From The Atlantic, Ed Young on the new gene-editing technique that reveals cancer’s weaknesses: CRISPR can finally tell us which human genes are essential — and which matter specifically to cancer cells; on the quest to make CRISPR even more precise: To fulfill its revolutionary promise, the gene-editing technique will need to be edited; and what can you actually do with your fancy gene-editing technology? Wading through the hype about CRISPR. The gene hackers: A powerful new technology enables us to manipulate our DNA more easily than ever before. Editing humanity: A new technique for manipulating genes holds great promise — but rules are needed to govern its use. Jennifer Kahn on the CRISPR quandary: A new gene-editing tool might create an ethical morass — or it might make revising nature seem natural. Jesse Kirkpatrick and Andrew Light on the great potential — and great risks — of gene editing. CRISPR is getting better — now it’s time to ask the hard ethical questions.
The biggest scientific breakthrough of the year will reshape life as we know it. Laura H. Kahn on a CRISPR future. Where in the world could the first CRISPR baby be born? Heidi Ledford on how the legal landscape suggests where human genome editing might be used in research or reproduction. Better babies: Nathaniel Comfort on the long and peculiar history of the designer human, from Plato’s citizen breeders to Nobel sperm banks and beyond. Antonio Regalado on how to (really) engineer a human baby. George Dvorsky on why we’ll eventually have to accept designer babies. Open season is seen in gene editing of animals. Scientists seek moratorium on edits to human genome that could be inherited. Encourage the innovators: Rather than emphasize risks that are not entirely new, talks about germline editing should focus more on the benefits, argues George Church.
