Greetings

[jackson parks]

Hello,

Thank you for letting me in. I'm Jack. A friend of mine named Jonathyn recently quit the idea of engaging in CRISPR CAS9 technology because he found out that it can't do anything for adult humans. We've been trying to find a way to help people with drug addiction, and we got introduced to biohacking. We're interested in being able to change people's nervous systems either through microwave radiation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1312845), CRISPR (if it can do anything at all), or whatever other means that don't technically need surgical procedures.

Thank you all, Jack.

[Dakota Hamill]

This raises an interesting argument which is, just because something could be fixed through science, should it?  I use "could" and "fixed" loosely here.

Alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous have a pretty good track record for helping people deal with addiction and achieve sobriety the good old fashion way.   

By modifying a part of the genetic code to deal with drug addiction, could one not also "break" the natural reward systems humans have relied on to seek certain behaviors like food, sex, laughter, etc? 

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/7e2f0f1c-d7a9-48d3-a7cd-1f2e78b152f3%40googlegroups.com.

[Cathal Garvey]

Consider more transient alternatives: there is some evidence that other medical routes are open for addiction, but in most places the experiments needed to validate them are illegal.

For example, there have long been anecdotes about classical psychedelics (and some things less-well-understood) acting as treatments for addictions.

This includes recent claims from John Hopkins researchers that up to 80% of smokers enrolled in a psilocybin study ceased smoking for clinically significant lengths of time after the study: however, this was only an observation and a dedicated study hasn't yet been done AFAIK.

Yet, it is possible that the anti-addiction effects are inextricable from the psychedelic effect, which is making it extremely difficult to study for legal reasons. There are signs that this may change, as a few cities have begun decriminalising psilocybin recently, and it may go the same way as cannabis and become a steady movement towards legalisation. But look how long that's taking for cannabis!

Anyways: not all things that show antiaddictive value are illegal, in all places. Apparently there is a body of research surrounding kappa opioid receptor agonists like Salvia divinorum, though I think the safety profile there is far less well-established than for classical psychedelics and research is very slim. I gather that's not illegal in some parts of the US and EU.

Genetic engineering is great, but it's probably not the best route for conditions like addiction, IMO. There is so much research to be done on neurotransmitter modulation first, and lots of lost time to make up since that research largely got banned decades ago.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.