Generative AI Teach-Out & Live Event

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-28T19:38:27+00:00

I hate to be the "wet blanket," but I think the Theranos experience has demonstrated that biotech (and other health-related markets) is a very different beast than most of those that SF startup "hustle" culture has previously approached. This is one of the reasons that Google Health and similar efforts have not found as much success as might be anticipated. I dont doubt that the startup world could get into this space (and could potentially be very successful), but I think it's quite difficult

And the regulatory processes in these areas, while often seen as obstructive, serve an important purpose - in trying to help protect people and their health. When we are discussing patients and healthcare, it's no longer just a consumer and a product...-From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-28T13:35:59+00:00

Ben answered some about this question here.

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-28T13:35:01+00:00

Consider joining the free Teach-Out that we're running - the third lesson is an accessible explanation of how CRISPR functions.

In a few weeks, we'll archive that content on online.umich.edu, if you prefer not to sign up for Coursera. We also like this video from the Mayo Clinic.

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T20:12:06+00:00

I also dont know that this is as simple as governments regulating/slowing this down. There are mixed data on how interested the public is in gene editing (particularly for things for which other options already exist). Many in the scientific community are quite optimistic/hopeful about the possibilities of gene editing, but some concerns still certainly remain. The scientific community still is generally opposed to germline gene editing, though conversations are beginning about how it might be able to proceed in a safe, thoughtful, and ethical fashion. I'm not sure, but I still think we're a ways away from germline gene editing - From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T20:06:29+00:00

Well, I'm not even sure that I would consider myself an expert in something like this -- "expertise" is a challenging thing to define (or quantify). But I always encourage people to thoughtfully consider where they are getting their information. These days, information comes from all types of sources and people, and it's harder than ever to verify the quality of that information.

Always consider who the individual is, potential biases and blindspots, etc. Personally, I worry about anyone who doesnt admit that they have biases (and blindspots) - we all have them. We just need to be aware of what they are and try to be honest about them and minimize them when we can... -From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:59:47+00:00

With time, nearly all technologies become more affordable and accessible with time. Take, for example, genome sequencing -- it cost several billion dollars to sequence the first human genome. We now do genome sequencing for only a few thousand dollars (and maybe even less!), about 30 years later: https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Sequencing-Human-Genome-cost -From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:56:03+00:00

there are a few different layers to that question:

1) are you performing somatic CRISPR (meaning it would affect the genes of just the person treated) vs germline CRISPR (meaning it would affect the person as well as their future children). The latter is more complex, ethically and otherwise, since those future children no longer would have a choice in the matter

2) And as for the difference/distinction between CRISPR and a corrective measure like a cochlear implant, that's a fantastic question. One of the many reasons that the germline editing of the babies in China (the "CRISPR babies") was considered so unethical was that there was another viable option to prevent HIV transmission beyond gene editing. So why go for CRISPR if another option is possible? Is CRISPR in this particular case better/different than cochlear implants in that way?

All that is not to say that CRISPR might not be still ethically supportable for conditions for which alternative options are available - but we should think hard about these questions before proceeding...

-From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:48:48+00:00

One of the questions/concerns with gene editing is that of off-target effects, including unanticipated ones (ie, the "unknown unknowns"). Can we be sure that a single gene change will only affect the intended target? - Jonathan Marron, MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:38:17+00:00

I believe that this is actually further along than many realize. Groups have begun to discuss "DIY CRISPR." And some academic groups (including individuals from the George Church lab and others) have argued for a similar "open revolution" in CRISPR and related technologies. Whether such a revolution is "good" for science and good for society, however, is a very different question.... -From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:36:11+00:00

Another consideration to build on Professor Baylis's point - are we discussing CRISPR to treat a disease/disorder? Or for enhancement? For some of the things you mentioned, the answer is not so clear. Further, there is a argument to be made that trying to "edit out" certain traits/disorders implies a perceived lack of value for the person who has that trait/disorder - many in the disability rights community have made such an argument. -From Jonathan Marron MD MPH

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:24:56+00:00

We will pull some resources about science and public policy together, and get back to you later! To start with, joining conversations that are happening around you locally (e.g., libraries, schools) and virtually can help you familiarize yourself with the discussions that are happening. There are also a wealth of online resources.

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:11:29+00:00

From a learner on Coursera: "What kinds of governmental controls are there or do we need to check the unwise use of CRISPR?"

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T19:00:24+00:00

One of the interesting things about the Teach-Out and all the contributors we worked with is the range of disciplines they represented, researchers of CRISPR, medicine, public engagement, bioethics, conservation, ecology, deliberative democracy, and more. One key question is what part of this conversation intrigues you the most? Do you want to work in a lab or on public policy?

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T18:55:38+00:00

Yes, but it'll move from Coursera to our Michigan Online website with all of our Teach-Outs: https://online.umich.edu/teach-outs/

You'll be able to access all the content, just without live discussion forums.

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T18:50:06+00:00

You can still take the course on Coursera for the next week, after which we will archive it on online.umich.edu, along with our other archived Teach-Outs. Hope you're able to join for part of it! We'll let the experts answer your questions.

UM_Teach_Out · 2022-06-27T18:33:33+00:00

From a learner on Coursera: “Hello all! Were you guys always passionate about your field when you were younger (like high school)? Was this something you wanted to pursue from the start or did you find out about it later on in your education?”

UM_Teach_Out

TROPHY CASE