editing

Information editing apparatus

An information editing device is provided with an object storage portion 11 in which a character string object or image object is stored, a placement information storage portion 12 that stores placement area designation information that sets two or more placement areas that do not overlap each other for respectively placing the objects, and that correspond to the objects, an object output portion 13 that outputs, into placement areas that are set based on the placement area designation information, each of the objects corresponding to the respective placement areas, an input receiving portion 14 that receives a deletion instruction or a modification instruction for at least one of the objects output by the object output portion 13, and a placement modification portion 15 that, according to the deletion instruction or modification instruction, modifies the placement area of the object such that the placement area is placed without overlapping.




editing

Decoding apparatus, decoding method, encoding apparatus, encoding method, and editing apparatus

A decoding apparatus (10) is disclosed which includes: a storing means (11) for storing encoded audio signals including multi-channel audio signals; a transforming means (40) for transforming the encoded audio signals to generate transform block-based audio signals in a time domain; a window processing means (41) for multiplying the transform block-based audio signals by a product of a mixture ratio of the audio signals and a first window function, the product being a second window function; a synthesizing means (43) for overlapping the multiplied transform block-based audio signals to synthesize audio signals of respective channels; and a mixing means (14) for mixing audio signals of the respective channels between the channels to generate a downmixed audio signal. Furthermore, an encoding apparatus is also disclosed which downmixes the multi-channel audio signals, encodes the downmixed audio signals, and generates the encoded, downmixed audio signals.




editing

Position editing tool of collage multi-media

In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, methods and apparatus are provided for flexible and user-friendly position editing of loaded media in a multi-media presentation. In one embodiment, a method for editing the position of loaded media comprises loading a page of a collage document to a client device, the page having a plurality of layers with each layer being associated with a media object, and creating a list of layers of the loaded page with each layer indexed by at least a position in the collage document. The method further includes selecting a first media object, selecting a position editing tool to group the first media object and at least one other media object adjacent to the first media object; and moving the grouped first media object and the at least one other media object to a different position in the collage document. A client device for position editing loaded media is also disclosed.




editing

Automatic performance apparatus storing and editing performance information

An automatic performance apparatus includes a memory device, an input device, a write device, a switching device, and a write control device. The memory device stores performance information. The input device inputs the performance information. The write device sequentially writes the performance information at predetermined addresses of the memory device on the basis of an operation of the input device. The switching device commands rewriting. In response to a command from the switching device, the write control device returns a write address of the memory device to an immediately preceding start point of a predetermined music composition unit having two or more notes, thereby enabling an easy and accurate edit of the once stored performance information.




editing

Video processing apparatus, method of adding time code, and methode of preparing editing list

A video processing apparatus is provided. The video processing apparatus includes: an inputter inputting video signals of a plurality of systems, and a processor generating processed video signals by performing switching on the video signals of two or more systems input into the inputter. Further, the video processing apparatus includes: a time code generator generating a time code, and a time code adder adding the time code to the input video signals and the generated video signals respectively, outputs the video signals with the time code to be recorded in a recording medium.




editing

Image editing apparatus, image editing method and program

Method and information processing apparatus for generating an edited work including a subset of a plurality of scenes in an image material. The information processing apparatus includes a memory configured to store the image material including the plurality of scenes. The information processing apparatus further includes a processor configured to select, for an n-th scene of the edited work, a plurality of first candidate scenes from the plurality of scenes based on at least one feature of a preceding (nāˆ’1-th) scene of the edited work and features of the plurality of scenes. The processor is also configured to generate a graphical user interface including a scene selection area and a preview area. The scene selection area includes one or more first candidate images corresponding to at least one of the plurality of first candidate scenes, and the preview area includes a preview of the preceding (nāˆ’1-th) scene.




editing

Apparatus and method for editing

An editing method comprises: generating, from a material data which is generated according to a first time and in which a first time range is specified, a playback data that is to be played back according to a second time different from the first time; and locating a second time range, which includes the material data within the first time range, in the playback data.





editing

Magix releases Vegas Movie Studio 17 video editing software

Magix has announced the release of VEGAS Movie Studio 17, the latest version of the video editing solution for both beginners and more advanced users. The update comes with powerful effects and transitions management, smoother video preview, unified color grading workflow, optical-flow slow motion, and warp flow transition. If you strive to make astonishing videos, […]

The post Magix releases Vegas Movie Studio 17 video editing software appeared first on rekkerd.org.




editing

Blackbird's Moment Arises as Video Industry Embraces Cloud-Based Collaborative Editing

As business professionals, educators, and others around the globe rely on web conferencing solutions like Zoom to communicate under current conditions, post houses, broadcasters, and video rights holders are either acquainting themselves with cloud video editing solutions like the popular Blackbird platform, or moving once-peripheral distributed production workflows to the center of their operations.




editing

Make Your Podcast Editing and Publishing Workflow Faster with Alitu

Publishing your podcast is quick and easy with Alitu! Now, you can also add an introductory teaser to your episodes. Plus, Alitu will automatically enhance the audio. When it's finished, Alitu can automatically publish your episodes with the best podcast publishing tools. Thanks to Dr. Colin Gray for joining me in this video! Watch all...




editing

Editing

When we’re just starting out as writers or artists it can be hard for us to go back to the drawing board after we’ve composed the first draft. But why is it easier to be willing to edit after years of experience? In this edition of Two Guys on Your Head, Dr. Art Markman and...




editing

Cervical cancer 'cure' closer with gene-editing breakthrough, scientists say

In a world first, Queensland researchers say have been able to "cure" cervical cancer in mice using gene-editing technology and they are working towards performing human trials in the next five years.





editing

Britt Adamson named 2020 Searle Scholar for studies of genome editing

Britt Adamson, an assistant professor in the Department of Molecular Biology and the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, has been named a 2020 Searle Scholar. The program supports bold research programs with the potential to discover fundamental insights and improve health.





editing

Thelma Schoonmaker on editing 'Irishman' and her long partnership with Martin Scorsese

Thelma Schoonmaker began working with Martin Scorsese in 1967. Over the years, she says, it has become more of a collaboration.





editing

Editing the bible

  We’ve all seen them, Womens circle knitting on, Saturday, Mens having breakfast to learn, How to lead, Ever been inside a church, I mean inside? You know the ones; Don’t Talk on the phone when you’re, Writing notes, Don’t come in late when Next door, Looking over the shoulder of The fat woman in […]




editing

AADEJ to host dental editing workshop in Anaheim

Anaheim, Calif. ā€” The American Association of Dental Editors & Journalists is hosting Dental Editors University West May 14-15 at the Anaheim Hilton in Anaheim, California.




editing

Budget Cuts Lead Wyoming to Scale Back Relationship With Accrediting Agency

AdvancED, the national accreditation company, has for the last two years operated Wyoming's entire accreditation process but the state will now do the work on its own.




editing

The Best Photo Editing Software for 2020

Whether you're a casual smartphone shooter or a professional using an SLR, software can get the most out of your images. We help you find the best photo editing software for your needs.




editing

IC Packagers: Advanced In-Design Symbol Editing

We have talked about aspects of the in-design symbol edit application mode in the past. This is the environment specific to the Allegro® Package Designer Plus layout tools allowing you to work...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]




editing

IC Packagers: Advanced In-Design Symbol Editing

We have talked about aspects of the in-design symbol edit application mode in the past. This is the environment specific to the Allegro Package Designer layout tools allowing you to work on symbol definitions directly in the context of your layout de...(read more)



  • Allegro Package Designer

editing

Virtuosity: Concurrently Editing a Hierarchical Cellview

This blog discusses key features of concurrently editing a hierarchical cellview.(read more)




editing

First Clinical Trial Of Gene Editing To Help Target Cancer




editing

Does gene editing hold key to better healthcare?

Doctors believe this will revolutionalise medicine, but there are ethical and safety concerns




editing

AI taught to instantly transform objects in image-editing software

An image-editing program designed by researchers at Abode uses AI to let you quickly transform the shape of objects in images and change the lighting




editing

Should we edit our DNA? An imagined future of gene editing ā€“ video

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...




editing

DIY Tool Lets High Schoolers Practice Gene Editing  

With a few dollars, researchers replicated an instrument that typically costs thousands 

-- Read more on ScientificAmerican.com




editing

Advances in genome editing: the technology of choice for precise and efficient Ī²-thalassemia treatment




editing

Dynamic regulation of Z-DNA in the mouse prefrontal cortex by the RNA-editing enzyme Adar1 is required for fear extinction




editing

Efficient generation of mouse models with the prime editing system




editing

HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code editing with Edge Code

Edge Code is an Adobe branded release of the Brackets project: a lightweight code editor with next-wave features.




editing

Gene editing: New challenges, old lessons


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.

Image Source: © Robert Pratta / Reuters
       




editing

Gene editing: New challenges, old lessons


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.

Image Source: © Robert Pratta / Reuters
      
 
 




editing

CRISPR Gene Editing May Help Scale Up Coronavirus Testing

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




editing

New CRISPR-Cas9 Protein Increases Precision of Gene Editing

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.




editing

CRISPR, Gene Editing Tool to Find Muscular Dystrophy Treatments

CRISPR-Cas9, the gene editing technology helps better understand facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) and explore potential treatments, found new study.




editing

Crispr scientist on the ethics of editing humans

Her gene-editing tool could cure disease and change the human race. But what happens if it falls into the wrong hands?




editing

MAFS' Martha talks 'editing and manipulation' amid reality stars' legal bids

A former House Rules contestant received a payout from Channel Seven last week after being unfairly portrayed as a 'villain' on the show.




editing

Woman is hailed an 'icon' for editing the captions of Instagram pictures with bad ex-boyfriends

Rosie from Singapore edited the captions of several old Instagram photos with old flames to portray what was really happening behind the scenes with those guys.




editing

The latest MasterChef: Back To Win editing fail revealed

Wednesday night's episode of MasterChef: Back To Win saw contestants taking part in a mystery box challenge.But there was one mystery man that threatened to steal the show.




editing

Could gene editing fight the AIDS crisis?

Experts say gene editing, which has been FDA-approved to treat cancer and blindness, could also be used to treat HIV and AIDS.




editing

Kylie and Kendall Jenner make the odd move of crediting their retouch expert

In the caption, the power sisters even credited the man who did the retouching for the photograph in a rare move.




editing

Facebook crack down on fake news campaign aimed at discrediting Manchester City

EXCLUSIVE BY MIKE KEEGAN: Users were directed to bogus stories which reported persistent slurs against the Premier League champions.




editing

New coronavirus test uses CRISPR gene-editing too to detect virus

One of the teams of scientists that first developed the gene-editing tool has altered it so that it can search out viral RNA instead of human DNA for a test that could even eventually be run at home.




editing

Facebook crack down on fake news campaign aimed at discrediting Manchester City

EXCLUSIVE BY MIKE KEEGAN: Users were directed to bogus stories which reported persistent slurs against the Premier League champions.




editing

[ASAP] Allosteric Control of Enzyme Activity: From Ancient Origins to Recent Gene-Editing Technologies

Biochemistry
DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.0c00275




editing

Mental conditioning to perform common operations in general surgery training: a systematic approach to expediting skill acquisition and maintaining dexterity in performance / edited by Raul J. Rosenthal, Armando Rosales, Emanuele Lo Menzo, Fernando D. Di

Online Resource