Genome-editing revolution: My whirlwind year with CRISPR

Doudna, Jennifer A.

doi:10.1038/528469a

Cited by 34 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And in recent years, a number of scientific societies have established elevator-pitch contests for graduate students and trainees, to help them hone their research messages (e.g., the American Society for Cell Biology: http://www.ascb.org/tag/elevator-speech-contest/ , and the American Society of Plant Biologists: https://blog.aspb.org/plant-biologists-pitch-their-science/ ). In the Nature article chronicling her hectic and unexpected year in the public spotlight, CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna lamented that she did not have sufficient expertise in communicating science to the public and advocated for better training for future scientists, including guidance on how to craft a research elevator pitch ( 10 ). Providing undergraduate biology students opportunities to practice elevator speeches with timely feedback might be a good place to start.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Elevator Speeches to Develop Research & Communication Skills in Biology

Begley

2018

J Microbiol Biol Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Elevator Speeches to Develop Research & Communication Skills in Biology

Begley

2018

J Microbiol Biol Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The development of gene editing techniques started in the 1990s, representing, for some authors, a true revolution in the field of biotechnology 4 . The procedure received this named because it actually "deletes" specific segments of DNA and inserts new genes into the site -both germ and somatic cells can be edited 2 .…”

Section: Technical Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Edição genética: riscos e benefícios da modificação do DNA humano

Furtado

2019

Rev. Bioét.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article analyzes discussions on human genetic editing found in scientific articles, institutional statements and delivered at the International Summit on Gene Editing held in 2015. This analysis has the objective of to explaining and reflecting on arguments favorable and contrary to DNA modification. Gene editing techniques have benefits such as: the treatment of diseases; creation of model organisms for basic biomedical research; development of transgenic foods, among other applications. However, discussions have been held in order to determine the risks of this technology. The Interlocutors, in these discussions, assume divergent positions, condemning gene editing, praising it or recommending caution in the execution of experiments. The article critically analyzes scientific discourses around the theme, seeking to highlight the argumentative strategies present in the debates. ResumoEdição genética: riscos e benefícios da modificação do DNA humano O artigo analisa discussões sobre edição genética humana encontradas em artigos científicos, declarações institucionais e proferidas no International Summit on Gene Editing realizado em 2015. Objetiva-se explicitar e refletir sobre argumentos favoráveis e contrários à modificação do DNA. A edição genética pode desenvolver novas terapêuticas, organismos-modelo para pesquisa biomédica de base e alimentos transgênicos, entre outras aplicações. Contudo, os debates buscam determinar os riscos dessa tecnologia, e seus interlocutores assumem posicionamentos divergentes, condenando a edição genética, enaltecendo-a ou recomendando cautela na execução de experimentos. O artigo analisa criticamente discursos científicos sobre o tema, buscando evidenciar as estratégias argumentativas presentes nos debates. Palavras-chave: Edição de genes. Biotecnologia. Bioética. Contenção de riscos biológicos. Resumen Edición génica: riesgos y beneficios de la modificación del ADN humanoEl artículo analiza debates sobre edición génica humana encontrados en artículos científicos, declaraciones institucionales y proferidas en el International Summit on Gene Editing realizado en 2015. Se tiene como objetivo explicitar y reflexionar sobre los argumentos favorables y contrarios a la modificación del ADN. La edición génica puede desarrollar nuevos tratamientos, organismos-modelo para la investigación biomédica de base y alimentos transgénicos, entre otras aplicaciones. No obstante, los debates buscan determinar los riesgos de esta tecnología, y sus interlocutores asumen posiciones divergentes, condenando la edición génica, enalteciéndola o recomendando cautela en la ejecución de experimentos. El artículo analiza críticamente los discursos científicos en torno al tema, buscando evidenciar las estrategias argumentativas presentes en los debates. Palabras clave: Edición génica. Biotecnología. Bioética. Contención de riesgos biológicos.Declara não haver conflito de interesse.

show abstract

“…In January 2015 a small one-day meeting took place in Napa where 18 people—mainly biologists and a couple of other stakeholders—discussed the challenges that the CRISPR–Cas9 system and its uncertainties bring with it (Doudna 2015 ). In March and April 2015 two papers were published in Nature and Science that called for a voluntary ban on the use of CRISPR–Cas9 for modifications of the genome of human germline cells in clinical applications (Baltimore et al 2015 ; Lanphier et al 2015 ).…”

Section: Crispr–cas9 the Germline And Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust in Science: CRISPR–Cas9 and the Ban on Human Germline Editing

Güttinger

2017

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2015 scientists called for a partial ban on genome editing in human germline cells. This call was a response to the rapid development of the CRISPR–Cas9 system, a molecular tool that allows researchers to modify genomic DNA in living organisms with high precision and ease of use. Importantly, the ban was meant to be a trust-building exercise that promises a ‘prudent’ way forward. The goal of this paper is to analyse whether the ban can deliver on this promise. To do so the focus will be put on the precedent on which the current ban is modelled, namely the Asilomar ban on recombinant DNA technology. The analysis of this case will show (a) that the Asilomar ban was successful because of a specific two-step containment strategy it employed and (b) that this two-step approach is also key to making the current ban work. It will be argued, however, that the Asilomar strategy cannot be transferred to human genome editing and that the current ban therefore fails to deliver on its promise. The paper will close with a reflection on the reasons for this failure and on what can be learned from it about the regulation of novel molecular tools.

show abstract

Genome-editing revolution: My whirlwind year with CRISPR

Cited by 34 publications

References 10 publications

Using Elevator Speeches to Develop Research & Communication Skills in Biology

Using Elevator Speeches to Develop Research & Communication Skills in Biology

Edição genética: riscos e benefícios da modificação do DNA humano

Trust in Science: CRISPR–Cas9 and the Ban on Human Germline Editing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About