[HN Gopher] Scientists edited genes in a living person and saved...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Scientists edited genes in a living person and saved his life
        
       Paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2504747
        
       Author : QueensGambit
       Score  : 84 points
       Date   : 2025-12-27 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.popularmechanics.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.popularmechanics.com)
        
       | gavinray wrote:
       | _" Patient-Specific In Vivo Gene Editing to Treat a Rare Genetic
       | Disease"_
       | 
       | https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2504747
        
         | gwern wrote:
         | Note: from May 2025.
         | https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/editing/2025-musunuru.pdf
        
         | tomhow wrote:
         | Thanks! We've put this link in the header of the thread.
        
       | lysace wrote:
       | From the paper: "After regulatory approval had been obtained for
       | the therapy, ..."
       | 
       | Are the documents relating to this FDA (?) approval application
       | public? I'm curious about where the current boundaries lie and
       | how the process works.
        
       | qnleigh wrote:
       | What enabled this treatment to be used now? Gene editing
       | techniques have existed for a long time, but there were many
       | reasons why they weren't being used in humans, like concerns
       | about off-target edits and heritability. The article mentions
       | something about gold nanoparticles, but this aspect was developed
       | over the course of a few weeks, and in any case these aren't new
       | either.
        
         | directevolve wrote:
         | Well, CRISPR-Cas9 as a tool for genetic engineering was only
         | invented in 2012. A 13-year translation timeline is not
         | unusual, maybe even unusually fast. CAR-T cell therapy for
         | cancer took 30 years from discovery to clinic. It took about 30
         | years to go from the early attempts to use engineered lipid
         | nano particles for drug delivery to the first FDA-approved
         | medication using them, doxil.
         | 
         | With CRISPR, it took a long time to figure out how to reliably
         | edit just the gene you want and acceptably minimize off-target
         | edits, including by delivering the therapeutic to just the
         | organ affected and getting the dose and release right.
         | 
         | The public is understandably leery about experimental medical
         | techniques. If they had killed this newborn child with CRISPR
         | therapy, then it might have set created a backlash delaying
         | translation of this technique for years, possibly decades.
         | 
         | In biomedicine, we're always looking for therapies that
         | approximate the level of precision control available in
         | software. Unfortunately, it's never more than an approximation,
         | and our ability to measure and predict the size of that error
         | is always limited. That is why the field moves slowly.
        
           | qnleigh wrote:
           | I mean to ask 'why now?' not 'what took so long?' What about
           | the regulations or the science let this happen now, and not 5
           | years ago or 5 years into the future?
           | 
           | Also do we know that this was CRISPR?
        
             | directevolve wrote:
             | Yes, CRISPR's mentioned in the article. Someone should
             | write a book about it to break down the history leading up
             | to this accomplishment.
        
             | rolph wrote:
             | Yes, This was a CRISPER technique.
             | 
             | https://www.chop.edu/news/worlds-first-patient-treated-
             | perso...
        
           | hirsin wrote:
           | Expanding the timeline a bit, CRISPR was known as a possible
           | gene targeting/editing tool by 2008 at least - I distinctly
           | recall learning about it then in a guest lecture.
        
       | dlcarrier wrote:
       | There was a guy on YouTube who genetically engineered himself to
       | gain lactose tolerance.
       | (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY)
       | 
       | It lasted for around a year and a half
       | (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoczYXJeMY4) before the effect
       | mostly wore off. He took it orally, so it only affected his
       | intestinal lining, and I presume it didn't effect enough stem
       | cells to get a permanent effect, but it would still be usable as
       | something taken annually, which is still far less often than any
       | medication.
        
         | pinkmuffinere wrote:
         | Wow this is amazing. Definitely the best biology video I've
         | seen.
         | 
         | Edit: this is cool enough to deserve it's own post, Im going to
         | submit it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46405855
        
         | c1ccccc1 wrote:
         | I think he actually genetically engineered his gut bacteria
         | rather than any of his own cells there, right?
        
           | pinkmuffinere wrote:
           | From the video, it sounds like he engineered his own cells.
           | Using a virus that is known for transferring genetic material
           | into other organisms, he added a gene for producing lactase,
           | and then ate it. I suppose that would affect both his gut
           | bacteria and his own cells. But it lasted for ~1.5 years,
           | which probably indicates that it truly was his cells. Also he
           | seems to know what he's talking about, and he claims it was
           | his own cells.
        
         | thrance wrote:
         | I thought (maybe mistakenly) that your body developed immunity
         | to the adenovirus used to edit your own DNA, and so this trick
         | could only be used once? Am I wrong?
        
       | gigatexal wrote:
       | What worries me is the attacks on universities and the breaking
       | of public private research based on this comment from the
       | article:
       | 
       | "In a race against time, scientists and doctors across the U.S.
       | developed the first in vivo gene therapy, thanks to decades of
       | medical research."
        
         | EthanHeilman wrote:
         | With Trump it appears a window is closing on the development of
         | important technologies and research. I doubt we will enter a
         | new dark age, but in some areas, progress is likely to slow,
         | which in turn will be used as evidence that it isn't worth
         | funding, which will cause funding cuts and result in even
         | slower progress. Everyone is racing to get stuff done, because
         | there might not be the money tomorrow. It seems likely to me
         | that longer term, more ambitious projects are probably being
         | sidelined because there isn't time to complete them before the
         | pencil pushers in the whitehouse defund them.
         | 
         | Look at how the Nixon administration and congress gutted NASA.
         | It took nearly 40 years to crawl out of the hole in the
         | roadmaps that their shortsighted stupidity created. We could
         | have had reusable rockets, aerospike engines and Nuclear
         | Thermal Propulsion in the early 1980s. Instead we got halfway
         | measures like the space shuttle and the ISS that both ate
         | budget but didn't create the required innovation for lower cost
         | to orbit.
        
           | gigatexal wrote:
           | I couldn't have said it better myself. They will use this to
           | say not productive don't fund.
        
           | nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
           | My feeling is that rather than a snuffing out, we are
           | witnessing a passing of the torch of the light of progress.
           | 
           | Better start learning mandarin.
        
           | toss1 wrote:
           | >>I doubt we will enter a new dark age
           | 
           | But only to the extent that the regime fails to get its way.
           | 
           | If the regime continues, they will definitely push us back to
           | a dark age, partially intentionally, partially through not
           | caring about the future or being too stupid to figure out the
           | consequences. And Theil, Musk, Vance and that whole lot are
           | part of the crew pushing for that -- technology for me but
           | not for thee.
        
       | jacquesm wrote:
       | Your genes seem to be out of date, there are several security
       | updates pending. The download will be 3.2 Gb and will take about
       | 3 seconds..... Because this is a security update you can not
       | refuse it. If you are commanding a vehicle park it now or switch
       | to autopilot. Commencing update in 10, 9, 8, ...
        
         | bflesch wrote:
         | the good old days when updates actually improved product
         | quality :)
        
       | msla wrote:
       | Direct link to downloadable paper:
       | 
       | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12713542/
        
       | probe wrote:
       | Very dumb question, but how exactly does gene therapy work in
       | vivo? Don't you have to modify every cell (or affected type of
       | cell) with a new copy of the DNA? How does that actually....
       | happen?
        
       | ChrisArchitect wrote:
       | Story from May;
       | 
       | Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43997636
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-12-27 23:00 UTC)