Anna Petherick

NatureOutlookThe term ‘genetic engineering’ has been around since the early 1970s, along with the idea that, by altering DNA, scientists can cure genetic disease or create superhumans. Reality, however, was much less exciting. It is only in the past few years that researchers have developed the tools that allow them to engineer the genome with the precision and ease originally envisioned — to be able to edit any DNA base anywhere in any genome. A CRISPR–Cas9 plasmid, the most recent of the widely used genome-editing tools, now costs US$65 or less. It can be ordered online, arrives in the post and requires little specialist training to use.
It is this availability and simplicity that has allowed genome editing to become common practice. Agricultural scientists and infectious disease experts are doing it, as are synthetic biologists. Epigeneticists have modified DNA-editing tools to manipulate their objects of study. Biotechnology companies are springing up, aiming to develop treatments based on genome editing. But some diseases are more amenable than others. One of the most advanced therapies is one that shuts HIV out of immune cells.
With so much activity, a thorough and inclusive discussion of the implications of this technology is vital.

2 thoughts on “Anna Petherick

  1. shinichi Post author

    Genome editing

    by Anna Petherick

    nature

    cover art by Kyle Bean

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7580_supp/full/528S1a.html

    With so much activity, a thorough and inclusive discussion of the implications of this technology is vital. Which is why the foremost scientific societies of three countries — the United States, United Kingdom and China — have come together this December to sponsor an international summit on the topic of editing the human germ line. Now is the time for the most respected scientists in the field to lay out the risks and benefits of genome editing to society, as Jennifer Doudna and George Church do in this Outlook.

    We are pleased to acknowledge the financial support of KISCO Ltd. in association with EditForce Inc., in producing this Outlook. As always, Nature retains sole responsibility for all editorial content.

    Reply
  2. shinichi Post author

    Genome editing
    Anna Petherick
    Nature 528, S1 (3 December 2015)

    Three technologies that changed genetics
    Amy Maxmen
    Nature 528, S2–S3 (3 December 2015)

    Research: Biology’s big hit
    Zoë Corbyn
    Nature 528, S4–S5 (3 December 2015)

    Perspective: Embryo editing needs scrutiny
    Jennifer Doudna
    Nature 528, S6 (3 December 2015)

    Perspective: Encourage the innovators
    George Church
    Nature 528, S7 (3 December 2015)

    Disease: Closing the door on HIV
    Michael Eisenstein
    Nature 528, S8–S9 (3 December 2015)

    Medicine: Expanding possibilities
    Virginia Gewin
    Nature 528, S10–S11 (3 December 2015)

    Epigenetics: The genome unwrapped
    Heidi Ledford
    Nature 528, S12–S13 (3 December 2015)

    Q&A: Cocktail maker
    Tim Lu
    Will Tauxe
    Nature 528, S14 (3 December 2015)

    Agriculture: A new breed of edits
    Claire Ainsworth
    Nature 528, S15–S16 (3 December 2015)

    Genome editing: 4 big questions
    Will Tauxe
    Nature 528, S17 (3 December 2015)

    Reply

Leave a Reply to shinichi Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *