gene editing


George Church on What Comes After CRISPR

George Church joins us today. He’s the Robert Winthrop Professor of . . . . well, he’s George Church. And he confirms that, yes, a movie called “Woolly" is being made about his lab. In the next breath, he reminds us (and himself?) that less than 1% of his press is about the woolly mammoth.

George was honored this year as one of Time Magazine's "Time 100 List", and we’re curious about what topics of conversation come up when he’s with non-scientists. What does he think of Trump (or what he calls “the new politics”)? Is he tempted to join the wave of scientists running for office?

“In China, about 80% of their top government officials have a degree in science or engineering, while in the United States it's closer to 1%,” he deadpans.

We cover some scientific ground today as well. George says CRISPR has been overhyped as the step between Zinc Fingers/Talens and the next gene editing tool. So what is the next CRISPR? And what ever came of his 3-D sequencing?

Enjoy.

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.

Over $1 Billion Invested this Past Year: Synthetic Biology in 2017 with John Cumbers

What does it take to make it in synthetic biology in 2017?

Working as a bio engineer at NASA, John Cumbers founded SynBioBeta, the primary “activity hub” for the synthetic biology community. SynBioBeta will be putting on their sixth conference this year in San Francisco, along with conferences in London and Singapore. The young industry has seen a flourish of startups working on new genome engineering tools and a dizzying array of applications that include synthetic animal meat and synthetic human skin. Last month John partnered with Data Collective to launch a new seed stage fund for this space.

John is not only interested in startups. Currently writing a book with the working title, “What’s Your Bio Strategy?”, he is provoking existing companies to consider using biology as technology.

“The book is designed to be something we could take into [Apple CEO] Tim Cook’s office, and ask him what’s your bio strategy. And he says, 'I don’t have a bio strategy.' So you put the book on his desk and say give me a call if we can help you to develop one.”

When we first talked with John, he was heading up a program at NASA to develop building materials for use on Mars. Five years later, is John's number one goal in life still to settle the solar system?

In-Situ Sequencing, CRISPR Patents, and Racist Milk Drinkers: February 2017 with Nathan and Laura

Commentators Nathan Pearson and Laura Hercher join us to look back on February’s genomics headlines.

Beginning this time with science, Nathan says we should be expecting great things from new in-situ sequencing. Laura found it encouraging that the National Academy of Sciences shifted to be more in support of genome editing. Theral asks what life forms are left to sequence for the Earth BioGenome Project?

Then it’s back to politics. Are the departure of Liz Mansfield from the FDA and Matt Might from the White House the beginning of a brain drain from government agencies in the new administration? We finish with some stories about racism that might fit under the heading “family genomics and black history month."

Genomics in 2016: Nathan and Laura Name Their Top Stories

From new CRISPR trials in humans to mitochondrial transfer therapy, from the spinout by Illumina of two new genomics health companies to the complete and utter failure of Theranos, from the approval by the FDA of GM mosquitos to the FDA giving up on LDT regulation as a result of the election, the genomics headlines of 2016 didn’t fail to dazzle, deliver, and disappoint.

Hear which stories our regular commentators, Laura Hercher and Nathan Pearson, chose as their top and also most underreported of the year in today’s look back on 2016.

Hank Greely on “The End of Sex" and Other Stuff

Each year at this time we bring on a guest who is somewhat out of the way of our normal lineup, for example, a science fiction writer or a philosopher. Today Theral interviews a law professor who loves to philosophize and write about the impact of biotechnology on our lives now and in the near future. His newest book out this year, “The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction,” is another comprehensive and provocative example of what has made Stanford’s Hank Greely such an in-demand speaker both to scientist and non-scientist audiences alike.

“My prediction in the book is that in twenty to forty years, most people with good healthcare will conceive their children in a lab using stem cell derived eggs--and sometimes sperm—and then do whole genome sequencing preimplantation genetic diagnosis and pick the embryo they want,” says Hank at the outset of today’s extended interview.

Whereas sci-fi writers and the mainstream press often play into what Hank calls "our need for scary bedtime stories," he seeks to understand and elucidate the actual--and less dramatic--"muddling through" of new technologies into our lives.

In addition to discussing the book, we talk with Hank about his relationship to his colleague scientists at Stanford, what he thinks is the breakthrough technology of 2016, and the future of the FDA in the era of Trump.

September 2016 with Nathan and Laura

There were many headlines this past week heralding the first three parent baby to be born. But in fact, as our commentators point out in today’s look back on last month’s genomics news, three parent babies have been around for some time. So why are couples going to Mexico for mitochondrial transfer today? Why is it not legal in the U.S.?

Nathan points out that every one of our ancestors back ten generations ago gave us a hundred times more DNA than the mitochondrial donor might give to a three parent baby. Yes, the donor is a parent, he says, but she’s also just a distant cousin. "This shouldn’t freak anybody out.”

Laura doesn’t like the term “three parent babies” at all:

"It’s like in the early days when we went around, ‘oh is that a test tube baby?’ This is a human being, a kid on this planet—you can’t call this boy a ‘three parent baby’. He has two parents. They are the people raising him.”

Our second story involves regulation as well. This month the FDA approved Sarepta’s drug to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Here’s a new drug that could help a patient population desperately in need, and yet, most of the key opinion leaders in our industry are very disappointed with the FDA. Why? The answer comes down to whether the FDA should include more than "just the science” in their decisions.

August 2016 with Nathan and Laura

It’s the end of summer and end of another month. Joining us to discuss the genomics headlines of August are Laura Hercher and Nathan Pearson.

A recent study demonstrating that breast cancer patients with low genomic risk may not need chemotherapy is just what precision medicine is all about, isn’t it? Theral and Laura think the study is a big deal. Nathan’s not so sure.

Nathan is convinced though that Eurocentric studies have implicit racism. Laura agrees, saying the lack of racial diversity in biological databases is a major weakness that we must face head on.

Also, the FDA issued a report supporting Oxitec’s GM mosquitos for use in Florida. Laura is on board with the science but warns about smugness on the part of the scientific community. And George Church’s lab released a reengineered e. coli. Nathan imagines a new genomic language of 2 letter codons.

June 2016 with Nathan and Laura: GMO Labeling, Misspelling CRISPR, Sequenom Patent Loss, SmidgIon

Today's show was recorded July 1st, the first day that Vermont’s GMO labeling law went into effect. Just how big a win was this for the anti-GMO crowd, we ask our two commentators, Nathan Pearson and Laura Hercher. They have a surprisingly optimistic take, suggesting that the GMO labeling could become a positive marketing tool.

Laura says the scale and ease of CRISPR vs the older technology of zinc fingers is like going from manuscript writing to the printing press. She insists, therefore, that the approval of the first ever CRISPR trial is a big deal even though we’ve already been doing the same cell replacement therapy with zinc fingers. She also points out that the new trial is funded by Sean Parker’s foundation which is moving along at a Silicon Valley pace.

"The tech industry has never had their moment where it killed someone to move too fast.”

Last week the Supreme Court killed off Sequenom’s patent for prenatal screening. After Laura and Theral hotly debate whether there should be such patents, Nathan suggests there is a right balance.

“It’s sort of like tuning a carburetor,” he says. "Patents can encourage people to invest, but they can also inhibit the development of technology.”

And lastly, DNA has a new mascot. It’s called the SmidgIon.

Mukherjee Mess-up, the Secret Harvard Meeting, and Success in Gene Therapy: May 2016 with Nathan and Laura

Today we look back on the genomics headlines over the past month (and a few days). To do this we’re joined by our regular commentators, Nathan Pearson and Laura Hercher.

First we take on the science journalism kerfuffle of the year. When Pulitzer Prize winning author, Siddhartha Mukerjee, got epigenetics wrong in his New Yorker piece, scientists came out en masse to denounce it. Nathan reassures us that scientists aren’t afraid of writers.

Then on to that secret meeting at Harvard, HGP-Write. Laura gives it two thumbs down, saying it’s very normal for folks to be scared of the idea of synthesizing a human genome from scratch. So don’t make it more scary with a secret meeting and total lack of transparency.

Finally, we review some positive success stories for gene editing, specifically some gene therapies which have been approved or undergoing new trials.




New to Mendelspod?

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

or skip signup