I am trying to contain my excitement because CRISPR is something I have been looking at a bit and I have thoughts to share! So thank you for beginning this discussion.

I am not a scientist, not even really a citizen scientist yet I wouldn't say, I am however rather in a self education process, so I'm working on it.

I first heard of CRISPR in this video on the Council on Foreign Relations youtube video, I have watched it several times now as I have been discussing it on paper with myself.

Emerging Technology Series: Biotechnology--The Potential and Perils of Innovation
June 22, 2016
You can watch it, listen to it, or read the transcript here: http://www.cfr.org/biotechnology/biotechnology-potential-perils-innovation/p37981
or just youtube here:

It features:

Laurie Garrett
Senior Fellow for Global Health, Council on Foreign Relations

Julie Gerberding
Executive Vice President, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy, and Population Health, Merck & Co., Inc.

and
Drew Endy
Associate Professor of Bioengineering, Stanford University (via videoconference)

I appreciate Laurie's explanation of what CRISPR actually is for one, as a non scientist:

“So let me just say that what we’re looking at now with CRISPR—and that’s an acronym, and it doesn’t matter what it stands for—but it turns out it’s a very ancient mechanism, billions of years old, that microbes have used, particularly bacteria, to expel unwanted entry of genetic material brought in by phage or viruses that invaded the bacteria. So you can think of it as a roughly 3-billion-year old immune system. It’s only very recently that our species, homo sapiens, discovered this ancient thing that’s been out there forever and has been the way that bacteria maintain their genetic integrity against the constant onslaught of phage in their environments, and probably the way they plucked useful things from the phage when they needed them, such as the capacity to override antibiotics.”

I also appreciate how she pretty clearly points out a big issue about it, a relevant issue too with all of the Zika action going on in the “news” and talk of saving the day with GM mosquitoes:

“Now, the problem is we discovered this, it turns out to be so easy, wow, boom, cheap. And then discovered there’s another layer to it, which is gene drive, which allows you to essentially tell a genetic segment to just keep on running, and to run in the next generation and the next generation and the next generation, so that it becomes a permanent feature on the landscape. Now, just last week I was web in on a briefing at the NIH, where the heads of two institutes were briefing the head of the NIH about Zika. It was a terrifying meeting. But at one point Francis Collins asked Tony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, well, what about genetically modified mosquitos? Can’t we use CRISPR to take care of this problem? And then we won’t have mosquitos carrying dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever, and Zika.
And Tony, very wisely said, well, there’s two problems with that idea. Even though the stock market, by the way, really likes it and is spending a lot of money in this. One, these mosquitos only travel in their lifetime about 200 yards. So if you’re going to release a single generation CRISPR, it’s going to have to be released every 200 yards, which is a pretty tough way to control mosquitos. And then, if you’re going to say, well, no, we want it to go on forever and make a gene drive technology, you better know what you’re doing and you better have a really good idea how you’re effecting evolution out there if you deliberately and permanently alter Aedes aegypti mosquitos. And Tony’s advice was let’s not do it.”

If you keep reading from where these excepts lead to in the transcript you'll see Laurie has some issues with the way science is going these days. If I could speak to Laurie I'd love to tell her that we do not know what we do not know. The importance of these tiny bits of life all have a way they were intending to go, if only we'd stop tampering with them and killing them. We kill/mutate tiny life all over the USA and then somehow can't understand why we are all so sick, I can't really speak for other countries, but knowing the reach of the tentacles of the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Monsanto, and all of the other companies thriving off the rape of the earth and the murder, and likely suffering, of so many small species that maybe aren't so cute or noticeable as to garner the support of animal rights groups.
Laurie, you speak of a new appreciation of this microbial world, please connect the dots of extremely available information and use your position in this world to halt these cruel and unusual punishments being thoughtlessly inflicted upon those who cannot speak for themselves. Save the microbes, save the world. We have to question everything we think we know and be willing to go and look around at other ideas while using the incredible tool called critical thinking.

I'm sorry this is so long and if I should not have put this here, if I should have made my own thing, I apologize. Tell me please and then I'll know.

Almost done.

Drew is funny and his one point connects to something else I will mention later in a different tale, you might “follow” me if it sounds like something you just can't miss. Haha
His solution offered at the end, during Q&A , sounds like something that could work, kudos to him.

At last we come to Julie, oh, she is a hoot, I've seen here elsewhere too. Quite the work history, I'm sure people who like to look around would love her job with Merck, as found on her Wikipedia
"In late 2009, Gerberding became president of Merck's vaccines division"

Her Merck position is especially funny to me here:

“But it’s just taking that same concept and accelerating it, and allowing us to think about truly novel ways of attacking cancers, using our own natural immune system, which is certainly something that should be more preferable than chemotherapy or radiation.”

And I'm sorry, but if it is listed as a WMD why are they doing clinical trials? Above the law in the name of science? Not that I'm surprised.

“Which is, I’m sure, why this is on the list of WMDs that our national security advisor just created. But you know, it’s like the concern about any biological threat. Just because you can do it doesn’t mean it’s a weapon of choice, doesn’t mean it would be the most terrifying weapon of choice. Mother Nature is a very good terrorist herself. But I certainly think it deserves consideration in that paradigm.”

There is so much in this video, I hope anyone interested takes the time to check it out.

I'm sorry for hijacking your post, I'd love to hear what others are thinking here because this is a huge topic that ought that be discussed. Thanks.