For a few years, biophysicist He Jiankui might have been one of the most recognizable scientists on the planet. He made three “CRISPR babies” or gene edited people. However, his gene editing went badly and as best as we can tell his efforts did not result in precision edits. It’s unclear if he had institutional […]
My lab’s new paper in Communications Biology focused on high-grade pediatric glioma that have mutant histone variant H3.3 and we did something fairly novel that we are calling reciprocal CRISPR. Kids with these tumors have a near zero survival rate within a few years of diagnosis so we as a field desperately need something new to give
Reciprocal CRISPR gene editing in pediatric glioma: defining mechanisms & testing drugs Read More »
Is it possible that CRISPR gene editing actually didn’t happen in many of the human embryos in that big Nature paper that made such news a couple weeks back? Some doubts have emerged that call the main conclusions of the paper into question and argue that more definitive studies are needed to be sure. An
Doubts raised on key points of Nature paper on CRISPR gene editing of human embryos Read More »
2020 Update: early NgAgo reports have been mostly discredited and there is doubt on its function as a gene-editing method. What could be better than CRISPR for gene editing? A new genetic modification technology called NgAgo has some researchers really excited. How does it compare to CRISPR? I’ll admit it that as a scientist who works on
Will new gene editing tech NgAgo challenge CRISPR? Read More »
Editor’s note. Caroline Simons attended both the April 28th (see her report on that here) and 29th Paris meetings on human gene editing/genetic modification. Today, we have her in depth report on the April 29th meeting. I have posted her piece in full with only minor edits. If you are in a rush you can
In Depth Report from April 29th Paris Human Gene Editing Meeting Read More »
Editors note: This is a guest post from Caroline Simons who is attending the two Paris meetings on human gene editing. For more background on those meetings see here. By Caroline Simons There were just over a hundred participants at the workshop organized by the Federation of European Academies of Medicine, the UK Academy of
Paris human gene editing workshop summary Read More »
This week there will be two meetings in Paris as part of the ongoing international dialogue on human genetic modification/human gene editing, CRISPR, and figuring out a wise path forward. A one-day workshop will be held on April 28th “jointly organised by the Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM), the UK Academy of Medical
Scoop on this week’s Paris human gene editing meetings Read More »
Back in December, the US National Academies held a first of its kind meeting on human gene editing. Keeping the dialogue going, there is a follow up meeting planned for April 29 in Paris, France. The Paris meeting is described this way: “Upcoming Public Meeting in Paris The consensus committee will host a public meeting
Follow up Gene Editing Meeting to be Held in Paris in April on Human CRISPR Read More »
Now we have an interesting panel starting on questions of governance on human gene editing. This will focus on institutional and national levels of governance. Pilar N. Ossorio, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Morgridge Institute for Research, is introducing the panel. Key question: how should emerging technologies being governed? Jonathan Kimmelman, from McGill, was the first
Live Blogging #GeneEditSummit Day 2 Post #1: Governance of human gene editing Read More »
The Summit on Human Gene Editing got off to a great start yesterday. I have four posts summarizing all the talks and my impressions on the points made (here, here, here, and here). What was the overall gestalt including from talking to people informally? What were the big takeaway messages so far from Day 1? Diverse views.
Human Gene Editing takeaways from day 1 of #GeneEditSummit Read More »