a try as my final year project
You left out the primary mechanism of epigenetics, which appears to be the most powerful directive mechanism.
There is a lot of unscientific staff around epigenetics, almost religious, be careful.
Anti_Gov - Very true. However, the core principles, mechanism and finally the heritability of epigenetically induced genetic changes are broadly understood and have been accepted by the broader community. However, you are so right, and we have the same problem in my fields of R&D of quantum mechanics and quantum-AI.
I want to become physicist and I also like to attend this bio talks
It take a really devoted nerd to point at a lady and say to her: you eat bacteria everyday!!! 26:04
This is any help for muscular dystrophy and when available in all markets
No. It won't help muscular dystrophy after it starts. Muscular dystrophy causes nerves to loose a protein due to damage. Fixing the DNA will not fix the damage. However a company has a cure now using molecular medicine. They designed a custom molecule to repair the damage. CATABASIS THERAPEUTICS is on the 3rd testing. Working 100%, no side effects. I invested heavily in it.
Since the 90's we have the sickest kids in the world, why is this and with all the great wonderful advancements science has given us, may I ask, why is the fertility rate so low and why is obesity so prevelant?
I just want quicker hands, and more arm speed. Anything you can do about that?
It's called exercise
omg this music and voice reminds me of those weird entanglement and uncertainty principle videos. With the creepy cat and the checkered spheres.
Scientists: - we invented a great new cure
Ethicists: - we can't use it because there are still some starving people in the world
Scientists: - okay we can solve hunger also with the same technology
Concerned public: - no, we do not know how it will affect us in 100 years
Religious folks: You are not allowed to change God's creation.
CAN THEY USE THIS TECHNOLOGY TREATING CANCER CELLS IN THE DNA LEVEL ? SURELY MILLIONS WILL BE THANKFUL IF THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT , SOMETHING VERY SIGNIFICANT THEY COULD DO ...
Yes. But custom made molecules attaching to cells work better without gene editing. And yes there are cures coming out soon for cancers.
The problem now is an ethical one. Along with curing diseases and illnesses, it can also cause diseases to start, it can be used to edit and create new problems. If we can cure something like Neurodiversity (ex. Autism) is it ethical to do so, or should we allow 'designer babies')
Interesting comment and genuine concern. The answers likely have many dimensions depending on the angle. One no less easily resolved than the next; and not likely to present themselves until the positive results and negative consequences are irreversible.
Also to add, in response to your mention of autism. It has many advantages and should not be eliminated altogether, but perhaps it can be made easier to bear, if nudged to it's highest functioning; enabling those afflicted to live more productive and functional lives. It might be prudent to take a mid-ground stance where it's much easier to enhance pre-existing things slightly, as opposed to trying to eliminate or alter them altogether. This prevents aiming too high. We can already see in the past that prevention and management is much easier than an all out cure. Similar to a vaccination, building resilience and resistance to disease, paired with non-genetic environmental factors like education customized to individual health, may be the safer bet. In this way, disease is not directly eliminated, but the influence of a particular disease is nullified. In a sense there would be no direct intervention that may bring about unintended consequences; but rather, an llness could be rendered harmless in some fashion, so that it's effect could not exert or manifest; and if it does the impact would be dramatically lessened, or made more manageable.
? 👀
That was a lengthy and well informed look, thank you, I do think it could be used this way, but the current price of the editing tools still makes me think of the quick mutating problem HIV has and how Crispr can cause an epidemic like a second Aids outbreak with mixing the abilities of strain mutation into the Crispr system with say a nano machine plague, it's not unimaginable to see Crispr as a great thing, but bioweapon manufacturing also is easier to design with it as well.
Because we can do this doesn't equate to we should do this and has humanity thought this through? Lastly may I ask, how healthy are children in the USA today with all the food upgrades?
We already have homozygous polled cows and bulls, why are they using crispr to do something that we've already achieved?
They need to feed DNA info into a AI expert system
Imagine a bear or shark with the ability to hide in plain sight like an octopus.
And how would that be beneficial?
@@taylor2622 lol I was making a point about the crazy possibilities for rogue scientists . However I asked the bears and they believe it would be very beneficial.
Just loved your imagination. Kudos. Lol
I don't think you got what this was about
@Gyri Sulcie Hahaha!!!
Yeah, Baby=)
40:19 .... we? What did she mean by "we"? ...
Immortality FTW
lets work on it bro
Fascinating! But is it OK that watching this just makes me want to watch Lister's curry get transmorgafied into the mutton vindaloo beast? Time for another Red Dwarf marathon...
That sounds like Game of Thrones at the beginning
Equivalence or not between a human-selection-pressure DNA code set on one hand, and a GMO DNA code set on the other hand IS THE ISSUE; say THAT, for clarity and truth.
We rarely See positive mutation évolution is a fairy tail.
19:47 You hear so many people complaining today about bloating , indigestion and constipation, it's rampant in the last 10 yrs . Any chance it coincides with GMO food becoming more prevalent ? Same as diabetes was something you didn't see so much of before the 90's ...now type II diabetes is VERY common.
Steve's Mixed Bag I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with GMO foods. Genetic modifications that are taking place in foods are far less dangerous than the processed foods, saturated fats, high fructose corn syrup, etc.
In my opinion, we are barking up the wrong tree regarding what is truly affecting our health negatively. If you look at the peer reviewed research and the actual modifications that are being done, there really isn’t any evidence that it is having negative impacts on humans and animals. That isn’t to say that can’t be used nefariously. There is definitely evidence that corporations like Monsanto cannot be trusted.
42:23
GMO corn since 1996? Could help explain the Soy Boy generation and the large number of masculinized-looking/ behaving females that didn't exist like this before that time.
Mother nature there is bioethicist
Will i be able to shoot fire out of my hands that is what I am here to learn
Can this cure sexual disfunction?
Probably not but diet can!
Diet and no vaccines
It is actually clustered not cultured
21:11 "obesety?"
That's due to various problems including insulin resistance in fat cells. Or eye color, bone density, etc. Maybe we will have templates like that old twilight zone...
Finally help cure the diseases that we created.
It's costly
Which diseases did "we create"? They have found evidence of bone cancer in 1.7 million year old bones
@@rdizzy1 so "they" say. Ignorance is a popular disease.
Lmao, "they" being tens of thousands of scientists from tons of varying backgrounds from nearly every country on the planet? Do they all gather in Antarctica every year for their yearly conspiracy meeting?
That is just one of the oldest examples when it comes to human ancestors. They have found evidence of cancer going back HUNDREDS of millions of years in the "era of the dinosaurs" as well, and everything in between on top of that, hundreds of thousands of examples in tons of different animals, everything from hundreds of millions of years ago, to thousands of years ago. All of them far, far before humans could "create" any possible diseases. You are right, ignorance is a popular disease, you should go get yourself checked out for it immediately. @@NaturalEarthTones
@rdizzy1 a wise man once said nothing.
I like your passion though.
Crisper is a tool. All tools can be used for BOTH good and for evil.
Exactly!
I want a clone that's a hybrid between me and my dog.
Jim Dandy
Is your dog fixed?
@@halasimov1362 He's dead but I found some old fur on a dog brush.
Lol That reminds me of the SNL dog guy sketch
Total BS. CRISPER is not accurate and cause random mutations around the target genes.
How so (and not that I agree with some of the uses of CRISPR...CRISPR with out the "e", just so we're on the same page). Would love to read your research on the issue....what journal(s)have you published in so I can look it up
wow you debunked those scientific b$$$s
Toxic avenger....
化学仼何原料，皆不易在人体吸收消化，排出体外，何況重金镯質，，，SO。
防腐木乃人，鉄人，錫人，銅人，幅性人，，，再来呢，，，??。
I honestly don't know how to respond to that
Hope someday aliens will do us what we doing to the defenceless animals... unforgiveble how we treat nonhumans
Don’t screw around with this shit.
Just tjink for a moment how Idiotic the American population has become! It's either education, mutation or nutrition?
Yes they invented over 95% of everything invented...
Only the Americans that allow the Billionaires run and control the whole Nation are way too Smart to even be called Intelligent.
@no no you just don't get it. The US Military is under Billionaires control. The only factor to change this is New American Civil War. Or maybe not. Americans are just too lazy and ignorant.
Quit playing God.....Intelligent Design
Hate that host
Engineer cattle not to have horns 😅
I went to breed a Scottish Highland cow for a guy only upon arriving to find him impaled on a support beam by one of his cow's horn!
The cow flipped its head to rid itself of a bee and the man was standing in the wrong spot and that's all it took!
Let me tell you... When you have to cut a cow lose from an unconscious person you appreciate no horns cattle!
It wasn't pretty!
@@beth-rg8bm Kind of frightening it's already been done and these experts are apparently none the wiser don't you think? 😅
I react with disgust and feeling angry with that
to be what we are - to change how we are. if we change what we are there is not us anymore because we change it to be other different
Heh. Nerds.
Nerds that will one day re-write yr DNA .. better be nice
@@jamesmoriarty9433 ill give U my lunch instead, open up!
@@zoltaniii9534 That's not even clever. Maybe next time.
@@zoltaniii9534 No, the nerds who will give him the tools to rewrite his own DNA. There is a difference.
Taylor26 Schwab : right it may evolve him past the point of two word sentences followed by give me lunch money. But the you mentioned the fact nerds may be giving him the tools to modify his own genetic makeup. That may be fun to watch but for the sake of common basic humanity I don’t think we should.
39:37