CRISPR


George Church Has a Point. Do With the Messenger What You Will, Lulu and Nana Are Here.

When we first encounter Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s classic, the scientist has lost all his friends, his wife, his meaning in life because of his science. Now he is frozen half to death out on the sea ice chasing his creation of “gigantic stature” toward the North Pole. It’s the only thing he knows to do. Monster and creator, they are locked in an obsessive battle of existence, creation and loss, birth and death. They both know one thing surely. They have known it all along. There is no going back.

Is CRISPR Controversy Science or Spin? June 2017 Review with Nathan and Laura

It’s the end of the month--and the half year mark--so we open up today's monthly discussion with Nathan and Laura to include some of the headlines we’ve missed this year.

Last month a paper was published warning about the off target effects when using CRISPR. Laura and Nathan agree the kerfuffle which exploded into this month was more about Wall Street than adding anything new to science.

Remember the technology we used before CRISPR? Sangamo Biosciences launched the first ever “in vivo” (in human) trial for gene editing using Zinc Finger technology.

Also last month, the FDA approved a drug based on the genetic makeup of a tumor and not its location in the body. Nathan says, “Nyeh . . . And? Doctors have been doing it off label for years.” But Laura thinks it's more that just a symbolic gesture.

She also picked for her paper of the month this new study out by Robert Green’s group asking whether the benefits outweigh the risks for whole genome sequencing in healthy individuals.

"It’s preliminary, but it’s not PR. This is one of the really important questions for genomics in our time," says Laura.

Nathan highlights a paper propounding a new model for biology, the omnigenic model. Find out what that is in another fun and informative look back on the genomics headlines with Nathan Pearson and Laura Hercher.

Is Oxitec Ready to Scale as Governments Seek Options to Control the Zika Virus?

With constant news topping the headlines about the Zika virus, a synthetic biology company out of Oxford England, Oxitec, has been getting some good press. For over ten years now, Oxitec has been developing their genetically engineered mosquitos as a way to lower virus spreading mosquito populations.

When we last talked to Oxitec's CEO, Hadyn Parry, a couple years ago, they were just introducing their genetically engineered mosquitos into a small rural town in Brazil. They've now had trials in the Cayman Islands and Panama as well and received phenomenal results.

“In all of the trials, we’ve got the same result, which is that we’ve controlled the Aeges Aegypti population in a town by over 90 percent,” says Hadyn in today’s interview.

Is the recent panic over the Zika virus helping out the synthetic biology company in terms of PR and regulatory hurdles? And what threat has CRISPR, the new gene editing technology, posed for the company, both in terms of the backlash in media against gene editing and also in lowering the barrier to entry for competitors?

Hadyn says he has always embraced the PR issue head on, and is now giving 2-3 interviews some days. Does he have any suggestions for other synthetic biology companies who also face uphill PR battles?

Sci-Fi Author Kim Stanley Robinson Talks Life Science 2015

At the end of the year our goal is to bring the audience some unusual programming, some new outside perspectives on the topics we cover. As with last year, we talk today with science fiction writer, Kim Stanley Robinson, author of the Mars Trilogy, 2312, and Shaman

Known for working with science and technology that are feasible today, Stan goes out on his yet furthest journey into the future with his newest novel, Aurora. As the novel begins, we are with the descendants of a group of people who left our solar system a couple hundred years previously for the solar system of the star Tau Ceti. This star is eleven light years away, and the novel starts as the ship begins “deceleration” with the goal of landing down not on a planet in the “Goldilocks” position, but on that planet’s moon, Aurora. We learn right away that Stan is not really in Gene Roddenberry space here (creator of Star Trek). For once the travelers begin the process of trying to settle, the biology already on Aurora isn’t what you’d call friendly or indifferent.

In Aurora, Stan faces head on a notion we’ve pursued here on Mendelspod: the field's overly reductionist approach to the study of biology. The best example I can think of here came from one of our guests, John Dupre, who asked the question, "if you took all the atoms of an elephant into space and were able to reassemble them, would it still be an elephant?”

No, is Stan’s clear answer with this latest novel.

“This idea that we’ve had for a hundred years, or two thousand years, however long—of travel to the stars: it’s an impossible idea."

Not only does Stan bit by bit deconstruct biology and ecology, arguing that earth’s ecological success has as much to do with it’s size as other factors, he also deconstructs the process of formulating narrative and of  novel writing itself. On the spaceship is a computer which over the course of the first part of the book receives extensive training in doing narration.  Stan reads from one of these passages where the computer is wrestling with the idea of whether to use metaphor or not.

“A quick literature review suggests the similarities in metaphors are arbitrary, even random. They could be called metaphorical similarities. But no AI likes tautological formulations, because the halting problem can be severe, become a so called “ouroboros” problem, or a whirlpool with no escape. Ah hah, a metaphor.”

In Aurora, Stan is fascinated by problems which underlie current trends in the life science industry. For example, what training will IBM’s Watson need to receive as it is used more and more in the clinic? How important is our microbiome and the environmentalome to our own health?

We also push Stan to talk about the issue of drug pricing. To fully flesh out his ideas, he has to go quite far into a post capitalist society, but he does agree that price controls at this point might be a first tool. As for the power of the new CRISPR gene editing technique, Stan says doing gene drive on humans is an old science fiction idea.  "But I always thought that it was a hundred or two hundred years off. So I was wrong.  Now we have to decide how to keep it safe, and what we should allow.”

It's a fun time with Kim Stanley Robinson.  Enjoy.

Should We Hold Back the Reins on Biotechnology? with Chris Gunter

A very unique biotechnology event took place this week.

BEINGS 2015, or the Biotech and the Ethical Imagination Global Summit, was held at The Tabernacle, a former church turned concert hall in Atlanta, Georgia. The venue was not the only unusual thing for a summit about science. Speakers at the meeting included a well known linguist, a famous Canadian novelist, and Catholic rector along with professors of bioethics, law, and, of course, biology.

The summit was not particularly about science, but about biotech in a cultural context. Speakers pursued some of the most daunting questions humans face: Should we ever try to slow science down? Is this even possible? And if it is, who should be the regulators?

Chris Gunter is an Associate Professor at Emory University, host of the event. She not only attended the meeting but was one of the delegates who took part in a session after the main conference. The delegates were tasked with arriving at a consensus on standards to guide the future of biotechnology. That’s all.

“There’s never been an event like this before,” says Chris, a former editor at Nature, at the outset of today's show.



New to Mendelspod?

We advance life science research, connecting people and ideas.
Register here to receive our newsletter.

or skip signup