gene editing


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.

April 2016 with Nathan and Laura: Big Money, More CRISPR Studies, Genomic Superheroes, and a Pot Chaser

This month we saw Big Money being infused into genomics and other life science research projects. There’s no question that science is big business, but do we see improved healthcare as a result?

Was the NIH too hasty in it’s ban on gene editing of human embryos?

Superheroes are lurking among us everywhere . . . or so the mainstream media would have us believe in their take on a new study from the Icahn School of Medicine.

Join us for our month-in-review program to hear what our regular commentators, Nathan Pearson and Laura Hercher, have to say about these questions. Stay tuned to the end for a pot chaser.

January 2016: Landergate, Grail, and Cancer Moonshot

“It being the month of Hypeuary, go hither through break in yonder wall called LanderGate, and thou wilt be on route to reach the Grail. Drink from this to find your Cure, and Death shall haunt you even more.” -Pithy Monton

Today we do something a little different. We’re joined by two commentators to look back over the past month’s headlines. Laura Hercher is a genetic counselor on the faculty at Sarah Lawrence College. She’s also a regular contributor to the DNAExchange blog. Nathan Pearson is the Senior Director of Scientific Engagement and Public Outreach at the New York Genome Center.

Gene and Tonic: A 2016 Timeline

 

Journalists listen to others telling them what actually happened all year long.  But for this one week at the first of the year, we like to make up our own stuff.

January - The general mood at the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare conference in San Francisco is one of relief.  

“Last month the FBI caught the lead mastermind behind the pharma industry’s high drug prices, and he’ll be brought to justice,” says the CEO of a pharma giant to a room full of investors and journalists at the historic St. Francis Hotel.  “Problem solved.”

I Prefer My Bacon Crispy: Why I Don’t Think CRISPR is Really That Big of a Deal

With all the recent news around CRISPR my reaction is “meh” (coincidentally, the same reaction I’m having to the current US presidential election noise). We are a wee bit early for both.

Is Jurassic Park – and now Jurassic World real? No.

Gene and Tonic: Sexism in Science, How to Spend an NIH Budget Increase, How Not to Spend It

Janitors have had a terribly busy time this week cleaning up all those jaws that were dropped on floors of research labs everywhere around the country.

Have you heard about this latest sexism scandal?

Two female co-authors of a scientific paper submitted their work to PLOS -- you know, the open access journal.   You won’t believe what they heard back from the lone peer reviewer.  They were told to go find “one or two male biologists” to be co-authors on the paper to increase its chances of being published.

Ouch!!!  That hurts.  Not only the co-authors but the rest of us.

Well, hold on, it gets worse.  This chauvinist reviewer went on to say that “it might well be that on average men publish in better journals . . . perhaps simply because men, perhaps, on average, work more hours per week than women, due to marginally better health and stamina.”

What, a marginal ouch?  Better health and stamina?

Then the two female co-authors decided to stop playing that video game, got their scarves, and went across the street to a cafe and ordered each a double latte.

Right?  I mean, what’s the name of the video game, Doing Science Circa 1850?

"No," the lead female author says sitting down to her double latte.  "The game is called, Anti-Civilization;  Hang Out with a Primitive Tribe in Africa."

Now, last week we reported how former Congressman Newt Gingrich is calling for the  doubling of the NIH Budget.  Well this week, the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Initiative jumped in the game, calling for an increase to the NIH budget.  $1.5 billion per year over the next five years.  Well, we still like Newt’s suggestion.  It’s bold.  And let’s be positive.  Let’s say we get the budget doubled.  Now we got the problem of spending it.  Right?  Be careful what you wish for.

Since we’re absolutely sure that the NIH will come to Mendelspod for suggestions on how to spend the increase, we thought we should at least start getting prepared.

So we went online and posted a chat asking for suggestions from researchers how to spend the additional funds. 

Would you like to hear a few of the responses?

Garbage In, Garbage Out - obviously the commentors are using pseudonyms -- from Phoenix, AZ, writes: “Write off half of it to waste. Because that’s the way it is. Over 50% of scientific research is non-reproducible.”

OK.  We’re being taken seriously here.

Live to One Thousand from Cambridge, England, writes:  “Spend all of the additional funding on aging research.  We’ve tried the sniper method.  Let’s just move in the troops.”

Wow, this is a serious chat.  But hold on, a third person, Don’t Leave us Behind, out of San Diego, CA, writes:

Are you sure, Live to One Thousand?  Aging research?  I think we should take the additional $30 billion and fund Alzheimer’s research.  You see, Nature is now asking us, are you sure you want to live longer?

Oh, and there’s one more here that just came in.  It’s the author of the book called, From Buddhism to Big Dataism: Keeping up with the Newest Religions.  And this author writes:  "You might as well write the check now, NIH.  Just make it out to the newest God on the Block, Big Data.  

These online chats.  They’re just too serious.

Now with all this talk of increasing the research budget, Francis Collins, the Director at NIH, immediately put out a notice about what he won’t fund.  OK, he’s showing congress that he’s a good accountant.  So what will the NIH not fund?  Editing the human germline in embryos.

Now this is the only one he’s announced so far, but we heard that there are more.  Did you want to hear about a couple?

OK, here’s one.  This is something that the NIH will just not fund, no matter what.  The proposal came in to do brain scans of all the presidential contenders and make the data openly available online for all the voters to see.

And here’s a whole category of projects to study why people are gay.   What’s wrong with that?  It turns out a Supreme Court Justice told the NIH that such studies are a gross overreach of the executive branch.  That the direction of American society should not be up to scientists, but instead up to nine aging lawyers.  "Besides," this justice said to the NIH, "we have the better costumes.  White lab coats? Ha!"

 

Commercializing the Genetically Altered Mosquito: An Interview with Hadyn Parry, Oxitec

Guest:

Hadyn Parry, CEO, Oxitec

Bio and Contact Info

Listen (7:11) What is your commercialization plan?

Listen (5:32) The awesome trial at Mandacaru

Listen (1:55) What concerns do you hear from regulators?

Listen (4:18) Different from agricultural GM products

Listen (6:19) Objectives and obstacles for 2014

Listen (5:44) PR - that extra burden for synbio

In the fall of 2012, Hadyn Parry began his London TED talk with one of those simple facts which gets everyone listening: The world’s most dangerous animal is a small insect commonly called, the mosquito. It has killed more people than any other creature, and in fact more people than wars have killed. But the threat from mosquitos is not just a thing of the past. Dengue fever is a growing global health problem. Spread by the Aedes Aegypti mosquito, it infects between 50 and 100 million people annually. Reported cases have increased 30 fold in the past 50 years.

Parry is the CEO of Oxitec, a synthetic biology company which is using genetic engineering to control populations of the dengue mosquito and other harmful insects. It's a simple solution. A genetically altered neutered male is introduced to the wild population of mosquitos. Offspring are also born neutered. In a field trial with the Brazillian town, Mandacaru, the Oxitec product was able to reduce the mosquito population by a whopping 96%. This is a brilliant solution that works. But often with synthetic biology companies, the great technology is just the beginning. Oxitec faces an uphill climb with commercialization. No one has ever presented regulators with such a product. And then there is the PR issue.

In today's interview, Hadyn shares the Oxitec commercialization plan and the PR strategy for his promising new company.

Podcast brought to you by: See your company name here. - Promote your organization by aligning it with today's latest trends.




New to Mendelspod?

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

or skip signup