Submitted by undefined2937 t3_117m4zw in Futurology
How much will it cost? Are there any scientific advancements in gene editing for psychiatry? What will come first, somatic genetic engineering or germline engineering for psychiatry?
Any for psychosis, mania, and ADHD?
Edit: since these disorders are polygenic, are there any polygenic gene editing technology to make multiple edits to the genome?
Op is hoping to create a Monsanto style crop of worker humans...
That's more easily accomplished by giving "volunteers" drugs that make them uncomfortable when they don't have them. Negative behavior reinforcement therapy over time and the right drugs and their survival is programmed to your happiness.
rince and repeat. Put them to work.
...they are finding out a lot of psych disorders have as much to do with your gut biome as anything genetic, tthere might be family histories but geneline could be barking up wrong tree.
Eh i agree but i wouldn't phrase it like that....or else idiots start pedaling the natural gut remedies. From the studies I've seen yes they can explain it by gut biome yes.....but more so a dysfunctional or active gene that produces extra or not enough of something in the gut... similar things have been detected for lots of psychosis and genes that don't produce serotonin, it is an interesting field.
People from some countries almost do not have psychiatry problems. Maybe problem is with society and its system. Do you want fix it by changing genetics? I already think it is horrible specialists using legal drugs for doping people so they can accept distopian realities...
What makes you think psychiatric disorders are genetic ? What if they are more environmental?
I mean if certain genes cause over or under production of say seratonin, or even certain proteins, then of course it's genetic. That tends to be where research is headed for lots of psychosis.
Yeah it's been the leading theory for psychiatric disorders for decades.
And maybe that's true. My friend that lives with me is "genetically depressed" and is completely reliant and dependant on her ssri's, the ssri are prescribed in such a high dose that coming off them is Hella dangerous. think serotonin sickness, seizures migraines etc.
Personally I think he she changed her environment she has an excellent chance at weaning off her SSRis ... If she wants.
True but we never had the mapped human genome with the ability to edit individual genes until recently. Would i want to test the effects of messing with some genes? No, but of I had a crippling genetic affliction yes, I would. Everything from downs, to alzheimers to MS can start to be at least looked at.
Bro China has been using crispr for years. They even have a study released on human students. they saw huge IQ rises after the crispr injection.
I don't think removing the genes or altering them will work 💯 though.
9 heavily suspect that depression is mostly environmental and minimally brain chemistry..it's true that you can have a disorder that prevents correct uptake of serotonin or dopamine. In this case sure let's crispr it out. I still don't think it will "correct" the disorder.
Have a link to that study, i could only find this guy https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50944461.amp
Frankly a virus that could be programed to target a specific gene, is probably where some governments would go, imagine a weapon wiping out only targeted people based on genes
Nah they won't do that it's possible but why would they?
The human race in in a major decline of birth rates. That is likely the single biggest factor in our species survival.
That's the sort of thing that ends in 'oops, we didn't realise 30% of one of our sub-populations shares the same genetic markers as our targets, because humans are sluts that have been travelling and fucking around for millennia'
Nearly all psychiatric disorders are the result of the perception of a string or a single situation that leads to a continuous mindset.
Natural and typically beneficial functions of the mind that become tainted with a locked focus on something unpleasant. Then as this focus becomes noticeable, coping mechanisms develop into additional diagnoses. The vast majority of disorders are related to anxiety, survival instincts.
Try not to limit yourself to thinking genetic alterations is the only way to be comfortable
It will be available for parents to do to their children, or the government to do to disfavored groups, around fifty years before it's actually safe. I can tell you that much.
Neurological disorders are poorly understood at present, it seems more likely they'll be widely accepted and accommodated for before we develop preventatives
Technically they just need to sequence your genome and then infect you with a virus(that is altered) which alters your DNA through CRISPR CAS9 tech, the current price for this is $2 million dollars...what effect that has on you however can vary. The reality is that it comes from multiple sources as other people have suggested and there are gene's which provide "resistance" to Depression for example...but not a cure.
The biggest thing that people can do is change their environment...the common method for this in America is climbing the corporate ladder and using the financial freedom gained to alleviate most symptoms.
Not exactly an answer but the day science can find a link between genetics and mental state is the day humanity realizes beyond doubt that free will is an illusion. This would have effect far beyond psychiatry
I don’t think this is viable - although there is a genetic component and heritability behind conditions, a lot of them are impacted by epigenetics and the interaction between the broader environment and early childhood or maternal health e.g trauma.
[removed]
[removed]
Imo pharmacology will get their first with acceptable "cures" for these. They're discovering more and more that most mental illness is caused by various imbalances that can be remedied via supplementation or modification. The problem is our methods currently are very clunky and cause a host of other awful symptoms when applied.
Literally right now, but it only works for future generations and you have to do IVF to get the benefits.
The basic gist is this: maybe you or your spouse has Schizophrenia, or you have a family member that does (so your child probably has a higher-than-average risk). You can go through IVF and lower your child's risk of getting the disease by selecting an embryo that has a lower polygenic risk score for the disease.
If you and your spouse have 5 embryos to pick from, you can probably lower your child's risk of Schizophrenia by about 30%. If you have more embryos, the reduction will be greater. Perhaps up to 50%.
I only know of one company currently offering this service commercially: Genomic Prediction. Their website is pretty sparse, but I know from prior research that Schizophrenia is one of the conditions they test for.
Probably, but it doesn't solve the whole issue and its usefulness would vary greatly between disorders (bipolar would probably see one of the highest benefits since it seems to have a strong genetic factor). The environment people are raised in/live in make a big difference and, especially in the case of bipolar and schizophrenic patients, people's access to high concentrations of THC. People don't want to talk about it, but I've worked in a high acuity psychiatric hospital for 3.5 years and the vast majority or schizophrenic/affective patients I've seen have either had their psychiatric problems triggered or worsened by their use of modern strains of marijuana with higher and high levels of THC. Many schizophrenic patients never showed any signs of psychosis until they got a little too high. And bipolar patients can find themselves more easily destabilized by weed, reducing the efficacy of their medications or creating a deeper psychological dependence on weed. This is especially true for people with bipolar 1 as their mania can push them to make rash, unpredictable decisions that have lasting consequences, like going off of their meds or pushing their mania to a state of a psychosis.
But im not just here to blame weed (a big part of that problem is simply the lack of proper regulations). Stress and trauma based disorders like PTSD or BPD drastically increase the odds of developing psychotic disorders as well.
And with ADHD, I haven't been able to find a study on this, but from my research I hypothesize that early child development plays a huge role the development of the disorder as neglect forces an infant brain to overdevelop its emotional centers, making for a notable difference is the physical structures of their brain. The difference can be so drastic that, based on images of infant MRI's, this over development seemingly gives less room for the prefrontal cortex and an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex is the ultimate cause of ADHD. Also, statistics suggests that WAAAAAAY more people have ADHD than what is diagnosed, which I feel strengths my hypothesis since childhood neglect is such a common problem.
Genetic engineering is not the answer to what ails you.
[removed]
how much will something that doesn't yet exist cost? how would anyone here know?
>How do I get started in the field of genetic engineering?
Go to google and type that question into the search field.
Yeah, I wanna know when I'll win a billion dollars.
There is no limits to genetic engineering, merely the limits of the creativity of the humans who practice it.
That said, given the current free market structure of the world and given the current state of the “free market” I would say nothing short of tens of thousands of dollars, maybe hundreds? At least within next twenty years. After that too hard to say. Future unstable.
There’s also the issue of insurance coverage, which no company in the US will cover it. Not a single one. As we speak every genetic engineering procedure being done on people is done through government research programs.
Tldr: within twenty years, and for more money than anyone can afford.
Sincerely, a genetic engineering major
Thanks, where can i read current news and updates on genetic engineering?
Honestly? MIT, because MIT point-man for a lot of this shit, and they publish a lot in their school newspaper I think. Granted, some of it overlaps and will be in The Crimson (Harvard) because MIT and Harvard have this partnership.
Other than that, I usually just randomly search and read scientific publications about it and such.
Scientific American? I don’t really know. I’m so used to nobody really keeping an eye on this stuff (or any cutting edge stuff in a way that doesnt include useless noise) I just figured out how to look for it on my own a long time ago. Because some people have good stuff, but then they’ll also just post bullshit things, and then others its just all opinions.
Like the science is moving way faster than anybody realizes and so the news for whatever reason makes it sound way slower, less progressive than it is (which is odd given their affinity for misrepresenting random studies).
Tldr: you gotta find it yourself. Nobody has a one stop shop yet.
Psych disorders are a combination of lifestyle (and their consequences like gut biome, malnutrition, lack of exercise, etc.) and trauma responses. Genetic engineering can only do so much to fix one, and would have to resort to mentally numbing you to fix the other.
Asked my sister who’s a medicinal professional, not a doctor but she’s higher than a nurse, and she says that it all comes down to the chemicals in your brain and your environment and that implants would be incredibly hard to mimic healthy neurons.
Permanently changing the way someone's brain works? What's the difference between that and mind control? How do you even test that ethically?
What do you think antidepressants and other medications do?
Change your brain chemistry temporarily. You can stop taking them if they do more harm than good.
There is no conclusive evidence that it's only temporary and it's rather hotly debated but the evidence leans in flavor of lasting effects if you take it for an extended period of time.
Okay... even if you are right, which I'm not arguing either way, how does that make what I originally said less accurate? Are you saying that taking drugs, that you can stop, is more permanent than gene therapy? Drugs at least have been heavily tested and we know most of their side effects. It certainly seems like you are arguing that gene therapy to remove something as innocuous as ADHD is a better idea than just taking some meds to reduce the overall symptoms so that you can function.
It also certainly seems like you are downvoting me, which seems odd because I can't imagine that you'd argue that the permanancy of taking these drugs is hotly debated while disagreeing that gene therapy is bad. If you think taking drugs are bad and permanent, then I can only imagine you would be wholeheartedly supporting me that gene therapy is also bad. But to argue that drugs are bad while disagreeing that gene therapy is bad seems insane to me.
What's your goal here?
Your asking my personal opinion?
I think we should exhaust all therapeutic options long before prescribing medication of any form.
Including permanently changing someone's genome. Cool. Far be it from me to try to talk you out of genome manipulation to try to make the perfect human.
Edit: And no, I didn't ask your opinion, I asked what your goal was. What are you trying to achieve with your argument?
You're on your own path man I'm not saying anything of the sort.
Idk how you got that out of me saying therapy.
I don't argue with emotional people with an agenda.
I'm not the one with an agenda. I said permanently changing other people's genome might be risky and unethical which matches the subject of the OP. You decided to go off on drugs for some strange reason.
Edit: You also know the OP is talking about gene therapy, right? If therapy is the first measure, then gene therapy is one of those steps to be taken before drugs.
Edit 2: Ha, he blocked me which means I can respond no further. The guy wanted to be pedantic and pull an "Um actually..." I knew he was never explicitly promoting gene therapy, but by never acknowledging its potential risks, he implicitly supported it over medications.
The fact that the OP threw ADHD in with more serious issues implies that the OP sees neurodiversity as a problem that must be solved instead of part of what makes an individual unique and special. Anyone who thinks that genetic manipulation is the method to fix minor differences in humanity is one small step from eugenics and the uber mensch.
All this guy had to say was that he felt that the permanent change from genetic manipulation was the same as the potential permanent side effects of medications and I would have backed off. But he never wanted to acknowledge what I said because it would have undermined his original statement.
He also could have downvoted me and moved on with his life as my post got downvoted into oblivion. He threw the first punch hoping for a knockout. But he just had some anti drug agenda he wanted to push and, when he realized I wasn't falling for it, he blocked me so he could pretend he won. If I blocked him, it would have meant he won, but him blocking me means he realized he couldn't win and blocked me so I couldn't get the last word.
And don't think for a moment that I think I won. I didn't win. To win would be to get him to acknowledge what I said had merit even if he wished I would have said more, which he didn't do. All I did was not back down and, in doing so, I chased him off.
Winning on Reddit involves a meeting of minds where both people walk away feeling better for the conversation. No, I didn't win. We all lost.
It's almost like ideas and arguments can be made independently of one another and we were having an entirely different conversation until you derailed it on a tangent. Bye now.
ADHD is not a psychiatric disorder, and there is nothing wrong with having ADHD.
It's maladaptive for modern society.
Ableist nonsense. Neurodiversity is essential for our species. It’s weird af to simp for eugenics.
I'm not making a normative claim of what's good or bad/right or wrong. I'm making a descriptive claim of how people with ADHD struggle in everyday life because of the demands modern society places on individuals.
Bullshit. Your comment in the context of what I wrote is absolutely making a claim that there is something wrong with having ADHD. And in the context of this post, you are supporting eradicating it from the human population through eugenics. Disgusting.
And I don’t struggle in everyday life due to being neurodivergent; I accommodate myself and am very successful. I’m a fantastic problem solver, an out of the box thinker, have lots of energy, and am a strong and needed member of my community. There is nothing maladaptive about me. Same for my many students with ADHD.
In fact, throughout history (and presently), it is neurodivergent folks who have often pushed societies forward while neurotypicals who are obsessed with hierarchy and social structures have hindered progress. Which of us is really maladaptive?
Krannich t1_j9cgyct wrote
The problem is that psychological disorders are not deterministic from the genes but depend on a vast plethora of factors from biology, to psychological, to social. Also, they are often so polygenetic that altering a single gene wouldn't do much. You'd have to modify a great part of the genome, which would affect all sorts of things.