gene editing Sweeter tomatoes are coming soon thanks to CRISPR gene editing By www.newscientist.com Published On :: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:00:37 +0000 Selection for bigger tomatoes has made the fruits less sweet, but now it has been shown that gene editing can make them sweeter without decreasing yields Full Article
gene editing Bioethics of Gene Editing: Interview with Dr. Gayle Woloschak By www.ancientfaith.com Published On :: 2020-01-31T21:30:37+00:00 Dr. Albert Rossi interviews Dr. Gayle Woloschak on the topic of bioethics. Dr. Woloschak is a professor of Radiation Oncology at Northwestern University in Chicago and an adjunct professor of Religion and Science at Lutheran School of Theology Chicago, and at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, as well as Professor of Bioethics at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in Yonkers, NY. Full Article
gene editing National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine Announce Initiative on Human Gene Editing By Published On :: Mon, 18 May 2015 04:00:00 GMT The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine are launching a major initiative to guide decision making about controversial new research involving human gene editing. Full Article
gene editing On Human Gene Editing - International Summit Statement By Published On :: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 06:00:00 GMT Scientific advances in molecular biology over the past 50 years have produced remarkable progress in medicine. Some of these advances have also raised important ethical and societal issues – for example, about the use of recombinant DNA technologies or embryonic stem cells. Full Article
gene editing Statement by the Co-Sponsoring Presidents of the Summit on Human Gene Editing By Published On :: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 06:00:00 GMT We thank the organizers of our International Summit on Human Gene Editing for their thoughtful concluding statement and welcome their call for us to continue to lead a global discussion on issues related to human gene editing. Full Article
gene editing AI Plus Gene Editing Promises to Shift Biotech Into High Gear By www.discovermagazine.com Published On :: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:00:00 GMT AI knowledge combined with gene-editing precision opens the way to dial-a-protein. Full Article Technology
gene editing The great gene editing debate: can it be safe and ethical? By www.bbc.com Published On :: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 23:17:18 GMT A UK law allowing gene-edited food has been paused and some British scientists fear being overtaken. Full Article
gene editing Validating Single-Guide RNA for Aedes aegypti Gene Editing By cshprotocols.cshlp.org Published On :: 2024-09-03T07:12:25-07:00 Creating transgenic mosquitoes allows for mechanistic studies of basic mosquito biology and the development of novel vector control strategies. CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing has revolutionized gene editing, including in mosquitoes. This protocol details part of the gene editing process of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes via CRISPR–Cas9, through testing and validating single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs). Gene editing activity varies depending on the sequence of sgRNAs used, so validation of sgRNA activity should be done before large-scale generation of mutants or transgenics. sgRNA is designed using online tools and synthesized in <1 h. Once mutants or transgenics are generated via embryo microinjection, sgRNA activity is validated by quick genotyping polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA sequencing. Full Article
gene editing National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine Announce Initiative on Human Gene Editing By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 18 May 2015 04:00:00 GMT The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine are launching a major initiative to guide decision making about controversial new research involving human gene editing. Full Article
gene editing On Human Gene Editing - International Summit Statement By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 06:00:00 GMT Scientific advances in molecular biology over the past 50 years have produced remarkable progress in medicine. Some of these advances have also raised important ethical and societal issues – for example, about the use of recombinant DNA technologies or embryonic stem cells. Full Article
gene editing Statement by the Co-Sponsoring Presidents of the Summit on Human Gene Editing By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 06:00:00 GMT We thank the organizers of our International Summit on Human Gene Editing for their thoughtful concluding statement and welcome their call for us to continue to lead a global discussion on issues related to human gene editing. Full Article
gene editing For a quick lesson on gene editing or blockchain, there's Five Levels of Difficulty By www.mnn.com Published On :: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:21:52 +0000 Wired's video series, 'Five Levels of Difficulty,' challenges an expert to explain a complicated concept to people at five levels of expertise — and it's cool. Full Article Research & Innovations
gene editing First Clinical Trial Of Gene Editing To Help Target Cancer By packetstormsecurity.com Published On :: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 13:39:23 GMT Full Article headline science
gene editing Does gene editing hold key to better healthcare? By www.nation.co.ke Published On :: 2020-05-09T12:20:32Z Doctors believe this will revolutionalise medicine, but there are ethical and safety concerns Full Article
gene editing Should we edit our DNA? An imagined future of gene editing – video By www.theguardian.com Published On :: 2020-02-19T13:01:02Z There are decisions being made right now that could have an effect on global populations for generations to come. As part of this project, we commissioned an artist to investigate some of the themes raised in the podcasts. This work of fiction imagines a future where gene editing has become mainstream and discusses the moral, ethical and political divides that this might create Continue reading... Full Article Gene editing Science
gene editing DIY Tool Lets High Schoolers Practice Gene Editing By www.scientificamerican.com Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 12:00:00 GMT With a few dollars, researchers replicated an instrument that typically costs thousands -- Read more on ScientificAmerican.com Full Article Advances Tech Medical & Biotech
gene editing Gene editing: New challenges, old lessons By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:30:00 -0400 It has been hailed as the most significant discovery in biology since polymerase chain reaction allowed for the mass replication of DNA samples. CRISPR-Cas9 is an inexpensive and easy-to-use gene-editing method that promises applications ranging from medicine to industrial agriculture to biofuels. Currently, applications to treat leukemia, HIV, and cancer are under experimental development.1 However, new technical solutions tend to be fraught with old problems, and in this case, ethical and legal questions loom large over the future. Disagreements on ethics The uptake of this method has been so fast that many scientists have started to worry about inadequate regulation of research and its unanticipated consequences.2 Consider, for instance, the disagreement on research on human germ cells (eggs, sperm, or embryos) where an edited gene is passed onto offspring. Since the emergence of bioengineering applications in the 1970s, the scientific community has eschewed experiments to alter human germline and some governments have even banned them.3 The regulation regimes are expectedly not uniform: for instance, China bans the implantation of genetically modified embryos in women but not the research with embryos. Last year, a group of Chinese researchers conducted gene-editing experiments on non-viable human zygotes (fertilized eggs) using CRISPR.4 News that these experiments were underway prompted a group of leading U.S. geneticists to meet in March 2015 in Napa, California, to begin a serious consideration of ethical and legal dimensions of CRISPR and called for a moratorium on research editing genes in human germline.5 Disregarding that call, the Chinese researchers published their results later in the year largely reporting a failure to precisely edit targeted genes without accidentally editing non-targets. CRISPR is not yet sufficiently precise. CRISPR reignited an old debate on human germline research that is one of the central motivations (but surely not the only one) for an international summit on gene editing hosted by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.'s Royal Society in December 2015. About 500 scientists as well as experts in the legal and ethical aspects of bioengineering attended.6 Rather than consensus, the meeting highlighted the significant contrasts among participants about the ethics of inquiry, and more generally, about the governance of science. Illustrative of these contrasts are the views of prominent geneticists Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard. Collins argues that the “balance of the debate leans overwhelmingly against human germline engineering.” In turn, Church, while a signatory of the moratorium called by the Napa group, has nevertheless suggested reasons why CRISPR is shifting the balance in favor of lifting the ban on human germline experiments.7 The desire to speed up discovery of cures for heritable diseases is laudable. But tinkering with human germline is truly a human concern and cannot be presumed to be the exclusive jurisdictions of scientists, clinicians, or patients. All members of society have a stake in the evolution of CRISPR and must be part of the conversation about what kind of research should be permitted, what should be discouraged, and what disallowed. To relegate lay citizens to react to CRISPR applications—i.e. to vote with their wallets once applications hit the market—is to reduce their citizenship to consumer rights, and public participation to purchasing power.8 Yet, neither the NAS summit nor the earlier Napa meeting sought to solicit the perspectives of citizens, groups, and associations other than those already tuned in the CRISPR debates.9 The scientific community has a bond to the larger society in which it operates that in its most basic form is the bond of the scientist to her national community, is the notion that the scientist is a citizen of society before she is a denizen of science. This bond entails liberties and responsibilities that transcend the ethos and telos of science and, consequently, subordinates science to the social compact. It is worth recalling this old lesson from the history of science as we continue the public debate on gene editing. Scientists are free to hold specific moral views and prescriptions about the proper conduct of research and the ethical limits of that conduct, but they are not free to exclude the rest of society from weighing in on the debate with their own values and moral imaginations about what should be permitted and what should be banned in research. The governance of CRISPR is a question of collective choice that must be answered by means of democratic deliberation and, when irreconcilable differences arise, by the due process of democratic institutions. Patent disputes More heated than the ethical debate is the legal battle for key CRISPR patents that has embroiled prominent scientists involved in perfecting this method. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated a formal contestation process, called interference, in March 2016 to adjudicate the dispute. The process is likely to take years and appeals are expected to extend further in time. Challenges are also expected to patents filed internationally, including those filed with the European Patent Office. To put this dispute in perspective, it is instructive to consider the history of CRISPR authored by one of the celebrities in gene science, Eric Lander.10 This article ignited a controversy because it understated the role of one of the parties to the patent dispute (Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier), while casting the other party as truly culminating the development of this technology (Feng Zhang, who is affiliated to Lander’s Broad Institute). Some gene scientists accused Lander of tendentious inaccuracies and of trying to spin a story in a manner that favors the legal argument (and economic interest) of Zhang. Ironically, the contentious article could be read as an argument against any particular claim to the CRISPR patents as it implicitly questions the fairness of granting exclusive rights to an invention. Lander tells the genesis of CRISPR that extends through a period of two decades and over various countries, where the protagonists are the many researchers who contributed to the cumulative knowledge in the ongoing development of the method. The very title of Lander’s piece, “The Heroes of CRISPR” highlights that the technology has not one but a plurality of authors. A patent is a legal instrument that recognizes certain rights of the patent holder (individual, group, or organization) and at the same time denies those rights to everyone else, including those other contributors to the invention. Patent rights are thus arbitrary under the candle of history. I am not suggesting that the bureaucratic rules to grant a patent or to determine its validity are arbitrary; they have logical rationales anchored in practice and precedent. I am suggesting that in principle any exclusive assignation of rights that does not include the entire community responsible for the invention is arbitrary and thus unfair. The history of CRISPR highlights this old lesson from the history of technology: an invention does not belong to its patent holder, except in a court of law. Some scientists may be willing to accept with resignation the unfair distribution of recognition granted by patents (or prizes like the Nobel) and find consolation in the fact that their contribution to science has real effects on people’s lives as it materializes in things like new therapies and drugs. Yet patents are also instrumental in distributing those real effects quite unevenly. Patents create monopolies that, selling their innovation at high prices, benefit only those who can afford them. The regular refrain to this charge is that without the promise of high profits, there would be no investments in innovation and no advances in life-saving medicine. What’s more, the biotech industry reminds us that start-ups will secure capital injections only if they have exclusive rights to the technologies they are developing. Yet, Editas Medicine, a biotech start-up that seeks to exploit commercial applications of CRISPR (Zhang is a stakeholder), was able to raise $94 million in its February 2016 initial public offering. That some of Editas’ key patents are disputed and were entering interference at USPTO was patently not a deterrent for those investors. Towards a CRISPR democratic debate Neither the governance of gene-editing research nor the management of CRISPR patents should be the exclusive responsibility of scientists. Yet, they do enjoy an advantage in public deliberations on gene editing that is derived from their technical competence and from the authority ascribed to them by society. They can use this advantage to close the public debate and monopolize its terms, or they could turn it into stewardship of a truly democratic debate about CRISPR. The latter choice can benefit from three steps. A first step would be openness: a public willingness to consider and internalize public values that are not easily reconciled with research values. A second step would be self-restraint: publicly affirming a self-imposed ban on research with human germline and discouraging research practices that are contrary to received norms of prudence. A third useful step would be a public service orientation in the use of patents: scientists should pressure their universities, who hold title to their inventions, to preserve some degree of influence over research commercialization so that the dissemination and access to innovations is consonant with the noble aspirations of science and the public service mission of the university. Openness, self-restraint, and an orientation to service from scientists will go a long way to make of CRISPR a true servant of society and an instrument of democracy. Other reading: See media coverage compiled by the National Academies of Sciences. 1Nature: an authoritative and accessible primer. A more technical description of applications in Hsu, P. D. et al. 2014. Cell, 157(6): 1262–1278. 2For instance, see this reflection in Science, and this in Nature. 3More about ethical concerns on gene editing here: http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8711 4Liang, P. et al. 2015. Protein & Cell, 6, 363–372 5Science: A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. 6Nature: NAS Gene Editing Summit. 7While Collins and Church participated in the summit, their views quoted here are from StatNews.com: A debate: Should we edit the human germline. See also Sciencenews.org: Editing human germline cells sparks ethics debate. 8Hurlbut, J. B. 2015. Limits of Responsibility, Hastings Center Report, 45(5): 11-14. 9This point is forcefully made by Sheila Jasanoff and colleagues: CRISPR Democracy, 2015 Issues in S&T, 22(1). 10Lander, E. 2016. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1-2): 18-28. Authors Walter D. Valdivia Image Source: © Robert Pratta / Reuters Full Article
gene editing Gene editing: New challenges, old lessons By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:30:00 -0400 It has been hailed as the most significant discovery in biology since polymerase chain reaction allowed for the mass replication of DNA samples. CRISPR-Cas9 is an inexpensive and easy-to-use gene-editing method that promises applications ranging from medicine to industrial agriculture to biofuels. Currently, applications to treat leukemia, HIV, and cancer are under experimental development.1 However, new technical solutions tend to be fraught with old problems, and in this case, ethical and legal questions loom large over the future. Disagreements on ethics The uptake of this method has been so fast that many scientists have started to worry about inadequate regulation of research and its unanticipated consequences.2 Consider, for instance, the disagreement on research on human germ cells (eggs, sperm, or embryos) where an edited gene is passed onto offspring. Since the emergence of bioengineering applications in the 1970s, the scientific community has eschewed experiments to alter human germline and some governments have even banned them.3 The regulation regimes are expectedly not uniform: for instance, China bans the implantation of genetically modified embryos in women but not the research with embryos. Last year, a group of Chinese researchers conducted gene-editing experiments on non-viable human zygotes (fertilized eggs) using CRISPR.4 News that these experiments were underway prompted a group of leading U.S. geneticists to meet in March 2015 in Napa, California, to begin a serious consideration of ethical and legal dimensions of CRISPR and called for a moratorium on research editing genes in human germline.5 Disregarding that call, the Chinese researchers published their results later in the year largely reporting a failure to precisely edit targeted genes without accidentally editing non-targets. CRISPR is not yet sufficiently precise. CRISPR reignited an old debate on human germline research that is one of the central motivations (but surely not the only one) for an international summit on gene editing hosted by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.'s Royal Society in December 2015. About 500 scientists as well as experts in the legal and ethical aspects of bioengineering attended.6 Rather than consensus, the meeting highlighted the significant contrasts among participants about the ethics of inquiry, and more generally, about the governance of science. Illustrative of these contrasts are the views of prominent geneticists Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard. Collins argues that the “balance of the debate leans overwhelmingly against human germline engineering.” In turn, Church, while a signatory of the moratorium called by the Napa group, has nevertheless suggested reasons why CRISPR is shifting the balance in favor of lifting the ban on human germline experiments.7 The desire to speed up discovery of cures for heritable diseases is laudable. But tinkering with human germline is truly a human concern and cannot be presumed to be the exclusive jurisdictions of scientists, clinicians, or patients. All members of society have a stake in the evolution of CRISPR and must be part of the conversation about what kind of research should be permitted, what should be discouraged, and what disallowed. To relegate lay citizens to react to CRISPR applications—i.e. to vote with their wallets once applications hit the market—is to reduce their citizenship to consumer rights, and public participation to purchasing power.8 Yet, neither the NAS summit nor the earlier Napa meeting sought to solicit the perspectives of citizens, groups, and associations other than those already tuned in the CRISPR debates.9 The scientific community has a bond to the larger society in which it operates that in its most basic form is the bond of the scientist to her national community, is the notion that the scientist is a citizen of society before she is a denizen of science. This bond entails liberties and responsibilities that transcend the ethos and telos of science and, consequently, subordinates science to the social compact. It is worth recalling this old lesson from the history of science as we continue the public debate on gene editing. Scientists are free to hold specific moral views and prescriptions about the proper conduct of research and the ethical limits of that conduct, but they are not free to exclude the rest of society from weighing in on the debate with their own values and moral imaginations about what should be permitted and what should be banned in research. The governance of CRISPR is a question of collective choice that must be answered by means of democratic deliberation and, when irreconcilable differences arise, by the due process of democratic institutions. Patent disputes More heated than the ethical debate is the legal battle for key CRISPR patents that has embroiled prominent scientists involved in perfecting this method. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated a formal contestation process, called interference, in March 2016 to adjudicate the dispute. The process is likely to take years and appeals are expected to extend further in time. Challenges are also expected to patents filed internationally, including those filed with the European Patent Office. To put this dispute in perspective, it is instructive to consider the history of CRISPR authored by one of the celebrities in gene science, Eric Lander.10 This article ignited a controversy because it understated the role of one of the parties to the patent dispute (Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier), while casting the other party as truly culminating the development of this technology (Feng Zhang, who is affiliated to Lander’s Broad Institute). Some gene scientists accused Lander of tendentious inaccuracies and of trying to spin a story in a manner that favors the legal argument (and economic interest) of Zhang. Ironically, the contentious article could be read as an argument against any particular claim to the CRISPR patents as it implicitly questions the fairness of granting exclusive rights to an invention. Lander tells the genesis of CRISPR that extends through a period of two decades and over various countries, where the protagonists are the many researchers who contributed to the cumulative knowledge in the ongoing development of the method. The very title of Lander’s piece, “The Heroes of CRISPR” highlights that the technology has not one but a plurality of authors. A patent is a legal instrument that recognizes certain rights of the patent holder (individual, group, or organization) and at the same time denies those rights to everyone else, including those other contributors to the invention. Patent rights are thus arbitrary under the candle of history. I am not suggesting that the bureaucratic rules to grant a patent or to determine its validity are arbitrary; they have logical rationales anchored in practice and precedent. I am suggesting that in principle any exclusive assignation of rights that does not include the entire community responsible for the invention is arbitrary and thus unfair. The history of CRISPR highlights this old lesson from the history of technology: an invention does not belong to its patent holder, except in a court of law. Some scientists may be willing to accept with resignation the unfair distribution of recognition granted by patents (or prizes like the Nobel) and find consolation in the fact that their contribution to science has real effects on people’s lives as it materializes in things like new therapies and drugs. Yet patents are also instrumental in distributing those real effects quite unevenly. Patents create monopolies that, selling their innovation at high prices, benefit only those who can afford them. The regular refrain to this charge is that without the promise of high profits, there would be no investments in innovation and no advances in life-saving medicine. What’s more, the biotech industry reminds us that start-ups will secure capital injections only if they have exclusive rights to the technologies they are developing. Yet, Editas Medicine, a biotech start-up that seeks to exploit commercial applications of CRISPR (Zhang is a stakeholder), was able to raise $94 million in its February 2016 initial public offering. That some of Editas’ key patents are disputed and were entering interference at USPTO was patently not a deterrent for those investors. Towards a CRISPR democratic debate Neither the governance of gene-editing research nor the management of CRISPR patents should be the exclusive responsibility of scientists. Yet, they do enjoy an advantage in public deliberations on gene editing that is derived from their technical competence and from the authority ascribed to them by society. They can use this advantage to close the public debate and monopolize its terms, or they could turn it into stewardship of a truly democratic debate about CRISPR. The latter choice can benefit from three steps. A first step would be openness: a public willingness to consider and internalize public values that are not easily reconciled with research values. A second step would be self-restraint: publicly affirming a self-imposed ban on research with human germline and discouraging research practices that are contrary to received norms of prudence. A third useful step would be a public service orientation in the use of patents: scientists should pressure their universities, who hold title to their inventions, to preserve some degree of influence over research commercialization so that the dissemination and access to innovations is consonant with the noble aspirations of science and the public service mission of the university. Openness, self-restraint, and an orientation to service from scientists will go a long way to make of CRISPR a true servant of society and an instrument of democracy. Other reading: See media coverage compiled by the National Academies of Sciences. 1Nature: an authoritative and accessible primer. A more technical description of applications in Hsu, P. D. et al. 2014. Cell, 157(6): 1262–1278. 2For instance, see this reflection in Science, and this in Nature. 3More about ethical concerns on gene editing here: http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8711 4Liang, P. et al. 2015. Protein & Cell, 6, 363–372 5Science: A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. 6Nature: NAS Gene Editing Summit. 7While Collins and Church participated in the summit, their views quoted here are from StatNews.com: A debate: Should we edit the human germline. See also Sciencenews.org: Editing human germline cells sparks ethics debate. 8Hurlbut, J. B. 2015. Limits of Responsibility, Hastings Center Report, 45(5): 11-14. 9This point is forcefully made by Sheila Jasanoff and colleagues: CRISPR Democracy, 2015 Issues in S&T, 22(1). 10Lander, E. 2016. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1-2): 18-28. Authors Walter D. Valdivia Image Source: © Robert Pratta / Reuters Full Article
gene editing CRISPR Gene Editing May Help Scale Up Coronavirus Testing By rss.sciam.com Published On :: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:00:00 GMT An inexpensive assay based on the technique can provide yes or no answers in under an hour—perhaps even in the home soon -- Read more on ScientificAmerican.com Full Article Health Public Health Tech Medical & Biotech
gene editing New CRISPR-Cas9 Protein Increases Precision of Gene Editing By www.medindia.net Published On :: CRISPR-Cas9 protein was found to help increase the targeting accuracy in the genome editing process, revealed a team of researchers from City University of Hong Kong (CityU) and Karolinska Institutet. Full Article
gene editing CRISPR, Gene Editing Tool to Find Muscular Dystrophy Treatments By www.medindia.net Published On :: CRISPR-Cas9, the gene editing technology helps better understand facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) and explore potential treatments, found new study. Full Article
gene editing Could gene editing fight the AIDS crisis? By www.dailymail.co.uk Published On :: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:04:16 GMT Experts say gene editing, which has been FDA-approved to treat cancer and blindness, could also be used to treat HIV and AIDS. Full Article
gene editing Lipid and polymer mediated CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing By pubs.rsc.org Published On :: J. Mater. Chem. B, 2020, Advance ArticleDOI: 10.1039/D0TB00207K, Review ArticleYan Gong, Siyu Tian, Yang Xuan, Shubiao ZhangA clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/associated protein 9 (CRISPR/Cas9) system is the most widely used tool for gene editing.To cite this article before page numbers are assigned, use the DOI form of citation above.The content of this RSS Feed (c) The Royal Society of Chemistry Full Article
gene editing Human flourishing in an age of gene editing / edited by Erik Parens, Josephine Johnston By library.mit.edu Published On :: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:00:11 EDT Online Resource Full Article
gene editing Crispr Gene Editing Explained By www.wired.com Published On :: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:00:00 +0000 Maybe you've heard of Crispr, the gene editing tool that could forever change life. So what is it and how does it work? Let us explain. Full Article
gene editing First in vivo CRISPR gene editing in humans By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: 07 Mar 2020 11:18:39 +0000 Full Article
gene editing [ASAP] Shining Light on CRISPR Gene Editing By dx.doi.org Published On :: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 04:00:00 GMT ACS Central ScienceDOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.0c00350 Full Article
