rosemary connors: embryo editing, it's a scientific breakthrough that could prevent disease by cutting it out of human embryos, but critics warn it could also create designer babies. today, we'll discuss the pros and cons. who am i, and where am i from? it's information popular dna ancestry tests are happy to provide. some will even tell you your risk of developing certain diseases. today, we'll talk to an expert about what you can expect from home test kits, and what you may want to consider before you sign up. hate your job? so quit, or maybe not. today, we'll discuss why you should not turn in your resignation, and how to know when it is truly time to go. male announcer: "nbc10 @issue" starts now. rosemary: good morning, i'm rosemary connors for "nbc10 @issue." this morning, we begin with a big scientific advance that's causing both awe and alarm.

for the first time, researchers here in the us have successfully changed the dna in human embryos. scientists say it could prevent disease. others worry it could be used for all the wrong reasons. here's more from nbc's kristen dahlgren. kristen dahlgren: in a lab in oregon, as scientists fertilized human eggs, they also swapped out some dna, correcting defective genes that carry disease, proving it is possible to genetically modify human embryos, but fueling a growing debate. eric schadt: it's one of those things that i think is inevitable. it's going to be hard to control, hard to regulate because the technology is so accessible. kristen: according to mit's technology review, which first reported on the breakthrough, the scientists used a technique called crispr, already used with partial success in china, essentially a way to cut and paste dna, replacing unwanted genetic information. scientists say it could someday eliminate inherited diseases, like some cancers, hemophilia, and sickle-cell anemia.

in bloomfield, new jersey, michael goodwin and his wife fazia are afraid to have children. he has sickle-cell, she is a carrier. michael goodwin: if i can prevent my kid from having to be up in pain and crying 24/7, i would do anything in my power to stop that. kristen: but critics worry crispr could be used to create designer babies, selecting hair or eye color, and some say there is potential for new mutations or even malicious uses. last year, former director of national intelligence james clapper called genome editing a potential weapon of mass destruction. and congress has banned turning gene-edited embryos into babies. in that lab in oregon, the embryos weren't allowed to develop more than a few days. but the debate over what they may have started lives on. kristen dahlgren, nbc news, new york. rosemary: scientists also say they've used the crispr technique to erase a gene that causes a type of heart disease that can lead to sudden death.

now, according to the doctors at oregon health & science university, the gene editing did not alter dna in other ways. they also say the embryos were never meant to be implanted, and were only grown for a few days. the research is a long way from clinical use, but marks a major milestone in the prospect of one day protecting babies from a variety of hereditary conditions. joining me now is dr. michael glassner. dr. glassner is the founder and medical director at mainline fertility and reproductive medicine. dr. glassner, thanks for being with us. so, are you surprised that this is where we are, or did you see this coming? michael glassner: not surprised because it's essentially a marriage of two scientific advances that we've been working with. crispr's been being used for treatment of hiv, for cancer research. and locating a genetic defect on an embryo we've been using in the ivf centers with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, whereby a couple who has an inherited disease like tay-sachs, cystic fibrosis, can come in,

we can create embryos identifying which embryos are affected and which ones aren't. so, now we have a marriage of crispr and this genetic testing, with the hypothesis of being able to correct a defect. rosemary: it was really just a matter of time it seems. michael: yes, yes. rosemary: in the report, we heard it described as cutting and pasting. is that how you'd describe it? in simple terms, how is this done? michael: microsoft word. microsoft word, search and replace. and essentially, they are creating the word that they're going to search for on the dna, and then send the crispr entity into the cell, and it looks for the dna, and cuts it away. the concern is, like with microsoft word, if it finds a word that it was not supposed to cut away, like if it's looking for "resent" and it finds "present." and so, the concern with this is whether it's cutting away any other dna material, which would therefore cause other medical problems. and then, going back to our iphone, once you cut it away, the hypothesis was that you could put synthetic dna in.

the landmark work done in oregon, the embryo itself repaired itself with the maternal aspect. and the concern is whether, just like autocorrect on your phone, whether that correction is done appropriately, or whether the wrong words were put in there. so, that's concern. the concern is having a missed target, so it's not just hitting the area it's supposed to, but another area. the concern is partially correcting it. or the concern is correcting it and--correcting the error, but then not fixing it appropriately. rosemary: mutations that could form from this, that could develop from this. the other concern, of course, is the ethical issues that this raises. in your opinion, is this the right direction to go? michael: it's a slippery slope. i think that it's a dramatic landmark study, and i think it's going to lead to many more discussions. and i truly believe, one day, crispr will be offered in the ivf centers just like we offer genetic testing.

but even the study itself, you're taking an egg, fertilizing it with sperm, making the correction. and in this study, they had 58 embryos, i think they corrected it in something like 42, 72%, but then they destroyed the embryos on day three. and in my practice and all the practices in ivf centers, there's that moral or ethical tapestry that we all live in. and some people, when the egg and the sperm meet, creates life, and therefore, destroying an embryo even in this study, is an ethical dilemma. but, moving forward, who can do this? even now, we have the ways to know which embryos are affected by more than 10,000 inherited diseases. can people afford ivf? can people afford the genetic testing to achieve that goal of a healthy baby? this is one step further. so, there's the ethics of this study being done now. there's the ethics of who will-- rosemary: have access to it. michael: correct, but then that slippery slope of, which is

discussed, blonde hair, blue eyes, i mean, there's some clear traits that could be determined or manipulated. rosemary: tell us about that. what are we talking about here? could race be manipulated in any way? obviously you just mentioned hair color, eye color. michael: well, i mean, the good news is the united states has a lot of safeguards. the nih, the fda will not fund any research that involves germ cell genetic manipulation, which this is what a germ cell is, the egg or the sperm or the embryo when it's first fertilized, occurred. and even look at in february, the national academy of science and medicine said that you can do basic research on genetic manipulation, but not germ cell that you will then implant into somebody, and therefore, not just change that individual, but change generations to come. and that's one of the concerns, we don't know what happens the next generation down and the next generation down. most things that people would gravitate to, you know, athleticism, intelligence are multiple traits.

so, it's not like you can turn a switch and have somebody be smarter or somebody be more athletic. but there are some clear characteristics that you could potentially adjust. now, even now in the laboratory, when we do ivf, we can test an embryo and tell you which ones are healthy, which ones aren't. and there would be a way, if we did a more advanced testing, next generation sequencing in a more advanced level, you could determine which embryos will potentially be blonde-haired, or blue-eyed, or which ones might have a higher cancer risk. rosemary: you can tell your patients that if you do this more advanced, i'm guessing probably maybe more expensive testing? michael: it's available; no one's doing it because of that ethical dilemma. right now, we'll keep it simple. i'll tell you whether the embryo's chromosomally normal or not, tell you whether it has one of these inherited diseases if you're looking for it. so, to this point, we've never done it because of the ethical concerns. and once again, it's that old story, the science is advancing faster than the ethical conversations.

but, you know, fortunately, this study does not mean that this is happening today, tomorrow, next year. seventy-two percent, seventy-four percent, that's a great percentage. you got to be closer to 100%, and you have to make sure that this wasn't just one peculiar issue relating to this one genetic abnormality relating to the cardiomyopathy.f diseases that could potentially benefit from this. but again, who can get to it, and will it ever get to that point? rosemary: you raise, of course, also the fact that there already is regulation related to this type of testing and this type of research. so, certainly that's the next piece of this in terms of regulation and discussion, laws that would impact the ability of this gene editing to move forward. michael: in the united states. so, what's going to happen is, while these regulations are in place, which they will stay in place because, again, there's a lot of controversy, there's a lot of arguments, we'll see it move off-site, we'll see it in other parts of the world where

they won't have these regulations. so, it's coming, and we got to be ready for it, and these conversations need to occur. rosemary: i would imagine too, even if we took it to the point where it would be available, it would be pretty expensive. and this, i think, is part of the point you raised about access. michael: correct, you know, a typical ivf cycle is $10,000. the drugs can add another $3,000 to $4,000. genetic testing of what we do now would be another $3,000, so you're already up to $17,000. then you got to add this new technique, which, right now, doesn't have a price tag. rosemary: dr. michael glassner with mainline fertility and reproductive medicine, thank you for being with us, and thank you for your insight. michael: of course, thank you. rosemary: next on "nbc10 @issue," more on dna. this time, we'll discuss home dna testing, what you'll learn and what you won't from kits designed to uncover your ancestry.

announcer: this is "nbc10 @issue." rosemary: they're gaining in popularity, home dna tests that offer clues into your ancestry. tests like ancestry.com and 23andme are available for under

$100, and they're easy to use. you simply spit into a plastic tube, send it away, and wait for the results. joining the discussion now is shamele jordon. shamele is a professional genealogist and the producer of "genealogy quick start" on philadelphia access public television, thanks for being with us, shamele. shamele jordon: thanks for having me. rosemary: so, first thing, how popular have these kits become? shamele: extremely popular. it's bringing all sorts of people into the kind of genealogy realm, where it was kind of just the nerds who kind of hung out in the archive. rosemary: you said, you used that word, not me. you are, of course, a genealogist. shamele: yes, yes. rosemary: you were saying it was more driven toward, initially, people who were scientifically inclined to find out this information, gravitated toward it, but now-- shamele: everyone wants to know specifically ethnicity, which is probably the least accurate part of the test. rosemary: really? shamele: yes, everyone wants to know, everyone wants to connect to a piece of ground, right? and the point is to connect to other human beings.

i mean, it's fun to learn, especially if you are african-american and you don't have a specific country that you come from, it's nice to kind of know a general region. but that part is the least accurate of the test. rosemary: explain why. shamele: because when you're matching samples, let's--i'll give you a ridiculous example. someone in italy takes a test and they match me in new jersey. does that mean that their ancestors back in the day came from new jersey? no, it's about when the sample was taken. people move around a lot. so, general regions--and the genealogist joke is that ethnicity is valid at the solar system level, so we all know that we are earthlings. rosemary: and that's about it. and it sounds like, too, whatever you do find out in terms of where your ancestors may have come from, it is a general region as opposed to when would pennsylvania-- shamele: exactly, exactly, so, in general, we already knew

that we kind of came from west africa, african-americans, but we're finding more in central, more central africa. so, it's a lot of fun just to connect with others in different countries. rosemary: you were telling me that part of this too is an emotional journey, being prepared emotionally to find out this information. shamele: huge emotional journey. when you're a genealogist, you hear the stories. but when you take the test, the dna doesn't lie, you know, whether or not that ancestor is actually your ancestor. possibly you have dna from different ethnicities that you didn't expect. maybe there's a child out there that you didn't know that you had. so, i hear that all the time. rosemary: what information will you not learn? because it seems as though, while these tests have become very popular, some people aren't clear about what they're actually going to find out. shamele: so, what you do find out is who you connect with, how closely you are related, and-- rosemary: and these are people who also have taken the test, correct?

shamele: yes, with the same company, and sometimes with different companies. you'll find--you'll learn a general bio, geographical region. and sometimes, if you take like 23andme, you'll get some medical things. so, it'll tell you some traits, possibly whether you're more inclined to bitter or sweet. it'll tell you maybe if you have variance for different genetic diseases. i know some millennials are concerned about alzheimer's. so, this test can tell you if you have a variable where you might be more likely to develop this, but it's not a diagnosis. rosemary: sure, and that's something important to point out to people. shamele: extremely important. rosemary: what else are you finding about these tests in terms of what people are learning and their expectations? shamele: people's expectations are that it's going to pinpoint them in a specific location. that's not going to necessarily happen. i think the biggest plus is for adoptees. a lot of times, there isn't even a story. so, once you take that test, it's going to

connect you to people. you just have to do the genealogy, to do the research to try to figure out how you're connected. rosemary: there are certainly some privacy issues related to this. shamele: huge with the privacy. you want to be careful with how you're using your raw data. like the doctor said earlier, the laws have to catch up with our technology. rosemary: what are you finding out about that in terms of privacy? have people run into issues in terms of giving up their information? what's the risk? shamele: so, the risk is this. sometimes, especially with adoptees, they're very excited, they get their results back, they have these close connections, and they might take that information and put it on facebook or something. and so, you want to be careful with how you connect with people, what you're sharing with other people. like me, i am the owner of multiple tests, so i've tested family members, so that's another responsibility

that i have to ensure that i maintain their privacy. rosemary: are there any issues related to some of these larger companies selling your information, or does it all stay within the system? shamele: i have not seen that yet, but that's always a fear. rosemary: maybe not now, but down the road or potentially. i mean, as we all know, hacking is certainly an ongoing issue. shamele: sure, just protect your privacy as much as you can when you're sharing that information online, and be cognizant. just because you're excited that you're connected to these people, they might not want their information broadcasted. rosemary: genealogist shamele jordon, thank you so much for being with us, appreciate it. shamele: thank you. rosemary: hate your boss? how about your co-workers? so quit, right? maybe not. we'll explain why when we come right back.

mii'm alive and have a second chance. announcer: this is "nbc10 @issue." james: i'm thankful for the help and the opportunity that i received. darlene: i'm thankful to be able to help people in crisis. vanessa: i'm thankful that addiction is treatable, and that help is available. christie: new jersey is experiencing a heroin epidemic fueled by opioid painkillers. but if you or someone you love is struggling with addiction, i want you to know: we are here for you. this holiday season, choose help. call 844 reach nj or visit reachnj.gov.

rosemary: unhappy with your job?

maybe thinking of quitting? well, you are not alone. a recent survey by officevibe of more than 50,000 workers finds 15% say they do not see themselves staying in their job a year from now. but quitting isn't always a good idea according to our guest, tracey jones. tracey is a career and leadership advisor. thanks for being with us, tracey. tracey jones: thank you so much. rosemary: tracey has a new book called "a message to millennials: what your parents didn't tell you and what your employer wants you to know." in the book, she outlines the worst reasons to quit your job. and tracey jones' top worst reasons to quit include: you don't like your co-workers, and you don't believe you're getting credit for your work, and of course long hours. so these are the reasons not to quit. but if you talk to anybody on the street, they might say that's exactly why they want to quit. tracey: absolutely, well, you know, there's three approaches with anything, and you always have these questions in life when we go through these cycles, not only in our professional lives, but in our personal lives, do i stay or do i go? and so, there's three options. we always heard fight or flight.

i don't recommend fighting. if you flight, you probably--there's always going to be grumpy co-workers. you may always find a boss that you don't click with. and long hours is really about--really looking at how you spend your time. so, i always recommend if you're operating from a position of unhappiness--and they say that anger is one letter away from danger. if you're upset at something at work, stop and try and find a way to adapt. but as you said, there certainly are ways that you should--and i don't call it quitting. when you're leaving a job for the other reasons that i'm talking about, that's more you're kind of graduating, you're going on to better opportunities. and that's a completely different ball of wax. you're, like, matriculating to something higher. rosemary: so, there are some good reasons to quit, some worthwhile reasons to quit. tracey: absolutely, i have changed careers five times in my life. who knows, with as long as we're living, how long that's going to be with the next ones. but if you, as you're going through your career advancement, you're going to find out other things that you're good at. as you become more self-aware, you're going to develop new talents you didn't know. also, if a better opportunity comes your way,

by all means take it. third, if you don't trust your boss, you may not like them, you may not even understand them, that's neither here nor there. but if you don't have a boss that you can trust, and you've talked to them and you suspect they don't have your back, it may be time to start looking elsewhere. and the fourth reason i tell people, if you have really flatlined, and there's no other opportunity for career advancement, and you want to keep growing your experience bag, and climbing up, and raising the bar on life, then, by all means, that is a completely acceptable reason to start looking elsewhere for employment. rosemary: in the beginning of the interview, we cited that study that said, you know, quite a few of the people who participated in it didn't see themselves in their job a year from now. as a leadership advisor and career professional advisor, do you find that people are telling you more and more frequently that they're ready to leave their jobs? tracey: i hear it all the time, and that's really why i wrote the book. the important part is to get clarity on, at your job, are you doing everything you can? have you spoken to your boss?

like i said, it's kind of the law of diminishing returns. you're going to see if you get to a point where there is no place else to go, then speak with your boss about it, they're going to be able to respect your wishes to know that you are a hard charger, and that you want to go elsewhere. rosemary: i think it's fair to say a lot of people describe their work environment, how they operate and work, is playing the game. as you said, meet with your boss, raise your hand, say, "i'm available." your book is geared toward millennials. do you think that they missed that message somewhere? tracey: well, a lot of them came to me and said, "hey, how do i become a leader?" and the book is really about by talking, by being an exemplary follower. so, they may have missed it. i'm a boomer, i got told that every day. and so, i'm trying to share it with them because it's a timeless truth, and they have been so encouraged and receptive of it. so yeah, we all have to get told in our 20s how to play the game. so, i'm just trying to pass the baton and help them be more tremendous. rosemary: one thing i should point out in your worst reasons to quit is you don't think you're getting enough credit. and one of the solutions that you point out is schedule time

to meet with your boss maybe quarterly to talk about it. tracey: absolutely, and the other thing is too, we've got to get off this, you know, if your boss thanks you, that's great, but your paycheck is really there to thank you. and we all want great leaders that will thank us, but if you don't get the credit, let your boss know, "hey, i'm one of those type of people that is coded that i want the recognition." because if your boss doesn't know it-- and not everybody wants it. some people just enjoy the satisfaction of a job well done. so, different strokes for different folks, and let them know what you're looking for, and that could go a long way. rosemary: good advice, tracey jones, thank you so much for being with us, really appreciate it. tracey: thank you. rosemary: and we'll be right back.

announcer: this is "nbc10 @issue." rosemary: that's it for this edition of "nbc10 @issue." thanks for joining us. you can join me again on weekend mornings on nbc10 news, beginning at 5 a.m. on saturday and 5:30 every sunday morning. have a great day. ♪ cc by aberdeen captioning 1-800-688-6621 abercap.com

advertisement for the 3 week yoga retreat. brought to you by beachbody. - are you a woman of a certain age? if you are, pull up a chair and sit with me, because this is for you. i'm leeza gibbons and it was a big year for me, i turned 60, and i'm all about aging gracefully with empowerment, and all of that, but let's be real, there are some parts about getting older that are just hard. - all the symptoms of menopause from a to z, i have them. - my body is changing. - i'm not as flexible as i used to be. - i'm anxious, i don't sleep. - my back hurts, my legs hurt. - my daughter said to me one day, mom, you need to stop taking care of everybody, and start taking care of you. - sound familiar? yeah, a lot of it did to me too, but i found a program that worked perfectly for me.