Gene Therapy Not Needed
by Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei
Posted June 3, 2007 in DNA and Disease, Gene Therapy
The genome revolution isn’t all about re-engineering our genome. In a mis-titled article–Gene therapy: how science moved from hype to hope–Mark Henderson of The Times UK talks about the many different gene variants that have been identified recently that are common in the general population and yield a smaller effect compared to major gene mutations affecting only a small subset of the population, e.g., Huntington’s or cystic fibrosis. But rather than focusing on actually changing our genes, as the title would suggest, the article concludes with the idea that environmental factors are easier to manipulate than genes because gene variants with smaller effects are neither sufficient nor necessary for causing disease. I’m glad this point was emphasized so that people don’t fall into the trap of believing in genetic determinism.
As for the commenter who wondered why research focuses on disease-causing genes rather than disease-preventing, there’s an easy answer. Eliminating disease is what the medical model is based on. Perhaps the genome revolution will bring about another revolution in preventive medicine.
As for the commenter who wondered why research focuses on disease-causing genes rather than disease-preventing, there’s an easy answer. Eliminating disease is what the medical model is based on. Perhaps the genome revolution will bring about another revolution in preventive medicine.
|
Related Posts:
Eye on DNA, Literally...
DNA Excerpt: Carly Fiorina...
Exon Skipping Gene Therapy for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy...
MAOA Gene, Childhood Sexual Abuse, and Alcoholism...
Zorro Locked Nucleic Acid Silences Genes...
Eye on DNA Links for 1 August 2007...
Athletes and Their DNA...
Please note that comments left using the form below will be publicly displayed. If you'd like to correspond with me privately, please email me at hsien@eyeondna.com.
If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it's probably in moderation. I will approve it as soon as I can! Thanks for your patience.
8 Comments »
Note: Posting will be sporadic while I'm on maternity leave.
Search Eye on DNA
- Smart Genetics Shuts Its Doors
- Eye on DNA Interview: Terry Carmichael, VP of Marketing & Sales at Consumer Genetics
- My Son, The Genetic Epidemiologist
- DNA for Terrorism
- Stephen Colbert’s DNA Headed for the International Space Station
- 23andMe DNA Tests for $399, Down From $999
- Digitized DNA Blasting Off Into Space
- Teaching Genetics Without the Mumbo Jumbo
- Is genetic testing useful?
- Hello from Singapore
MOST POPULAR
- DNA Toys: Ben 10 and Digimon Digivice
- 100 Facts About DNA
- Want a job? Submit your DNA
- Salaries for Jobs in Genetics
- What does DNA mean to you? #11
- What does DNA mean to you? #14
- 5 Cool Things You Can Do With Your DNA
- DNA Excerpt: Bringing Home the Birkin
- What does DNA mean to you? #10
- DNA Video: DNA Replication by The Backrow
- Is genetic testing useful?
10/06/2008 10:50 pm
3 Comments - Eye on DNA Interview: Terry Carmichael, VP of Marketing & Sales at Consumer Genetics
10/02/2008 08:34 am
4 Comments - My Son, The Genetic Epidemiologist
10/01/2008 07:35 am
5 Comments - Whole Genome Sequencing Costs Continue to Drop
09/30/2008 08:53 am
6 Comments - What does DNA mean to you? #14
09/30/2008 12:08 am
4 Comments - Business of DNA
- DNA @ Google Answers
- DNA and Disease
- DNA and Genealogy
- DNA and the Law
- DNA Around the World
- DNA Fun
- DNA in General
- DNA Inventions and Gadgets
- DNA Lab Talk
- DNA Podcasts and Videos
- DNA Quotes and Excerpts
- DNA Testing
- Gene Therapy
- Genetic Engineering
- Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms
- Jobs Involving DNA
- Personalities with DNA
- Polls About DNA
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is...
RECENT POSTS
RECENT COMMENTS
CATEGORIES
ARCHIVE
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
RANDOMIZED BLOGROLL
- A Blog Around The Clock
- Let’s Get Personal
- Epigenetics News
- Nobel Intent
- Eating Fabulous
- Twisted Bacteria
- Infrared Sauna Info
- Cancer Commentary
- The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
- Pharma Gazette
| We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here. |
Hsien,
Dr Eric Topol of Scripps wrote an article a few months ago on GWAS regarding “healthy” genes. Nirs Barzilai at Albert Einstein has focused on these same things “Centenarian studies” What he found was these people who lived longer than 100 were in fact smokers and drinkers. Their genes helped them defend against these insults. Predictive, Preventative, Personalized Medicine is where we are all headed.
-Steve
http://www.thegenesherpa.blogspot.com
“What he found was these people who lived longer than 100 were in fact smokers and drinkers.”
Ahhh. The irony of life.
Genetic Determinism…there is genetic determinism in every piece of sci-fi work. People just like genetic determinism (or hate), but they don’t always think of it, unfortunately
Hi Andrew! I would personally like to blame my genes for everything that’s gone wrong in my life. On the other hand, I can’t really claim that things have gone badly wrong either.
[...] Genie, a blog carnival on genetics, genes, DNA, and the genome over at Eye on DNA. clipped from http://www.eyeondna.com Infants and Autism and Education at Autism Vox Kristina Chew looks at diagnosis for autism [...]
This is a topic I have not followed closely for some time. I have been away from the bench for over a decade. I think that a very important but difficult to confront issue is that of the introduction of new gene variants into the population. I am all for curing a disease but not for introducing new alleles. That means that anyone who receives gene-therapy must not reproduce. How will that be enforced - ouch - sterilization. Otherwise the risk to the general population is too great.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Hi and welcome, Roger! I’ve also been away from the bench since 1999. Can’t believe time has passed so quickly.
The thing is, new gene variants ARE being introduced all the time by nature. In fact, I wonder if we are better able to control the creation of good mutations vs bad although there’s really no way any of us can know for certain. And as for gene therapy, most–if not all–will target somatic cells instead of germ cells so we should be safe there.
Yes, nature contributes a change every 10,000 bases or so. The difference is that no one is legally responsible for that. When we begin introducing intentional changes we become liable for them. Yet we have little control over them once they are unleashed.
Targeting is a hope not yet a reality as far as I understand. Perhaps if the change is introduced in vitro and then the cells reintroduced to the host we would be safer.