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.
A new study found the Cas9 gene editing scissors don't stop cutting after we tell them to.
GMO crops have been rejected in many countries where food shortages are dire. Now, a scientist at the University of Connecticut has figured out how to create better crops with DNA editing.
A bit of advice for any criminals inspired to try and edit their own genes – it's unlikely to work, and it may present health risks.
Yes emerging technologies can pose risks - but regulation must focus on outcomes of the technology, not the technology itself.
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.
One big challenge for gene therapies is delivering DNA or RNA safely to cells inside patients' bodies. New nanoparticles could be an improvement over the current standard – repurposed viruses.
A new gene editing experiment explores human development. With this comes new ethical questions: How do scientists acquire embryos and how are their projects approved?
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.
Americans have moved on from worrying about ‘test-tube babies’ – but there are still ethical challenges to resolve as reproductive technologies continue to advance.
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.
Simple and inexpensive gene-editing technology such as CRISPR has made the creation of genetically modified organisms much easier. But could nature still keep the upper hand?
William Isdale speaks with University of Queensland Professor Peter Koopman about CRISPR technology.
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.
A new report from the National Academies of Science and Medicine outlines conditions that have to be met before gene editing that results in heritable genomic changes can be considered.
A report released by the US National Academies of Science and Medicine underscores the potential of gene editing and acknowledges the sensitivities in managing the ethical dimensions.
It's possible to alter the make-up of a species such as a mosquito's ability to pass on the deadly malaria parasite. But we need to consider the pros and cons of such gene editing technology.
Medical tourism for assisted reproductive technologies raises a host of legal and ethical questions.