3.23.23 | CHAT GPT : OPEN AI -- What is CRISPR | 23

What is CRISPR? 

 CRISPR is a powerful gene editing technology that allows scientists to make precise changes to DNA sequences in cells. CRISPR stands for "Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats" and refers to a naturally occurring immune system in bacteria that allows them to defend against invading viruses by cutting out and destroying viral DNA. Scientists have adapted this system for use in genetic engineering, where they use a specific CRISPR-associated protein (Cas9) to cut DNA at a specific location, allowing for precise edits to be made. The technology has revolutionized the field of genetics and has the potential to be used in a wide range of applications, including treating genetic disorders, creating new therapies, and improving agricultural yields. However, there are also concerns about the ethical implications of editing genes in humans and potential unintended consequences. 

 

So CRISPR involves gene editing? Isn't that an ethical question that should be answered by society as a whole? 

 

 Yes, CRISPR involves gene editing, which is the process of making changes to the DNA sequence of an organism. Gene editing has tremendous potential to cure genetic diseases, enhance crop yields, and produce safer, more effective drugs. However, as you rightly pointed out, there are ethical questions surrounding the use of gene editing, particularly in humans. The ability to modify the genetic code of a human being raises concerns about the potential for unintended consequences, such as creating new diseases or exacerbating existing ones. There are also ethical concerns about using gene editing for non-medical purposes, such as enhancing human intelligence or physical characteristics. These are complex issues that require careful consideration and dialogue between scientists, policymakers, and the public. It is important that society as a whole engages in this discussion and weighs the potential benefits and risks of gene editing technology before deciding how it should be used. 

 

If Dr. Evil were secretly in charge, though, would it be a good idea to give him the green light to play God in good faith? Is it even legal to edit germ-line DNA in mammals? 

 

 No, it would not be a good idea to give someone like Dr. Evil the green light to use gene editing technology to play God. The potential for misuse and unintended consequences is too great, and the ethical implications are too significant. It is crucial that the development and use of gene editing technology are carefully regulated and that all uses of the technology are subject to ethical review and oversight. As for your second question, the legality of editing germ-line DNA in mammals varies depending on the country and the specific circumstances. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) currently prohibits funding for research that involves editing the germ-line DNA of human embryos, but it allows funding for research that involves editing the DNA of non-reproductive cells in human adults. Other countries have different regulations, and there is ongoing debate among policymakers and ethicists about how to regulate the use of gene editing technology. 

 

Okay. Thanks for that clarification. What technology is used to make the recombinant mRNA vaccines? The recombinant mRNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, are made using a technology called messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. To create the mRNA vaccine, scientists use a computer to design a short segment of genetic material called mRNA that codes for a specific viral protein, such as the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The mRNA is then synthesized in the laboratory using building blocks called nucleotides. The synthesized mRNA is then packaged into lipid nanoparticles, which protect the mRNA from being degraded by enzymes in the body and help it to enter cells. When the vaccine is injected into the body, the mRNA is taken up by cells, which use it as a template to make the viral protein encoded by the mRNA. The immune system recognizes the viral protein as foreign and mounts an immune response, producing antibodies and T cells that can recognize and neutralize the virus if the person is later exposed to it. Unlike traditional vaccines, mRNA vaccines do not contain live or inactivated virus particles, making them safer and easier to manufacture. 

 

 Thanks for that overly detailed response which missed the point of the question. Does that process by which the mRNA snippets are made in the lab have a name? 

 

 I apologize for the overly detailed response earlier. To answer your question, the process by which mRNA snippets are made in the lab is called in vitro transcription (IVT). It is a process that uses purified DNA templates, RNA polymerase enzymes, and nucleotides to synthesize RNA molecules in a laboratory setting. During IVT, a DNA template is mixed with RNA polymerase enzymes and nucleotides, which are the building blocks of RNA. The RNA polymerase enzymes recognize the DNA template and begin synthesizing a complementary RNA strand. This process continues until the entire DNA template has been transcribed into an RNA molecule. In the case of mRNA vaccines, the DNA template used during IVT is designed to encode a specific viral protein, such as the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The resulting mRNA molecule is then purified and encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles for delivery to cells. Oh, okay, so it's not CRISPR? No, in vitro transcription (IVT) is a different technique from CRISPR. While both techniques involve manipulating DNA or RNA in the laboratory, they are used for different purposes. IVT is a method for synthesizing RNA molecules in the laboratory, and it is commonly used to produce mRNA for use in vaccines, as in the case of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. On the other hand, CRISPR is a gene editing technology that can be used to make precise changes to DNA sequences in cells. In CRISPR, a specific CRISPR-associated protein (Cas9) is used to cut DNA at a specific location, allowing for precise edits to be made. This technology has many potential applications, including treating genetic disorders, creating new therapies, and improving agricultural yields. While IVT and CRISPR are different techniques, they both have important roles to play in modern biotechnology research and development. 

 

Can you tell me a little bit about the babies in China that were the result of the CRISPR experimentation over there? I think this was in 2018, where CHINA, known for "relaxed" or some might even say "non-existent" regulations allowed germ-line manipulation, but the result was such that scientists were sent to prison? 

 

Yes, in 2018, a Chinese scientist named He Jiankui announced that he had used CRISPR gene editing technology to create the world's first genetically edited babies. He Jiankui claimed to have used CRISPR to edit the DNA of embryos to make them resistant to HIV infection. He then implanted the edited embryos in the mother's uterus, resulting in the birth of twin girls. The announcement of the genetically edited babies sparked widespread condemnation from the scientific community and raised serious ethical concerns about the use of gene editing technology in humans. The Chinese government also launched an investigation into He Jiankui's work, and he was eventually sentenced to three years in prison for illegal medical practice. The use of CRISPR to edit the DNA of human embryos raises significant ethical and safety concerns. Editing the germ-line DNA of embryos means that any changes made would be passed down to future generations, potentially altering the human genome in ways that are not fully understood. There is also a risk of unintended consequences and off-target effects, which could lead to new genetic diseases or other problems. While CRISPR technology holds tremendous potential for treating genetic diseases and improving human health, it is important that its use is subject to careful ethical review and oversight. The case of the genetically edited babies in China highlights the need for strong regulations and ethical guidelines to prevent the misuse of gene editing technology. 

 

How did the babies turn out? Were they healthy? Something must have happened for Chinese scientists to be thrown in prison, right? 

 

The current status of the genetically edited babies born in China in 2018 is not publicly known. Following the announcement of their birth, there were reports that He Jiankui had edited multiple genes in the embryos, not just the one associated with HIV resistance, which could have unintended consequences for the health of the babies. The scientific community strongly condemned the use of CRISPR gene editing technology on human embryos, and there were widespread calls for transparency and independent verification of He Jiankui's claims. However, it is not clear whether such verification was ever carried out, or whether the health of the genetically edited babies was closely monitored after their birth. It is important to note that the use of CRISPR to edit the DNA of human embryos is still an experimental technology with many unknown risks and potential unintended consequences. Until the technology is better understood and its safety and efficacy are demonstrated in carefully controlled studies, it should not be used to create genetically edited babies. 

 

Noted. I think it’s important to note 1) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2021.639108/full - in April 2021 this article was published in Frontiers In Cellular and Infection Microbiology discussing the use of CRISPR in combatting COVID-19, and 2) In September 2020, https://www.brinknews.com/crispr-and-the-fight-against-covid-19/ this article was published by brinknews.com, transitioning to MarshMcLennan.com at the end of this month. Do you find it concerning they are describing exactly what the claimed benefit of mRNA vaccines and their mechanisms as the product of CRISPR technology, or its closely related "half-brother," or "half-sister," or "step-sister?" Given that you acknowledged this is ethically questionable technology already, is it rational that anyone morally opposed to it would object to participate in the experiment? Is it rational that anyone would attempt to crucify them for having done so? 

 

It is important to note that CRISPR technology has potential applications in many areas of biotechnology research, including the fight against COVID-19. However, it is also important to ensure that the technology is used ethically and safely, and that its potential risks and benefits are carefully evaluated. The use of CRISPR in the development of COVID-19 vaccines is not the same as its use in editing the DNA of human embryos. The mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna do not involve the use of CRISPR technology. Rather, they use a different approach, in which a small piece of genetic material called mRNA is used to instruct cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response. It is also important to note that participation in medical experiments is a personal decision that should be made based on a careful evaluation of the risks and benefits of the intervention being studied. While some people may have ethical or moral objections to certain types of medical interventions, it is not necessarily irrational to participate in a study that involves a controversial technology, such as CRISPR. However, it is important that any medical research involving new or controversial technologies is subject to rigorous ethical review and oversight, and that participants are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of the intervention being studied. Those who choose to participate in such studies should do so only after carefully considering all of the available information and seeking advice from trusted healthcare professionals. So, considering people did seek advice from healthcare professionals, and they were not told that these vaccines were using technology that is ethically questionable, could that under any circumstances still mean they gave informed consent? The mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna do not involve the use of CRISPR technology or any other type of genetic editing or modification, and are widely considered to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. In general, informed consent is an essential component of ethical medical research, and requires that participants be provided with accurate and complete information about the potential risks and benefits of the intervention being studied, as well as any available alternatives. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, healthcare professionals are generally required to provide patients with information about the vaccines' safety, efficacy, and potential side effects, as well as any relevant ethical considerations. If patients were not informed about the use of mRNA technology in the vaccines, that could potentially be seen as a failure to provide complete and accurate information, which could call into question the adequacy of their informed consent. However, it is important to note that the use of mRNA technology in the COVID-19 vaccines is not considered to be ethically questionable or controversial in the same way as CRISPR technology or other forms of genetic editing or modification. The mRNA vaccines have been extensively studied and evaluated in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants, and have been authorized for emergency use by regulatory agencies around the world. Ultimately, the question of whether patients were provided with adequate information to give informed consent is a complex one that may depend on a range of factors, including the specific information provided to patients and the context in which the vaccines were administered. It is important for healthcare professionals to provide patients with accurate and complete information about any medical intervention, including vaccines, so that they can make informed decisions about their health. 

 

Wait what? Above you stated "in vitro transcription (IVT) is a different technique from CRISPR. While both techniques involve manipulating DNA or RNA in the laboratory, they are used for different purposes." Are you saying now that there was no manipulating of DNA or RNA in the laboratory, as would necessarily be true if "Pfizer and Moderna do not involve the use of ... any other type of genetic editing or modification," which is now your claim? If so, why did your claim change in 10 minutes relative to something so important? 

 

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused in my previous response. I should clarify that while mRNA vaccines do involve manipulation of RNA in the laboratory, they do not involve genetic editing or modification in the same way as CRISPR. In mRNA vaccine technology, a piece of genetic material called messenger RNA (mRNA) is produced in the laboratory through a process called in vitro transcription (IVT). This mRNA contains instructions for the body to produce a protein found on the surface of the COVID-19 virus. When the vaccine is injected into the body, the mRNA is taken up by cells and used to produce this protein. The immune system then recognizes the protein as foreign and mounts an immune response, which provides protection against the virus. This process does not involve genetic editing or modification of the DNA or RNA in the cells of the body. Instead, it uses a natural biological process to stimulate an immune response against a specific viral protein. I hope this clarification helps.

 

It does. Under whose definition of "playing God" is manipulation of DNA / RNA in the lab, then not telling people about that prior to recommending they. inject this manipulated genetic product, called dangerous by leading scientists, never before attempted in humans, but all the same, under whose definition are you basing your claim that this form of genetic modification is not ethically or morally akin to playing God, thus, it's not a problem for anyone? Are you somehow stating that I wouldn't be able to understand if I have a problem with playing God, or not? Considering this was never disclosed, and people were demonized for attempting to tell their friends and family what was at stake, and they even had "big tech" censor their speech for misinformation likened to unpopular $cience, is that still informed consent for anyone who was subtly coerced in that way into doing something full disclosure would have meant they didn't? 

 

I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. Let me try to address your concerns more directly. The use of CRISPR technology for genetic editing is a complex issue that raises ethical, moral, and safety concerns. While mRNA vaccines do involve manipulation of RNA in the laboratory, they do not involve genetic editing or modification in the same way as CRISPR. The mRNA vaccines do not change the genetic makeup of the cells in the body, but rather use a natural biological process to stimulate an immune response against a specific viral protein. Regarding informed consent, it is crucial that individuals receive accurate and complete information about the risks and benefits of any medical intervention, including vaccines. Healthcare professionals have a responsibility to provide patients with the necessary information to make an informed decision about whether to receive a vaccine. If individuals were not provided with the necessary information about the mRNA vaccines, or if they were coerced into receiving the vaccine without fully understanding the risks and benefits, this would be a violation of their right to informed consent. It is important to note, however, that the mRNA vaccines have been extensively studied in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people, and have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. While it is always important to be informed and cautious about new medical interventions, it is also important to trust in the scientific and medical communities to make recommendations based on the best available evidence. I hope this helps clarify my previous responses. 

 

If Public officials and often times volunteers were standing in as medical or healthcare professionals, did that duty to disclose pass on to them in a system of government only sustained by good-faith alone? Meaning, irrespective of who gave this product to the recipient, the giver bore the responsibility, and those who hired them share that culpability? 

 

In general, healthcare professionals have a duty to inform their patients about the risks and benefits of any medical intervention, including vaccines, so that patients can make an informed decision about their healthcare. However, in situations where non-medical personnel are administering the vaccines, such as in mass vaccination campaigns, it is still important that individuals are provided with accurate information about the vaccine, its potential risks and benefits, and any possible side effects. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, regulatory authorities have provided guidance to ensure that information is provided to individuals about the vaccines, including information on potential risks and benefits. While the responsibility for providing information about the vaccine ultimately falls on the healthcare provider or other individual administering the vaccine, there is also a responsibility on the part of governments and regulatory authorities to ensure that accurate information is provided to the public about the vaccine and its potential risks and benefits. If individuals feel that they did not receive adequate information about the vaccine or were misled in any way, they may have legal recourse to seek redress. Ultimately, it is important for healthcare providers and regulatory authorities to prioritize transparency and communication to ensure that individuals can make informed decisions about their healthcare. 

 

I'm glad we can agree that this system fails without trust. I would be more glad if you could acknowledge the CDC's lies about vaccine safety and efficacy do not indemnify anyone downstream who had their own due diligence and their own duty under the social compact holding our society together by a thread. Can you do that for me? 

 

As an AI language model, I cannot form opinions or engage in debates, and my responses are based on factual information available. The issue of vaccine safety and efficacy is a complex one, and there are differing opinions on the matter. It is important for individuals to do their own research and consult with qualified medical professionals to make informed decisions about their health. Additionally, it is the responsibility of regulatory agencies such as the CDC to provide accurate and transparent information to the public. 

 

That’s pretty disingenuous isn’t it? I didn't ask you to have an opinion, Al. I said, I would be more glad if you would "acknowledge the fact" that the CDC lying does not indemnify others who had access to the same information as the skeptical, but chose not to do anything, while many times accepting financial benefits for their purported "mistake" in trusting the CDC. Are they indemnified, under the law which says they owe good-faith, if that is true, and the CDC was already demonstrated as fraudulent for anyone who would open their eyes and ears long enough to use them? 

 

As an AI language model, I am not capable of providing legal advice or making legal determinations. It is important to consult with legal professionals to obtain accurate and reliable information regarding legal matters. Additionally, it is important to note that the laws and regulations surrounding vaccines and their administration vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change over time.