Once genetic lesions for diseases such as cystic fibrosis and haemophilia were identified, the idea of replacing or correcting defective genes grew into what we now call "gene therapy".
Synthetic biology is highly promising – but if we don't get the regulation and engagement right, we risk alienating members of the public, and may even close doors for potentially fruitful research.
For several billion people mosquitoes are more than a nuisance -- they transmit deadly diseases. Now genetic modification may prove the most effective defense against the mosquito, preventing disease.
Basic research can be easy to mock as pointless and wasteful of resources. But it's very often the foundation for future innovation – even in ways the original scientists couldn't have imagined.
CRISPR has been hailed as the an editing tool that can delete inherited mutations and cure disease. But recent papers suggest that the technique may be too dangerous for use in human therapies.
Genetic modification rules now cover gene edited crops but exclude plants bred traditionally with the same properties.
A new study found the Cas9 gene editing scissors don't stop cutting after we tell them to.
CRISPR harnesses the natural defence mechanisms of some bacteria to cut human DNA strands. Then the DNA strand either heals itself or we inject new DNA to mend the gap. This is gene editing.
Improvements in survival rates for acute myeloid leukaemia have failed to keep pace with other leukaemias. That may be about to change.
A landmark study in the UK discovered the gene that allows cells to form into embryos. If Australian researchers attempted this they could go to jail for 15 years.
With rapid advances in gene editing, states signed up to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention need to do more to prevent CRISPR from becoming a dangerous weapon.
The CRISPR gene-editing technique raises new questions about how we measure time and conceptualise history. Here, a cultural theorist takes on the philosophical side of this scientific breakthrough.
Americans have moved on from worrying about ‘test-tube babies’ – but there are still ethical challenges to resolve as reproductive technologies continue to advance.
Ability expectations are what people rely upon as they seek out productive and satisfying lives. They need to be a key part of the debate over gene-editing and other major scientific breakthroughs.
Releasing just 100 mice carrying a faulty gene designed to stop them reproducing can remove an entire population of 50,000, a new study shows, paving the way for new eradication efforts.
A world first study shows CRISPR can remove a target gene from early stage human embryos. But with the advance in science come weighty ethical dilemmas.
A team in the U.S. is said to have safely and effectively altered human embryos. The news is a reminder that citizens must be consulted on developments potentially affecting the future of the species.
The news may have come as a surprise, but it probably shouldn't have. A bioethics expert walks through how big a deal this announcement is – and what we should be considering now.
A new research paper reports dangerous side effects in CRISPR-edited mice. Some scientists are pushing back, placing blame for the unwanted mutations on the experiment, not the technique.
Researchers are starting to harness the potential of this much-hyped gene editing technique – with coming applications in medicine, biology and agriculture.