Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MrDreamster t1_isc9ww8 wrote

That's exactly what I was wondering. I've been hearing about Crispr for I think more than 10 years, but I am yet to hear about Crispr being actually used as a treatment. Why is that ?

16

Ezekiel_W OP t1_isd7i7p wrote

We need those 10 or so years for more research and development. Humans have had CRISPR used on them many times already, but it's still early days for human trials. Most of the good stuff with CRISPR probably won't start appearing until the late 2020s.

14

-ZeroRelevance- t1_isdy95i wrote

It’s probably just that medical technologies take a long time to be approved.

6

SWATSgradyBABY t1_isffgqs wrote

This has always been true. Increasingly we are able to use biological modeling in virtual space to simulate trials as we did with the COVID-19 vaccine. In that instance bringing the development time down from 5 to 10 years to one year.

Remember exponential not linear

2

breloomislaifu t1_isdyvnp wrote

TLDR: drugs in a nutshell.

Its because we don't know what effects a drug will have until we actually inject it. You have to realize that our entire body is a diffusion prone liquid chamber of a billion moving parts but we need to deliver soluble drugs to a very specific target number of cogs. That's physically impossible btw.

So we end up having unknown side effects, and every drug has them. We just have to be persistent and select the ones that are effective at curing yet tolerable enough, but this process can take upwards to a decade in clinical trials.

In practice this means we have a decade long backlog of drugs that we think are promising but haven't had the time or resources to check. We'll get to testing CRISPR in maybe a few more years.

One more thing, as a scientist who has used CRISPR systems in cell cultures, its not that 'robust' yet. If I had to choose between successful CRISPR and fliiping a coin in a game of russian roulette, I'd still take the coin lol.

4

AsuhoChinami t1_isdz6ld wrote

But... we are already testing CRISPR. I think the first human trials were 5 or 6 years ago.

2

Baron_Samedi_ t1_isef1zr wrote

It takes about a generation to go from technological breakthrough to large scale deployment of these types of innovation.

There are a lot of nuts-and-bolts R&D, medical safety testing, manufacturing, supply, and logistics issues to consider when looking at how new discoveries will broadly impact society.

So, from the initial Crispr breakthrough to actually seeing the effects of this revolutionary tech, you are looking at 15 - 25 years for some of the most important innovations to be noticeable for those of us outside the laboratory.

3

[deleted] t1_isccwqp wrote

[deleted]

−3

[deleted] t1_iscdz7p wrote

[deleted]

0

kmtrp t1_isec6nl wrote

Blame the FDA and... realize biology is a fucking mess. Specially with novel therapeutic vectors. We've rushed before in clinical trials that have maimed and killed humans.

I remember one of those, guess what happened? The field was frozen for almost 10 years. Nobody wanted to put money or political face on and have the same thing happen again.

So it takes years and years of mountains of paperwork and money and tests and more paperwork to prove safety first and then efficacy. I'd rather do most of these by compassionate use, but... I'm not in charge.

2

[deleted] t1_isd8s61 wrote

Big Pharma

−4

kmtrp t1_isebjuz wrote

I don't think you know about big pharma. They want these things by yesterday, because of money, you know? Always have but are heavily slowed down by the FDA's guidelines demanding all evidence in the world that this won't ever ever backfire in humans. This means more time and money spent performing safety preclinical and clinical trials and endless mountains of paperwork and years of back and forth with them.

8

[deleted] t1_isf4209 wrote

Yeah, pharmaceutical companies are extremely eager to make themselves obsolete. You’re right. What was I thinking?

−1

[deleted] t1_isf4c50 wrote

Because of money, you know, fucktard?

−1