[Lewis Thomson (OP)]

Listener 'D' has sent in this question to The Naked Scientists.

"Is it possible to biologically change DNA on command??? (for example change my DNA to live longer)"

Discuss your findings in the comments below...

[paul cotter]

I replied to this already but my post disappeared??. Yes you can edit dna with "crispr" technology but I would not recommend such messing-unintended consequences could come back to bite you.

[evan_au]

There have been successful experiments using a retrovirus to carry medicinal genes into the human genome - for example, there has been a clinical trial inserting a gene for clotting factor 8 into the liver of people with hemophilia.

However, hemophilia is a serious, crippling, life-long, and life-threatening disease. You must balance the benefits of gene therapy against the potential risks which include the possibility that you may cause genetic damage, resulting in cancer (in perhaps 5, 10 or 20 years).
- With those risks at present, you can only ethically justify gene therapy on those with a genetic disease
- There are suggestions that some nations or individuals may unethically use gene therapy to (for example) increase the oxygen-carrying capability of the blood in their athletes or soldiers...
- But if it goes 20-50 years without  increased cancer risk, that may justify gene therapy to improve life, rather than cure disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

Despite its reputation, CRISPR is a bit of a blunt tool. It has been successfully used in farm animals and agricultural crops. But here you have the option of testing it on hundreds or thousands of organisms, and just keeping the individual where it has had the intended effect, without adverse side-effects.
- Those are not odds that I would choose for myself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR

[hamdani yusuf]

unethically

Who decides what's ethical and what not?
What are the criteria?

[alancalverd]

Easy to answer, sometimes difficult to do.

Would you do it to yourself or your nearest and dearest?

Are you competent to do it?

Have you explored the process in vitro, in vivo, and with healthy human volunteers, and catalogued the observed benefits, risks and side effects?

Have you fully explained the known risks, possible unknown risks, and prospective benefits, to the person you are about to do it to? 

Does your intended subject fully comprehend what you have told him?

If any payment or other benefit is being offered, is it reasonable compensation for time and effort, and not excessive or coercive?

Does he voluntarily consent?

Can he back out of the process at any stage, without prejudice?

Will the process be independently monitored and abandoned if it appears to be doing more harm than good?

Are you prepared or adequately insured to compensate for any harm you do?

If the subject is not competent to give informed consent, you can in exceptional circumstances seek the assent of a person legally entitled to make a medical decision on his behalf. 

It isn't an easy process, but research ethics committees meet regularly to evaluate such questions. I serve on both sides of the process and if I have any criticism it is that we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing confidentiality, inclusiveness and participant involvement in experimental design, when the key questions should be  about risks and benefits. That said, I find my industrial and clinical partners to be deeply committed to getting it right, and my review committee colleagues (roughly 50% "lay" members often with a legal, charity or patient representative background, 50% clinical and technical professionals) extremely thorough and penetrative in their scrutiny.

[evan_au]

Does he voluntarily consent?

Yes for would-be Olympic athletes. Which is why the International Olympics Committee have approved many types of tests looking for just such anomalies.

Can he back out of the process at any stage, without prejudice?

In the military, probably not.

[alancalverd]

Which is why we have specialist ethics committees who review research involving prisoners, soldiers, police officers, and pretty well any group considered vulnerable to authority or sworn to secrecy. By self-selection such groups tend to include mad buggers who choose to live dangerously but the principle of informed consent still applies to activities outside their normal scope.   

[hamdani yusuf]

Easy to answer, sometimes difficult to do.

Would you do it to yourself or your nearest and dearest?

Are you competent to do it?

Have you explored the process in vitro, in vivo, and with healthy human volunteers, and catalogued the observed benefits, risks and side effects?

Have you fully explained the known risks, possible unknown risks, and prospective benefits, to the person you are about to do it to? 

Does your intended subject fully comprehend what you have told him?

If any payment or other benefit is being offered, is it reasonable compensation for time and effort, and not excessive or coercive?

Does he voluntarily consent?

Can he back out of the process at any stage, without prejudice?

Will the process be independently monitored and abandoned if it appears to be doing more harm than good?

Are you prepared or adequately insured to compensate for any harm you do?

If the subject is not competent to give informed consent, you can in exceptional circumstances seek the assent of a person legally entitled to make a medical decision on his behalf. 

It isn't an easy process, but research ethics committees meet regularly to evaluate such questions. I serve on both sides of the process and if I have any criticism it is that we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing confidentiality, inclusiveness and participant involvement in experimental design, when the key questions should be  about risks and benefits. That said, I find my industrial and clinical partners to be deeply committed to getting it right, and my review committee colleagues (roughly 50% "lay" members often with a legal, charity or patient representative background, 50% clinical and technical professionals) extremely thorough and penetrative in their scrutiny.

The parents did it with consent. But the babies didn't, for obvious reason that they didn't exist yet.

The He Jiankui affair is a scientific and bioethical controversy concerning the use of genome editing following its first use on humans by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who edited the genomes of human embryos in 2018.[1][2] He became widely known on 26 November 2018[3] after he announced that he had created the first human genetically edited babies. He was listed in the Time's 100 most influential people of 2019.[4] The affair led to legal and ethical controversies, resulting in the indictment of He and two of his collaborators, Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou. He eventually received widespread condemnation from all over the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair#Ethics

[Zer0]

" Dr. Church has already been able to reverse aging in human cells using CRISPR technology, and expects the first clinical trials of this technology to begin within as little as one year. "

Source -
https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2016/7/age-reversal-research-at-harvard-medical-school

P.S. - Cannot vouch for the Authenticity of the Data.
(Seems Surreal)