Laboratory samples are not necessarily the only sources of still viable small pox virus. With climate change now a global reality, thawing of the arctic permafrost means that the remains of victims who died of smallpox before eradication, even if buried (but especially if not), can potentially still release the disease into the current population. There was some news a while ago when the the Spanish Flu of 1918 was recovered in this way, albeit intentionally in the interest of science. But who knows if/when nature should take it's course this way with small pox, without our help?

It is hard to predict the progress of technology, so - NO: I won't tell you "how long before...." But I'll try to explain why CRISPR is special enough to be exciting in my experience and what technological/engineering hurdles need to be overcome in order to reach your objective.
At the moment, variations of the CRISPR-CAS system can only edit the genome of individual cells in vitro with varying efficiency. This is assuming you can culture the cells to begin with. For example, I work with human embryonic stem cells, which are particularly finicky. They won't tolerate much roughness and will even up and die on you if the growth conditions are just a bit off. This is very hard to achieve reliably as some culturing reagents (coating matrix, for example) are "undefined" products with variations in composition from batch to batch.
To go to a chop shop and treat your issue at the genetic level requires an in vivo way to introduce a CRISPR-enabled vector into your cells. This is not easy to do with today's technology, but it may not necessarily be a deal breaker. In the example you gave, a food allergy can probably be addressed by treating only the GI tract and the immune system that comes into contact with the offending allergen. As such, there is no need to target every living cell in your body in this case. However, if you are treating an illness involving a more fundamental life process, that is not the case. For example, a mitochondrial disease where basic cellular metabolism is defective would probably be best tackled when an individual is still a developing embryo or at least very, very young. Otherwise, tissues and organs that are not convenient to access will still retain the genetic defect and present problems for the host organism.
Another question is where in the genome you want to edit. So far, one of our experiments involving the targeted insertion (non-CRISPR method) of a construct into our hESCs have been a bust. Our best guess is that the intended site of transfection (sub-telemeric regions of chromosomes) is critical for cell survival and too much fiddling in the area is fatal. CRISPR-CAS was a compelling solution for us because of how ideally targeted it is supposed to be. We are not aware of anyone else who've used CRISPR with hESCs in the way that we are doing, but what has been reported so far with other experiments using notoriously difficult subjects has been encouraging. So far, the experiment shows clear evidence of true integration into the genome as opposed to a transient transfection. In about a week, a Southern blot verification will tell us if the integration was random or indeed targeted.
As rosy as I can paint a picture about what is possible, however, strong caution follows the introduction of any new technology. Anonymous Coward may be an asshole, but (s)he isn't wrong for being a cynic about the commercial deployment of this as a consumer product. Considering how complex human biology is, the chance of an unintended edit with unanticipated consequences is more than likely. Many genes are linked in very convoluted ways. Even with the human genome project having ostensibly mapped everything, we are still looking at just the tip of the iceberg. Having a complete manuscript, is very different from understanding all the nuances of the story. To get back to the spirit of your question, I would imagine that the scenario probably is more similar to dental service, where you go back periodically to check on the integrity of any major service, with tweaks along the way as necessary.

This is right-wing propaganda at its worst. embryonic stem cells DO NOT COME FROM ABORTED HUMAN FETUSES. They come from left over embryos that those seeking fertility treatment no longer need. They were never aborted because they were never implanted in the first place. Because they were never implanted, they never had the chance to develop into anything near resemblance to a fetus. Please get your facts straight, no matter which side of the debate you are on.

Please mod parent up, as it ought to be considered an honest question deserving of an honest answer.

I work with human embryonic stem cells (hESC). I'm going to hazard a guess that you've bought into certain propaganda efforts attempting to mislead the public into believing ESC research "destroys" embryos. That is not at all the case. First a primer in cell biology: At a certain stage in their life cycle, most normal "somatic" cells enter a stage called "senescence" where they may continue to live but no longer divide and will eventually die. Stem cells, on the other hand, have the unique ability to continue dividing indefinitely without becoming "old". This "self-renewal" property makes a stem cell culture very much like the "mother dough" a baker would use to perpetuate starter cultures for years or decades.

Our lab uses uses cells that originated from fertility treatment at my institution's OB/GYN clinic. Individuals who have achieved a successful pregnancy would consent to allow fertilized but unimplanted embryos to be used for research purposes. (If we didn't ask for them, they would have been destroyed as medical waste.) During the early stages of growth, all the cells in the embryo have stem cell qualities and are all "self-renewing". Under artificial growth conditions, these cells are coaxed into remaining stem cells without developing further into a fetus with all different types of tissues and organs. As such, they remain masses of stem cells that could be split/divided and given to research groups as necessary.

So you see, a single embryo can establish a "cell line" that (depending on culture methods and/or skill/technique of cell-culturist) can be maintained indefinitely by researchers. At the moment, the "economics" of this has more to do with the resources needed to grow them rather than obtain them. Cell culture growth media is incredibly expensive right now because it is hard to keep these delicate, finicky guys happy in lab conditions. (Stem cells like growing in an organic environment - not in a dish.) So far, embryonic stem cells are only being used for research as a way to study some fundamental things that are still poorly understood. (Like for example how to grow cells intended for tissue/organ transplant in artificial conditions cheaply and reliably. Expect cost to come down as we make progress on this front.) My lab, for example, only grows enough of them to support a few experiments at a time on DNA damage/repair. Now, the anticipated therapeutic use of stem cells are different. But you would not necessarily need millions of them as one would as in the case of drug manufacturing to produce useful proteins. Because stem cells are "self-renewing", conceivably you only need enough of them to keep itself going in, say, replacing a failed organ or tissue.

At the moment, it is too early to concretely say what the future might look like where stem cells are commercially used for therapies. A couple of possible guesses for how they can be obtained: 1) a person donates his/her own by having parents who made the smart decision to bank "cord blood" saved from the umbilical cord when the baby was born. 2) the small minute number of stem cells that circulate in the blood or exist elsewhere in the body can be extracted. 3) Cells from other parts of your body that have already specialized into certain cell types can be treated to return them to a "stem-cell-like-state". This last thing is what people are talking about when they mention "induced pluri-potent stem cells" (iPSC). In any case, I find it hard to come up with a scenario where stem cells take on the qualities of a commodity to be produced for mass consumption. I suppose anything is possible, but other problems need to be solved along the way, like how to prevent organ rejection when your immune system recognize that your implant doesn't belong to you.

For the intended purpose of perpetuating humanity, such a simplistic scheme is laughably inadequate. Human beings are not some lab organism that you can sustain by throwing them some measured resource. "What is left" is the means to pass on tradition and culture - the living soul of a society. One example: We have enough problems already in segments of our society caused by the absence of men in single parent families disproportionately supported by women. What kind of civilization are you going to have with no male role-models to eventually show sons what it means to be decent husbands and fathers? Will a female only "custodial" community be sustainable or even desirable? Do you expect them to all be lesbians without the need for anyone of the male gender to be around? Even if such a preposterous idea could be floated, how would such a society deal with the eventual presence of male children and adults? You might say that technology provides a way to store the customs and norms of a society such that we can easily store the essence of manhood digitally. But let me ask you: Given the historic records afforded by the invention of writing, how feasibly is it to resurrect past human civilizations to which we no longer have an unbroken link? If your living population is too small, the chances are greater for social order to drift in a way that would eventually lead to instability and destruction. Or at best, communal norms may reach a point where there is no compelling motivation for the "custodial" population to restore humanity in any form that we currently recognize or desire. You are playing with the dangerous idea of putting too much power in the hands of too few. "Genetic" diversity should not be the only thing that is important here.

New technologies always bring new jobs. Maybe self-driving cars will be the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ÃX-Driver

I think you guys are misunderstanding what is being accomplished here. Using nitrogen fixing bacteria instead of artificial fertilizer means you *DON'T* have excess nitrates leaching out into the environment. The bacteria acts locally - usually right at the roots of the plant where it has colonized in return for being fed with sugars by the host. It is a truly balanced symbiotic relationship that is self-regulating.

Thanks for clarifying your point. I think it was the ".....only teaches us about evolution." bit that threw some of us off as to why comparative genomics should ever be useful to anyone. Not a bad perspective, but maybe a bit awkwardly worded.

Comparative genomics are of enormous importance to the field of cisgenesis/intragenesis. Somewhat inbetween traditional plant breeding and inter-species genetic engineering, intragenics seeks to modify a target organism by transferring genes from related organisms. When applied to agriculture, there are practical savings in resources expended when trying to create new cultivars of existing crops. For more see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17692557

Instead of getting on another soap box and saying anything at all, would you consider stopping to listen to what others are saying? There are many insights being expressed here that are worth thinking about and learning from. If you do have to say something, consider asking an engaging question.