Why can there be huge clinical trial fees for participants? I am often critical of for-profit stem cell clinics on this blog for numerous reasons. For instance, one thing that concerns me greatly about these clinics is that they charge patients to get experimental “treatments” that have not been proven to be safe or effective. But […]
Huge clinical trial fees allowed by FDA at times, details often secret Read More »
An important new Cell Stem Cell paper from Dieter Egli’s lab points to an inherent, serious problem with so-called 3-person IVF or mitochondrial replacement technology that warrants putting an immediate hold on all efforts to use it in humans. I have pasted the graphical abstract from the paper below. For years a few of us scientists and
UK should freeze mitochondrial replacement as Egli paper ID’s serious problem 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 »
I talked last year about human genetic modification by CRISPR with George Church a year ago. Now we’ve followed up with a long chat on this topic going into much more detail and with questions on recent developments. Each question is listed numerically and then there is a back and forth on that question with George
George Church chat: CRISPR people, Zika, weapons Read More »
One of the rewarding things about being a scientist is the opportunity to connect and even collaborate with other scientists around the world., but at the same time there is nationalism in science too. Some nations, perhaps most of them, and some scientists feel a sense of competition against others at least some of the time.
A role for nationalism in science? Read More »
Four or five years ago the top stem cell story was the battle over federal funding of human embryonic stem (ES) cell research in the U.S. by James Sherley and Theresa Deisher. They were the two opponents of ES cell research making the most national headlines. Nature did a whole piece back then on Deisher
Where are ES cell foes James Sherley & Theresa Deisher now? Read More »
The biggest debate today in the stem cell world is over how much regulation is needed for new, investigational stem cell therapies that are not as yet approved. Sometimes it feels very lonely being out there publicly advocating for appropriately thorough regulation of stem cell therapies and at times I get a lot of heat for
Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM) Opposes REGROW Act, Risks to Patients Cited Read More »
There’s a questionable notion floating around out there in the numerous discussions over heritable human genetic modification and CRISPR. This idea goes that if germline human gene editing goes awry for any number of reasons, scientists could simply reverse it by applying genetics again. The reversal notion does not fit with the reality of science
You can’t retract a designer baby: CRISPR, social justice, & risks Read More »