Мой комментарий к записи «c*l*e*v*e*r» от ivanov_petrov
"...то есть редактор оснований CRISPR минимум один раз ошибся. Конкретно эта мутация, по всей видимости, не несет вреда, но со следующими может так не повезти.
Нецелевые мутации — одна из главных проблем всех инструментов генетического редактирования. Каждое новое поколение ошибается меньше, но полностью исключить этот риск нельзя."
Што за маразм! Риск ему исключить нельзя, ога... Инструкцию к аспирину хотя бы читал, ы? Риски ему исключать. Это медицина, а не сферические розовые пони в вакууме.
У каждого человека таких мутаций где-то от семидесяти с гаком до ста! ЗАПРЕТИТЬ РОДЫ НАХРЕН!
А "наследники" СRISPR-Cas9 всё уже, по-другому работают, и нет тепреь там никаких "случайных". Хотя оно, вон, и кислороду молекулу лишнюю вдохнул в недобрый час, и бацц!...
Риск им искючать. Быдлоэтики, блин... Вон, я щясс статью подаю. Какрасс почти про это:
...
REGULATORY ASPECTS
Clear regulatory frameworks for producing and clinically applying EV-based therapeutics are yet to be established [107]. The absence of standardized protocols complicates clinical translation, as varying guidelines across regions create barriers to approval and implementation [107]. In our view, however, fewer "regulatory norms" may be preferable, as their development and oversight often involve inadequately competent individuals, resulting in more harm than benefit.
BIOETHICAL OVERREACH IN EV RESEARCH: A MEDICAL PERSPECTIVE
As practicing physicians, the authors of this article view the current bioethical discourse surrounding extracellular EVs with skepticism. EVs represent one of the safest therapeutic modalities in regenerative medicine, with minimal risks compared to stem cell therapies or pharmacological interventions. Yet, bioethical oversight often imposes unrealistic demands, which reflect a fundamental disconnect from clinical realities. Most "bioethicists" lack medical training, unlike physicians who navigate the complexities of patient care daily. This gap fuels requirements that ignore the inherent uncertainties of medicine, where even standard drugs carry side effects, as evidenced by any pharmaceutical insert.
The bureaucratic nature of bioethics seeks to expand its influence, consuming resources to sustain itself, much like a bacterial culture in a closed system. This mirrors a broader societal tendency toward ritualistic behavior, superstition, and hypocrisy, where well-intentioned movements devolve into extremism – suffragettes into radical feminism, environmentalism into ecoterrorism, etc. Bioethics, similarly, has become a "Glass Bead Game," prioritizing fringe concerns over practical progress. For instance, fears about EVs from young donors triggering ethical dilemmas are overstated, given their non-invasive sourcing and low immunogenicity [107].
Clinical medicine is a craft honed through experience, paid for by blood and suffering. Medical ethics, rooted in real-world practice, suffices without the need for a separate bioethical framework. Only those immersed in the realities of healthcare – physicians who have saved lives amidst human suffering – are qualified to set ethical standards. The sanctimonious posturing of "bioethicists", unbound by clinical accountability, risks delaying therapies that could save thousands of lives. Is it time for obstetricians and transplantologists to tidy up these ignorant self-righteous Augean stables?