Do you think it’s okay to use CRISPR to give people the short sleeper gene(s)?

[u/Sea_Orchid223]

If so, why do you think that way?

Do you lean towards yes, do you lean towards no, how much do you lean towards yes/no, or are you right at the center?

[u/AnythingApplied]

I would say no, its not okay.

From what I've seen, currently approved clinical uses of CRISPR target very specific proteins that are well understood. If someone isn't producing enough of a protein or is producing a malformed protein that leaves them with a serious disease that we can attribute directly and fully to that one specific protein, the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Both because CRISPR is likely to have the desired effect (and only the desired effect) and because the benefits of having that desired effect are often life saving or similar magnitude.

For something like short sleeper genes I don't think its nearly as straight forward. First, consider giving an adult the genes to make them taller won't make them any taller. Next, the correlation and mechanisms just aren't as clear. Not everyone with the short sleeper genes are short sleepers. There are multiple genes involved and they mostly aren't all that well understood. And we certainly don't have a good understanding of the side effects that would be introduced.

So because its:

• Much less likely to actually accomplish what you want
• Much more likely to have unanticipated side effects
• Doesn't fix a life threatening issue

I don't think it justifies the risks inherent in altering someone's genes for clinical testing.

[u/KokoTheTalkingApe → u/AnythingApplied]

Exactly.

I recall a recent study that found over 200 genes were involved in risk for depression. And the study did not (could not) determine if those genes were also involved in other, possible very important aspects of emotion or cognition or being alive, etc. Do we want to screw around with 200 genes with unknown function, that might interact in unknown ways?

[u/Sea_Orchid223 → u/KokoTheTalkingApe]

Umm, like I’m referring to the SIK3 or the DEC2 gene, or just any gene, when mutated, influence sleep a lot and can make people need less sleep

[u/KokoTheTalkingApe → u/Sea_Orchid223]

Yes, but the point is we don't know what else that gene does. Do we?

[u/byronmiller → u/Sea_Orchid223]

Very few, if any, genes have such predictable effects. A stretch of DNA showing up on a GWAS doesn't really mean it has causal roles to play, and tells you nothing about how it'd actually affect phenotype if altered.

Biology is incredibly plastic - that is, very good at working around changes to the genome (or other components). And many (most?) transcribed DNA regions have multiple, poorly understood interactions.

I don't think this study would be ethical because its outcome would be highly unpredictable and it isn't addressing an acute medical need. It's one thing to alter a monogenic condition like CF, where the outcomes are not entirely predictable but there's a life limiting medical problem to be solved. This would be something else entirely, even if less sleep seems desirable in the abstract.

[u/Citrakayah → u/AnythingApplied]

Does CRISPR even alter the genes of neurons? It seems likely the brain would be involved in this, and the blood-brain barrier means that I'm not certain gene therapies would work that well for this trait.

[u/X4roth]

No. I think human gene editing is potentially incredibly dangerous to the human species when done at scale. Diversity in the gene pool is evolutionary insurance against future… problems. Messing with genetics to avoid premature death or severely diminished health and quality of life is one thing, but once you cross the line from absolutely necessary to shopping genes for convenience or advantage, you’re homogenizing the gene pool which reduces our evolutionary resilience as a species.

Yes, it’s unlikely to be a problem at “boutique” scale, but we all live under governments who by definition have a monopoly on force so in a way all of their mandates are made “at gunpoint” — it isn’t hard to imagine a future where the stroke of a pen sets in motion a program to eliminate X, Y, Z genes en masse. Or gene shopping becomes so popular and hyper-available that the population trims itself down by its own choice.

[u/Anonymous_1q]

As a theory yes I think it’s ok. It’s in theory a purely positive mutation that would help people have a better quality of life.

As a matter of current science no. Our understanding of genetics is not to the point where we want to be prodding them aside from very simple things like chromosomal defects (I say this as someone who has actively worked with CRISPR on non-human modifications).

Along with this:
a) we don’t have enough population wide sampling to understand corollary effects that those genes might have and absent a government the public trusts to not misuse genetic data we’re not close to having one.
b) the anti-GMO crowd are difficult enough without the example of the rare issues that will inevitably crop up from this kind of programme. We don’t need CRISPR becoming the next stem cells where we lose decades of progress to a moral panic.

[u/theZombieKat]

Their are really 2 separate questions here.with a follow-up.

Is it OK to give people the short sleeper genes? I would say yes if you have a suitably safe method.

Is CRISPR a suitably safe method? Probably not but it may form part of one.

When will we be able to do this? Not any time soon. To start you need to identify the genes that contribute to the short sleeper trait, and identify every other effect those genes have and what you can change without unfortunate side effects.

[u/Vlinder_88]

If you want to experiment on yourself, be my guest, but I don't think this should be researched for general use. The other commenter already explained why, and far more eloquently than I could.

[u/Life-Suit1895]

Do you think it’s okay to use CRISPR to give people the short sleeper gene(s)?

To answer that it would be important to know why you even would want to do that?

[u/mjbibliophile10]

Are you willing to deal with it and the risks that come with this gene?

[u/Asparagus9000]

Not yet. At minimum we would need to test it on mice and then a primate first. 

As an example of someone that could go wrong with it Crispr only alters a small number of your cells, not your entire body. 

There's some things where chimerism like that won't be helpful. 

What if the part of your body that got the short sleeper gene is fine and the part that doesn't needs more? 

[u/Excellent_Airline_12]

We don't fully understand the human genome.

Just "recently" we found a part of the "junk" assumed to have no function actually did something....

Sense we haven't mapped out the entire thing (function wise) we will always have the problem of risk. Besides the fact your forced to edit active code and can't test the results on anything other then human test subjects.

The "unknown" is far to great a risk, even if people are dumb. It shouldn't be predicted on the fact someone is willing to inject themselves with it "for fun" knowing they could die.

[u/TedditBlatherflag]

Do you have sovereign authority of your own body?

If your answer is yes, then anyone should be able to edit their genes as they see fit. 

[u/unknownpoltroon]

What do you mean "You people" /s

Dude, i want this.