Hmm, I thought clinical gene editing (gene therapy) was frowned upon because it's inherently risky and fraught with ethical hazards. What technically and ethically has changed since 2005 beyond CRISPR?
Germline gene editing is still considered risky and unethical. That is, editing cells that form eggs and sperm, thus changing the genome of some of the descendants of the edited person. This is somatic editing. These edits will not be inherited.
Somatic editing is becoming more common (see Casgevy) but there are technical hurdles that prevent its application to many cases.
> This is somatic editing. These edits will not be inherited.
Genuine question- how do we know that? Is it just that the edits are very improbable to accumulate in the gonads in sufficient quantities to persist? We can’t actually prevent some fraction of them from reaching other parts of the body, right?
I'd like to know that too. When a gene therapy is administered to a person after birth, what % of cells get the edit and with what approach(es)? Doesn't that also edit oocytes and spermatocytes too?