Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Worldwide Web Watch

WWW

August 26, 2015

In Editing Humanity, The Economist highlights the benefits of gene editing by one of the newer technologies called CRISPR-Cas9.  The benefits of CRISPR-Cas9 over older technologies are that it is simpler, faster and more precise.  It also holds great promise for targeting and eradicating a host of human diseases.  However, one of the issues is how far should scientists go with a technology whose implications are not completely understood?  It is one thing to mess around with random cells in a petri dish for experimentation purposes and then disposing them but quite another to begin messing with germ-line cells and creating a modified entity where the effects affect future generations.   While CRISPR-Cas9 is a tremendous breakthrough, there is still much to be learned and understood about this gene editing method to avoid its being unleashed in counterproductive and harmful ways.   However, states the article, dilemmas, concerns, and a bit of a learning curve should not impede “CRISPR’s benefits or obstruct its progress.”