I think genetic engineering is definitely within a lifetime. We have been making genetic changes in the germline of mice for over 25 years. It was horribly inefficient for about 23 of those years. Now, it is fairly easy with RNA Guided Nucleases like CRISPR/Cas9. We are starting to develop treatments for diseases based on engineering somatic cells in adults. Going to germline modification in the human will take some technological developmental and refinements. But, it is not a large conceptual step to go to from genome editing in mice to humans.

Actually, editing the genome is not that far off. We do it in mice and other animals with ease. A recent discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 RNA Guided Nucleases make it a remarkably trivial procedure.

In GATTACA, embryos were screened for beneficial alleles, and the one deemed to be "best" were implanted. This is different than actually editing an embryo's genome.

OK, I get that it is currently a bad idea to try to clone humans or modify an embryo's DNA. We essentially do not yet know how do it with an acceptable safety. So, the process is likely to cause harm to humans, and is wrong.

But eventually, it will be safe and probably fairly easy.

At that point, what is wrong with eliminating a mutation in an embryo to prevent a disease during subsequent adulthood. And if there is nothing wrong with that, then what is wrong with making a change to make the eventual adult a smarter person?

While "fundies" may like the results that human ES cells are not used as much because of cellular reprogramming, they played absolutely no helpful role in "forcing" iPS research or any type of reprogramming research for that matter. Trying to block useful ES cell research is not the same as stimulating reprogramming research. The reprogramming research was initiated by and made possible by the scientists who were interested in the concepts and by the funding agencies that supported their efforts.

Private sector is not willing or able to put in the time and funding needed to perform necessary basic research. It just takes too much time, risk, and money for a company to support the basic biological research, which is what generates the big discoveries.

Basic research (not applied or "translationsal research) in biology leads to knowledge and new techniques. It is not feasible to make a profit off of these unless you can keep the knowledge a secret up to the point of it leading to a product. By definition, for basic research the lag time and uncertainty between investment in research and conversion to a profit making product is too great to realistically expect even large companies to absorb.

Look at the giant drug companies. They have huge research budgets. But, they can support only research that is directly applied to diseases, and only those diseases that will make a profit.

Exactly. It is not the amount of funding per se, but the way it is given out that is the bigger problem. It is given in 4-5yr spans to labs. even worse, NIH budget changes every year, so their long term planning is usually screwed every year. Reducing the number of PhD students and mandating promotions to staff scientists would work only if funds are stable for a given lab.

Thanks for that perspective njnnja. I would mod up if I had points. Unfortunately, from reading comments on slashdot, it appears that many people don't quite get that putting money into biomedical research is a way of increasing human health or moving toward that "pill that keeps our bodies younger longer."

You bring up an interesting example. But, you should consider that there is a fundamental difference between engineering and research. The article was written by highly successful researchers with experience with policy making. I agree with their perspective. From the article,

"Competition in pursuit of experimental objectives has always been a part of the scientific enterprise, and it can have positive effects. However, hypercompetition for the resources and positions that are required to conduct science suppresses the creativity, cooperation, risk-taking, and original thinking required to make fundamental discoveries."

I think the difference in engineering (building and designing new things from what is already known) and research (trying to figure out stuff that nobody knows) requires different types of support for success. Stability is the key for research to encourage intellectual risk-taking. The problem with the current funding situation is that it stifles innovation and the really basic research. The big ideas are frequently wrong and non productive, but when they are correct, they move biomedical research forward much more than all the short term projects combined.

Finally consider that research is shared knowledge. New insights must be shared for them to be useful. This is different from engineering, where a design or product can be protected and inventors can profit from its use by others.

We should be careful in attributing an effect of viruses observed on human embryonic stem cells to an important role on human embryogenesis and evolution. ES cells are grown in tissue culture conditions, which are related to embryonic conditions, but are not the same. Without knowing the mechanism whereby HERV-H affects ES cell self renewal, it seems just as likely that it is due to some artifact of cell culture as it is due to an effect of evolution.

Sure your comment discusses students. The article in no way does. The article makes salient points about how to support mavericks in science. You do not. Read the article. I'm done.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. You like to attack and clumsily try to poke fun, but you offer no insights into possible solutions. You also know nothing about me, and how I encourage students to question everything and explore novel ideas. Somehow you assume that scientists don't like science and discovery. Somehow you assume that I alienate students. Are you serious??? Look, maybe you had some experience with an a-hole professor or something, but do not make assumptions about me, or other PIs.

Read TFA again. It does not even include the word student. TFA notes that a shift in the way scientists are funded has led to the lack of mavericks. It supports a shift back to support basic research, which scientists by and large prefer. .

I don't think you understand how scientific research gets done. Scientists do not in fact determine what will get worked on in the broad scale. We can only really do what we get funding for. If funding is tied to a specific and narrow project, it discourages risky and potentially groundbreaking research. If there is no funding for basic research, I not sure how the students' stipends and reagents to do the experiments gets done.

Can't figure out how this was modded "insightful". Perhaps by stating the universal law that "the boss is a dick" in a different way. ?

I think you summarized it very well. There are some (non-government) organizations, like HHMI, which focuses most of its funding on people rather than projects. This is the old style of funding discussed in TFA. The labs getting the HHMI funding generally do really well in terms of breakthroughs; although there is a selection for excellent labs that receive HHMI. It seems to me that the role of gov't funding of science should be more focused on the basic/breakthrough level rather than the application/"translational" level it currently hold.

I don't think you have much of a basis to judge how the NIH works, how it makes funding decisions, how it decides what areas of research it will emphasize, how it determines the ways in which grant proposals are reviewed, scored, and funded. You can choose to listen to someone who has first hand experience in the area, or can choose to continue to be a turd and hurl spurious ad hominem attacks at me.

You have no idea what decisions I have made. I certainly have not decided to cash in by taking corporate funded research, to increase profits as you somehow concocted. I, and most of my colleagues, do basic research funded by NIH. We care about this a lot. I have worked very hard, dedicated my life to my work. I do it NOT for money, which should be obvious if you look at average faculty salaries.

In the last decade or so there has been a shift in focus away from basic research and toward applied or "translational" research. This switch, made by the NIH, in response to congress critters demand for so-called deliverables, changes the way in which research is done. It has shifted away from basic (i.e. more risk).

Your "blame-shifting" argument is stupid. How do you propose one does the basic research if it does not get funded?.

How is support for stem cell research the same as "shuffling money into political thinktanks and corporate welfare"? Did I miss sarcasm, or are you being a dickweed?