A Public Resource Compiled by the

Human and Agriculture Gene Editing:
Regulations and Index

Click on a country (eg. Brazil, US) or region (eg. European Union) below to find which human / health products and processes are approved or in development and their regulatory status.

Hotspots Background

European Union

Brazil

New Zealand

United States

Australia

Canada

China

United Kingdom

Israel

Argentina

Japan

Mexico

Russia

Chile

Uruguay

Paraguay

India

Africa

Ukraine

Southeast Asia

Central America

Human / Health Gene Editing Index
Compare Regulatory Restrictions Country-to-Country

Gene editing regulations worldwide are evolving. The Gene Editing Index ratings below represent the current status of gene editing regulations and will be updated as new regulations are passed.

Colors and ratings guide
 

Regulation StatusRating
Determined: No Unique Regulations*10
Lightly Regulated8
Proposed: No Unique Regulations†6
Ongoing Research, Regulations In Development5
Highly Regulated4
Mostly Prohibited2
Limited Research, No Clear Regulations1
Prohibited0
*Gene and stem cell therapies regulated as phamaceuticals with no additional restrictions.

†Decrees under consideration for gene and stem cell therapies that would not require unique regulations beyond current restrictions on pharmaceuticals.

Therapeutic:
Gene editing of adult human cells, including gene therapy and stem cell therapy, that is used to treat and cure disease. Recent breakthroughs include CAR T-cell therapy, which uses patients’ own immune cells to treat their cancer.
Germline:
Gene editing of the human embryo or germline that results in genetic changes that are passed down to the next generation. This type of gene editing is the most controversial because changes are inherited and because it could theoretically be used to create “designer babies”. A Chinese scientist announced in 2018 that he had successfully edited twins that were brought to term. International backlash from the announcement has resulted in China and other countries working to clarify regulations on germline gene editing.

Rating by Country / Region
Click each column header and arrow to sort the countries / regions

Swipe right/left if all columns aren't visible

Country / RegionTherapeuticGermlineHuman Rating
Japan888
Brazil402
Canada402
Russia1057.5
Argentina513
Israel825
Australia402
China846
US402
Chile412.5
New Zealand402
Ukraine856.5
Central America111
Paraguay111
Uruguay111
India804
UK444
Mexico804
EU402

Pivotal Developments in Gene Editing, 1987-Present

Reprinted with permission from ITIF on Medium

L. Val Giddings, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

Note: This timeline was last updated on January 27, 2020.

Hardly a day goes by without new reports of advances in gene editing. It can be very hard to keep up, even for those following closely. This compilation brings together a list of salient events and media coverage over the last three decades. It is not complete or encyclopedic, but eclectic, focused primarily on CRISPR, and, we hope, illuminating. It will be updated as developments warrant.

22 January 2020 Flora Southey Vertical farms of the future require genetically edited plants, says scientist. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/01/22/Vertical-farms-of-the-future-require-genetically-edited-plants-says-scientist

“There is an innovation gap in urban agriculture, suggests Aberystwyth University Professor Huw Jones, whereby we have ‘huge innovation’ in vertical farming, yet still use ‘old seeds’ and ‘old plant architecture’.”

20 January 2020 Michael Le Page CRISPR-edited chickens made resistant to a common virus https://www.newscientist.com/article/2230617-crispr-edited-chickens-made-resistant-to-a-common-virus/.

“CRISPR genome editing has been used to make chickens resistant to a common virus. The approach could boost egg and meat production worldwide while improving welfare. The altered chickens showed no signs of disease even when exposed to high doses of the avian leukosis virus (ALV). The virus is a problem for poultry farmers around the world, says Jiri Hejnar at the Czech Academy of Sciences.”

17 January 2020 Elie Dolgin The kill-switch for CRISPR that could make gene-editing safer — How anti-CRISPR proteins and other molecules could bolster biosecurity and improve medical treatments https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00053-0?utm_source=twt_nnc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=naturenews&sf228283173=1.

“[researchers] …stumbled onto tools now known as anti-CRISPRs. These proteins serve as the rocks to CRISPR’s molecular scissors… more than 50 anti-CRISPR proteins have now been characterized, each with its own means of blocking the cut-and-paste action of CRISPR systems. The expansive roster opens up many questions about the archaic arms race between bacteria and the phages that prey on them. But it also provides scientists with a toolkit for keeping gene editing in check. Some are using these proteins as switches to more finely control the activity of CRISPR systems in gene-editing applications for biotechnology or medicine. Others are testing whether they, or other CRISPR-stopping molecules, could serve as biosecurity counter-measures of last resort, capable of reining in some genome-edited bioweapon or out-of-control gene drive.”

See expanded timeline on CRISPR babies here.

13 January 2020 EuroSeeds 26 business organizations support a Commission study on “novel genomic techniques” and express their hope for more enabling regulations https://www.euroseeds.eu/news/update-26-european-business-organisations-ask-the-eu-to-submit-a-study-on-the-status-of-novel-genomic-techniques/.

On 9 January, 26 European business organisations jointly signed a letter calling upon the European Commission and Member States to re-emphasize that products obtained by novel genomic techniques should not be subject to Directive 2001/18 requirements and related regulations if they could also have been obtained through conventional methods or result from spontaneous processes in nature. The organizations support the Council Decision (EU) 2019/1904 requesting the Commission to submit a study on the status of novel genomic techniques and welcome the potential for a Commission proposal, which they hope will deliver more enabling rules for products resulting from the latest breeding methods, while keeping high standards of EU food production.”

9 January Global Scientists Object: EC study on the status of novel genomic techniques — Scientists open letter challenge European Commission to develop scientifically defensible regulations for gene edited products https://www.euroseeds.eu/app/uploads/2020/01/Draft-value-chain-letter-to-new-Comm-18-12-2019.pdf

“The undersigned value chain partners strongly support Council Decision (EU) 2019/1904 requesting the Commission to submit a study on the status of novel genomic techniques1 and welcome the potential for a Commission proposal, which we hope will deliver more enabling rules for products resulting from the latest breeding methods, while keeping high standards of EU food production. In this context we would like to re-emphasize our position that products should not be subject to Directive 2001/18 requirements and related regulations if they could also have been obtained through conventional methods or result from spontaneous processes in nature. This differentiated regulatory approach, which looks at both, the process and the product, thus taking into account the benefits of these novel genomic techniques and the resulting products is taken up in a growing number of countries around the world.”

7 January 2020 Jenna Gallegos CRISPR: Overcoming its obstacles in plant research https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/01/crispr-overcoming-its-obstacles-in-plant-research/.

“CRISPR is an extremely powerful gene editing tool that has already made huge waves in plant research. We can potentially use CRISPR to make hardier crops, engineer produce in ways that directly benefit consumers and address climate change. But while CRISPR is often described as “cut and paste” for genes, the actual process is not that simple. Scientists still face several obstacles associated with using CRISPR in plant research, including regulatory hurdles.”

30 December Zaobao.com He Jiankui illegally edits human embryo genes, sentenced to three years in prison https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20191230-1017060.

“The “gene-edited baby” case was publicly sentenced in the first instance of the Nanshan District People’s Court in Shenzhen today. The three defendants, He Jiankui, Zhang Renli, and Qin Jinzhou, jointly executed the human embryo gene editing and reproductive medical activities for reproductive purposes, which constituted the crime of illegal medical practice, and were each held criminally responsible according to law… He Jiankui was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 3 million yuan (RMB, the same below, about S $ 600,000)… and barred [him] from engaging in human assisted reproductive technology services for life.”

23 December Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory A new tomato ideal for urban gardens and even outer space https://phys.org/news/2019-12-tomato-ideal-urban-gardens-outer.html.

“Farmers could soon be growing tomatoes bunched like grapes in a storage unit, on the roof of a skyscraper, or even in space. That’s if a clutch of new gene-edited crops prove as fruitful as the first batch.”

23 December Siobhán Dunphy Can gene-edited pigs remedy the global shortage of human organs? https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/public-health/can-gene-edited-pigs-remedy-the-global-shortage-of-human-organs/.

“Scientists have used CRISPR technology to develop a new generation of gene-edited pigs that may one day provide much-needed donor organs for people. The genetically engineered animals are described in a new paper published on 19 December in BioRxiv (1). So-called xenotransplantation — the use of non-human organs for transplant, in this case, pigs — could provide a viable alternative to human donor shortages, thanks to genetic engineering. Pigs are widely consumed around the world, so breeding them for replacement body parts presents much less of a moral dilemma than other animals with organs similar to humans, like say monkeys. Pigs also reach adulthood in just six short months and the anatomy of pig organs are quite close to those of human organs.

17 December Jenna Gallegos Five ways CRISPR plants can combat climate change https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/12/five-ways-crispr-plants-can-combat-climate-change/.

“Here are five ways CRISPR can be used to engineer hardier crops that fix more carbon and help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to agriculture…”

16 December Innovature Gene Editing Can Protect Your Favorite Cookies https://innovature.com/article/gene-editing-can-protect-your-favorite-cookies?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social_Paid&utm_campaign=2019_Innovature&utm_term=COMP&utm_content=Holiday_Cookies.

“The cookie’s many names — biscuits, rusks, wafers, galletas — show that our love for these sweet treats transcends geographic bounds. However, a changing climate and spreading pests and diseases pose a risk to cookie jars all over the world. Bakers and cookie lovers can rest easy, though, because there’s a solution within reach: gene editing. By making small changes to crops’ DNA, scientists can improve the key ingredients in our favorite cookies to withstand more risks than ever before. These changes can help crops protect themselves against rising temperatures, as well as pests and diseases. Here are five cookies that gene editing could improve…”

16 December University of Minnesota Research Brief: New methods promise to speed up development of new plant varieties https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/research-brief-new-methods-promise-speed-development-new-plant-varieties.

“A University of Minnesota research team recently developed new methods that will make it significantly faster to produce gene-edited plants. They hope to alleviate a long-standing bottleneck in gene editing and, in the process, make it easier and faster to develop and test new crop varieties with two new approaches described in a paper recently published in Nature Biotechnology… The new methods will: drastically reduce the time needed to edit plant genes from as long as nine months to as short as a few weeks; work in more plant species than was possible using tissue culture, which is limited to specific species and varieties; allow researchers to produce genetically edited plants without the need of a sterile lab, making it a viable approach for small labs and companies to utilize. To eliminate the arduous work that goes into gene-editing through tissue culture, co-first authors Ryan Nasti and Michael Maher developed new methods that leverage important plant growth regulators responsible for plant development.”

13 December Xingming Hu, et al. Using CRISPR-Cas9 to generate semi-dwarf rice lines in elite landraces https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55757-9.

“…Expanding the genetic diversity among Chinese rice varieties and cultivating high-yielding and high-quality varieties with resistance to different biotic and abiotic stresses is critical. Here, we used the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein9(Cas9) genome editing system to edit Semi-Dwarf1 (SD1) in the elite landraces Kasalath and TeTePu (TTP), which contain many desired agronomic traits such as tolerance to low phosphorous and broad-spectrum resistance to several diseases and insects. Mutations of SD1 confer shorter plant height for better resistance to lodging. Field trials demonstrated that the yield of the new Kasalath and TTP mutant lines was better than that of the wild type under modern cultivation and that the lines maintained the same desirable agronomic characteristics as their wild-type progenitors. Our results showed that breeding using available landraces in combination with genomic data of different landraces and gene-editing techniques is an effective way to relieve genetic erosion in modern rice varieties.”

11 December Charlie Arnot Gene Editing: It’s an Evolution, not a Revolution https://www.fb.org/viewpoints/gene-editing-its-an-evolution-not-a-revolution.

“The Coalition for Responsible Gene Editing in Agriculture… analyzed consumer research about communicating about biotechnology and they discovered that some methods of communicating are more effective than others. One discovery was that talking about the evolution of gene editing technology — instead of describing it as a revolution — helped people to understand it better… However, talking about how science can “revolutionize” food production does not resonate with consumers. The public is more supportive when gene editing is described within the context of plant and animal genetic improvement, which has a legacy of safe, responsible use spanning several generations. Rather than being a revolutionary technique, consumers are more comfortable when gene editing is approached as an evolution of the next iteration of improvement. It’s also helpful to identify the way gene editing can benefit consumers directly while aligning with public desires. The top three gene editing benefits that consumers care about most are the environment, disease resistance and animal wellbeing.”

11 December Maria Chaplia Viewpoint: With Conservative sweep of the ‘Brexit election’, Boris Johnson poised to steer the UK out of ‘outdated’ EU GMO, CRISPR regulations https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/12/11/viewpoint-with-conservative-sweep-of-the-brexit-election-boris-johnson-poised-to-steer-the-uk-out-of-outdated-eu-gmo-crispr-regulations/.

In the wake of the Conservative Party’s crushing victory in the election in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is poised to navigate Britain’s exit from the European Union. Once out of the EU, the UK could regain full control over its laws and regulations. And that might open the door to a reversal on what scientists consider its backward-looking policies on GMOs and CRISPR gene editing in agriculture.”

5 December Natasha Foote EU study to clarify gene editing court ruling further muddies waters https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-study-to-clarify-gene-editing-court-ruling-further-muddies-waters/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1575559196.

“After the controversial European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in 2018 that organisms obtained by new plant breeding techniques (NBTs) should, in principle, fall under the GMO Directive, the Council of the EU has requested a study from the Commission to clarify the situation. But what this means in practice remains unclear, stakeholders have told EURACTIV. Speaking at a recent event on NBTs, Jari Leppä, Finnish agriculture minister and current president of the EU agri-fish council, confirmed the Council had requested a study on the “options to update the existing legislation”. He added that “if necessary, the Commission must be prepared to submit a proposal to amend the GMO directive”. But the exact purpose and aim of the request are not immediately clear.”

5 December Guan Yu Lim Genome-edited food products to go on sale in Japan, despite no labelling and safety provisions https://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Article/2019/12/05/Genome-edited-food-products-to-go-on-sale-in-Japan-despite-no-labelling-and-safety-provisions.

“Food products produced using genome editing technology could go on sale in Japan by the end of the year despite no specific labelling rules being in place.”

4 December Michael Irving Genetically-engineered yeast produce beer that staves off staleness https://newatlas.com/science/genetically-engineered-yeast-beer-fresh/.

“…researchers from Jiangnan University have found a way to keep beer fresher for longer, by genetically engineering lager yeast to produce certain compounds that prevent staleness.”

4 December German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Union of the German Academies of Sciences, and Humanities German Research Foundation “Towards a scientifically justified, differentiated regulation of genome edited plants in the EU” https://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/publication/wege-zu-einer-wissenschaftlich-begruendeten-differenzierten-regulierung-genomeditierter-pflanzen-in/.

“In July 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that the legal regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) apply to all organisms which have been altered using genome editing methods such as CRISPR-Cas. This makes it difficult to study, develop and cultivate improved crops which are urgently needed for productive, climate-adapted and more sustainable agriculture. The National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, and the German Research Foundation (DFG)… point out that this blanket legal classification of GMOs does not take into account what type of genetic modification is present in a given organism. In the eyes of the science academies and the DFG, this primarily process-based regulatory approach has no rational justification. They have offered recommendations on how European genetic engineering legislation can be amended as a short-term solution and completely renewed in the long term.”

4 December Vytenis Andriukaitis Andriukaitis: Europe should take lead in science-based plant innovation https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/opinion/andriukaitis-europe-should-take-lead-in-science-based-plant-innovation

“The EU is leading the science-based fight against climate change and will also lead on science-based plant innovation, writes former EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis… Plant breeding has been practiced by humans since almost the beginning of our civilisation. We have been experimenting with different species and plant varieties, with some impressive results. We bred corn from teosinte and strawberries from wild berries. Natural selection and artificial methods have been used to create desired mutations and get an improved breed. Now, we found a faster way to breed, mix and produce better varieties — via gene engineering. This could sound like a success story, right? Alas, a tide of suspicion and fear pushed these innovations outside the EU.”

2 December Manuel V. Borca, Elizabeth R. Edina, Ediane Silva, et al. Development of a highly effective African swine fever virus vaccine by deletion of the I177L gene results in sterile immunity against the current epidemic Eurasia strain doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/861666 .

“ Currently there is no commercially available vaccine against African swine fever. Outbreaks of this disease are devastating the swine industry from Central Europe to East Asia, and they are being caused by circulating strains of African swine fever virus derived from the Georgia2007 isolate. Here we report the discovery of a previously uncharacterized virus gene, which when deleted completely attenuates the Georgia isolate. Importantly, animals infected with this genetically modified virus were protected from developing ASF after challenge with the virulent parental virus.”

2 December Michael Eisenstein CRISPR Vehicles Break Down Barriers to In Vivo Genome Editing — Delivery options for CRISPR gene editing components include viral vectors, lipid-based nanoparticles, and polymer formulations https://www.genengnews.com/insights/crispr-vehicles-break-down-barriers-to-in-vivo-genome-editing/.

“This past July saw a big leap forward for clinical application of CRISPR-based genome editing, with the launch of the Brilliance trial by Allergan and Editas Medicine. Previous clinical forays into genome editing have focused on manipulating isolated human cells in the laboratory, which are then transplanted back into patients. In contrast, Brilliance will be the first in vivo test of this technology in humans, with patients receiving direct injections of viral particles laden with genes encoding the CRISPR-Cas9 machinery to correct a retinal gene defect.”

1 December Ruth Williams DNA-responsive polymer gels used for releasing drugs, encapsulating cells, and much more now have greater adaptability thanks to the Cas12a nuclease https://www.the-scientist.com/modus-operandi/crispr-based-tool-expands-dna-hydrogel-versatility-66751?utm_content=110496346&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-18198832.

“…the team created DNA-containing hydrogels that, in response to a dsDNA cue provided by the researchers, could either release DNA-bound compounds or fully degrade. Such degradation could be used for applications such as liberating encapsulated contents like cells or nanoparticles, initiating flow of a buffer through a microfluidic device, or opening an electrical circuit. These last two examples could potentially be used in diagnostic devices, says Collins, with a change in buffer flow or electrical output signaling the presence of a DNA sequence of interest in a patient sample. “They showed some really novel applications of responsive hydrogels,” says Rebecca Schulman, a chemical and biomolecular engineer at Johns Hopkins University… “Their approach is totally customizable . . . [and] is really cleverly designed,” adds bio-engineer Dan Luo of Cornell University… “It’s a real integration of molecular biology and materials science.” (Science, 365:780–85, 2019).

November, 2019 RimLassoued, Diego Maximiliano Macall, Stuart J.Smyth, Peter W.B.Phillips, HayleyHesseln Risk and safety considerations of genome edited crops: Expert opinion Current Research in Biotechnology 1:11–21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbiot.2019.08.001 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590262819300024

“Highlights: Genome edited crops pose marginal risk to the economy, human health and the environment; Existing national regulations work to discourage genome editing in many countries; Advocacy groups tend to discourage the use of new gene technologies in agriculture based on speculative risks; Risks associated with genome editing are driven more by socio-political factors than by scientific principles; Majority of experts are for inclusion of social-economic considerations in the regulation of biotechnology.”

21 November Ag News Gene editing delivers 15–16% protein sorghum http://news.agropages.com/News/Detail-32959.htm

“Researchers have achieved a major breakthrough in sorghum, elevating the protein of the globally important cereal crop from 9–10 per cent to a staggering 15–16pc. The breakthrough was revealed by Professor Ian Godwin (pictured) at the TropAg 2019 conference in Brisbane, following research carried out by the Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation. The development has the poultry and pigs industries particularly excited, as well as beef feedlots. The increase in protein is expected to result in about a 50c/head reduction in the cost of producing a 2kg meat bird. The breakthrough is also expected to generate big interest in the 46 Sub-Saharan African countries, where an estimated 500 million people rely on sorghum as a food source.”

20 November Human germline editing needs one message — Science academies and the World Health Organization must act in unison. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03525-0.

“In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) set up an independent expert panel to advise on the oversight and governance of human genome editing. A separate international commission on the clinical use of human germline genome editing gathered for its second meeting in London last week. This commission was established by the US National Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Medicine and Britain’s Royal Society, to recommend standards and criteria for germline genome editing. Both will report next year, and the commission’s report will feed into the WHO process. But the WHO panel has already recommended setting up a public registry for genome-editing experiments. It has also made an interim recommendation that “it would be irresponsible at this time for anyone to proceed with clinical applications of human germline genome editing”, which has been accepted by the agency’s leadership. The international commission has yet to say what it thinks, but it would make little sense for it to disagree. It isn’t entirely clear why separate initiatives are needed, and it is unfortunate that representatives of people with disabilities are not part of the decision-making process. However, it isn’t too late to rectify these issues, and the two initiatives must, in the end, converge.”

15 November Jennifer Doudna CRISPR’s unwanted anniversary https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6467/777.

“There are key moments in the history of every disruptive technology that can make or break its public perception and acceptance. For CRISPR-based genome editing, such a moment occurred 1 year ago — an unsettling push into an era that will test how society decides to use this revolutionary technology. In November 2018, at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, scientist He Jiankui announced that he had broken the basic medical mantra of “do no harm” by using CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genomes of two human embryos in the hope of protecting the twin girls from HIV. His risky and medically unnecessary work stunned the world and defied prior calls by my colleagues and me, and by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences and of Medicine, for an effective moratorium on human germline editing. It was a shocking reminder of the scientific and ethical challenges raised by this powerful technology. Once the details of He’s work were revealed, it became clear that although human embryo editing is relatively easy to achieve, it is difficult to do well and with responsibility for lifelong health outcomes.”

14 November Sean Pratt CropLife [Canada] calls for clarity on gene-editing regulations https://www.producer.com/2019/11/croplife-calls-for-clarity-on-gene-editing-regulations/.

Canada is falling behind other jurisdictions in providing clarity on how it will regulate new crop varieties developed through gene editing techniques such as CRISPR, says CropLife Canada. Japan’s consumer affairs agency recently decided it will not require special labelling for products created through the new breeding technique because it does not require the introduction of foreign DNA. Japan joins a growing list of countries such as the United States, Australia, Argentina and Chile that do not plan to give any extra scrutiny to new traits resulting from gene editing.”

14 November United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization CRISPR Technology and Its Potential to Transform Agriculture http://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/5136/icode/.

“A panel discussion on CRISPR technology and its potential to transform agricultural production, sponsored by the U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies and the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See. Panelists: Dr. Brian Staskawicz, Scientific Director of Agricultural Genomics, Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California Berkeley; Dr. Matin Qaim, Professor of International Food Economics and Rural Development, University of Goettingen; Dr. Clint Nesbitt, Senior Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs, Food and Agricultural Section, Biotechnology Innovation Organization.”

11 November Randall J. Platt CRISPR tool modifies genes precisely by copying RNA into the genome -The ultimate goal of genome editing is to be able to make any specific change to the blueprint of life. A ‘search-and-replace’ method for genome editing takes us a giant leap closer to this ambitious goal. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03392-9.

“Writing in Nature, Anzalone et al.1 describe ‘search-and-replace’ genome editing, in which the marriage of two molecular machines enables the genome to be altered precisely. The technique has immediate and profound implications for the biomedical sciences.”

7 November Cormac Sheridan Gene editing enters ‘prime’ time — Early results suggest that prime editors are cleaner than CRISPR–Cas9 and more versatile than base editors, but many questions remain https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-019-00032-5.

“A paper recently published in Nature from David Liu and co-workers discloses a ‘prime’ gene-editing system many years in the making. The prime system may have fewer undesirable off-target effects than editing with CRISPR–Cas9… In principle, the system, comprising a catalytically impaired Cas9 enzyme and an engineered reverse transcriptase, may be able to address ~89% of the human genetic variants known to be pathogenic. Already, it has been snapped up as the key founding intellectual property for Cambridge, Massachusetts-based startup Prime Medicine… Prime editing is still a nascent, albeit highly promising, technology. Demonstrating its feasibility in a wide range of cells and tissues will be key to its future development.”

28 October: Ricardo Oliva, Chonghui Ji, Genelou Atienza-Grande et al. Broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial blight in rice using genome editing Nature BioTechnology DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0267-z.

“Bacterial blight of rice is an important disease in Asia and Africa…[caused by] the pathogen, Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo)… Paddy trials showed that [CRISPR] genome-edited [changes] …endow rice lines with robust, broad-spectrum resistance.”

28 October: Knvul Sheikh Is Crispr the Next Antibiotic? In nature, the gene-editing tool Crispr protects bacteria against viruses. Now it’s being harnessed in the fight against superbugs and the flu. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/health/crispr-genetics-antibiotic-resistance.html?smid=tw-nytimesscience&smtyp=cur.

“Desperate to find new medicines against pathogenic microorganisms, scientists are turning to Crispr, the gene-editing tool. Crispr has typically been considered for macroscopic tasks: altering mosquitoes so they can’t spread malaria, editing tomatoes so they are more flavorful and curing certain genetic diseases in humans. Now researchers are harnessing Crispr to turn a bacterium’s machinery against itself, or against viruses that infect human cells. “Crispr is the next step in antimicrobial therapy,” said David Edgell, a biologist at the Western University in London, Ontario, and the lead author of a study published earlier this month in Nature Communications.”

21 October: Jon Cohen New ‘prime’ genome editor could surpass CRISPR https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/new-prime-genome-editor-could-surpass-crispr.

“CRISPR, an extraordinarily powerful genome-editing tool invented in 2012, can still be clumsy. It sometimes changes genes it shouldn’t, and it edits by hacking through both strands of DNA’s double helix, leaving the cell to clean up the mess — shortcomings that limit its use in basic research and agriculture and pose safety risks in medicine. But a new entrant in the race to refine CRISPR promises to steer around some of its biggest faults. “It’s a huge step in the right direction,” chemist George Church, a CRISPR pioneer at Harvard University, says about the work, which appears online today in Nature. This newfangled CRISPR, dubbed “prime editing,” could make it possible to insert or delete specific sequences at genome targets with less collateral damage. “Prime editors offer more targeting flexibility and greater editing precision,” says David Liu, a chemist at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose lab led the new study and earlier invented a popular CRISPR refinement called base editing.”

19 October: Uma Keni Prabhu ‘Agri biotech can help unleash second Green Revolution’ https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/agri-biotech-can-help-unleash-second-green-revolution.

“NEW DELHI: “The new technologies have opened up doors and we should use these to be able to produce food needed by 8.2 billion people in future,” said Nobel Laureate Norman Earnest Borlaug, adding that “good public sector supported programs in biotechnology, linked with genetics and breeding are called for”… Emerging technologies like gene editing have immense capacity to address the various challenges in the agriculture and allied sectors. India should, therefore, chart out a well-defined and actionable roadmap urgently for harnessing the potential of these biotechnologies to arrest the growing distress in its farm sector, the report recommends unequivocally.”

18 October: Damian Garde & Adam Feuerstein The ‘unbelievable journey’ of CRISPR — now on Netflix https://www.statnews.com/2019/10/18/crispr-new-netflix-docuseries/.

“Mankind’s ability to edit the fabric of human life has led to scientific upheaval, global debate, and at least one international incident. Now, it’s coming to Netflix. “Unnatural Selection,” a four-part docuseries debuting Friday, dissects the stories, science, and ethics behind genome editing, following academics, biohackers, and patients as they move through a brave new world made possible by technologies like CRISPR.”

18 October: American Society of Human Genetics Researchers Quantify Cas9-Caused Off-Target Mutagenesis in Mice — Findings Reported at ASHG 2019 Annual Meeting https://www.ashg.org/press/201910-otm-cas9.shtml.

“HOUSTON, Texas — Scientists are finding new ways to improve the use of the CRISPR enzyme Cas9 and reduce the chances of off-target mutations in laboratory mice, according to new results from a research collaboration including Lauryl Nutter, PhD, Senior Director, Science and Technology Development at The Centre for Phenogenomics at The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) in Toronto… In 31 of the Cas9-treated mouse lines, the researchers found zero off-target mutations, and in the remaining 20 lines, they found an average of 2.3 off-target mutations. In comparison, among both the treated and untreated mouse lines, they found an average of 3,500 naturally occurring, unique mutations in each animal. “Surprisingly, these results show that the number of naturally-occurring mutations far exceeded those introduced by Cas9,” Dr. Nutter said. “They also show that when guide RNAs are properly designed, off-target mutagenesis is quite rare.””

18 October: Steven Cerier Genetic engineering, CRISPR and food: What the ‘revolution’ will bring in the near future https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/10/18/genetic-engineering-crispr-food-revolution-will-bring-near-future/.

“Humankind is on the verge of a genetic revolution that holds great promise and potential. It will change the ways food is grown, medicine is produced, animals are altered and will give rise to new ways of producing plastics, biofuels and chemicals… Gene editing of humans and plants — a revolutionary technique developed just a few years ago that makes genetic tinkering dramatically easier, safer and less expensive — has begun to accelerate this revolution. University of California-Berkeley biochemist Jennifer Doudna, one of the co-inventors of the CRISPR technique: ‘Within the next few years, this new biotechnology will give us higher-yielding crops, healthier livestock, and more nutritious foods. Within a few decades, we might well have genetically engineered pigs that can serve as human organ donors…we are on the cusp of a new era in the history of life on earth — an age in which humans exercise an unprecedented level of control over the genetic composition of the species that co-inhabit our planet. It won’t be long before CRISPR allows us to bend nature to our will in the way that humans have dreamed of since prehistory.’”

14 October Max Planck Gesellschaft Discussion paper on genome editing — Max Planck Society rejects interference with the human germline https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpg.de%2F13997972%2Fdiskussionspapier-genom-editierung.

“As an organization of basic research, the Max Planck Society bears a special responsibility for the use of new scientific techniques for the benefit of humans and the environment. The Ethics Council of the Max Planck Society has therefore prepared a discussion paper on so-called genome editing, which highlights the potentials and risks of this method. In the paper, the Ethics Council concludes that the various uses of the technology in plant breeding, medicine or pest control bring their own ethical issues. These must be answered individually. For example, the Max Planck Society is aware of the implications of inheritable artificial mutations, such as those caused by genome editing of germ line cells. For the time being, therefore, it will not conduct any research on the genetic modification of germline cells. Instead, she wants to participate in the discussion based on the latest scientific findings and the development of international standards.”

2 October: Gerard Hutching [New Zealand] Scientists given $10m to breed ‘smart’ cattle using gene editing https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/116270918/scientists-given-10m-to-breed-smart-cattle-using-gene-editing.

“​AgResearch scientists have been given $10 million to develop “smart” cattle, although the gene editing technology they are using cannot be legally used by Kiwi farmers yet. The money from the Endeavour Fund will be used to help breed cattle better adapted to warmer temperatures and to lower methane emissions. Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods said it was important New Zealand maintained the capability to perform the research.”

2 October: Carl Zimmer These Butterflies Evolved to Eat Poison. How Could That Have Happened? Scientists have unraveled the sequence of gene mutations that enabled the monarch butterfly to thrive on toxic milkweed. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/science/monarch-butterflies-milkweed.html.

“Monarch butterflies eat only milkweed, a poisonous plant that should kill them. The butterflies thrive on it, even storing milkweed toxins in their bodies as a defense against hungry birds. For decades, scientists have marveled at this adaptation. On Thursday, a team of researchers announced they had pinpointed the key evolutionary steps that led to it. Only three genetic mutations were necessary to turn the butterflies from vulnerable to resistant, the researchers reported in the journal Nature. They were able to introduce these mutations into fruit flies, and suddenly they were able to eat milkweed, too… Noah Whiteman, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, …and his colleagues figured out how to use Crispr, the gene-editing technology, to introduce the mutations into fruit flies.”

1 October, 2019: Royal Society of Biology. “The wave has only got bigger” — Co-inventor of CRISPR gene-editing technology Jennifer Doudna talks to Tom Ireland about one of the biggest science stories of the decade The Biologist 66(5) (RSB 10th Anniversary Special Issue) p10–15 https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist/158-biologist/features/2230-precision-engineering-2

“In 2012 American biochemist Jennifer Doudna and her collaborator, Emmanuelle Charpentier, proposed that CRISPR — a group of genes and molecules used by bacteria to recognise and destroy viral DNA — could be re-purposed as a powerfully simple and programmable gene-editing tool. Their work led to an explosion of interest in CRISPR and exciting new applications of gene-editing across all areas of biology. With its unprecedented efficiency and ease of use, CRISPR has not only supplanted all previous genetic engineering technologies, but has revolutionised what is possible in life science — at the same time raising profound questions about what society should and should not do with such powerful technology.”

27 September: David Yaffe-Bellany Avocado Toast, Meet Gene Editing — Scientists in the U.S. and Mexico have mapped the DNA of several varieties, work that could help the fruit survive the effects of climate change https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/business/avocados-genetic-modification.html.

“Last month, a team of scientists in the United States and Mexico announced that it had mapped the DNA sequences of several types of avocados, including the popular Hass variety. That research is likely to become the foundation for breeding techniques and genetic modifications designed to produce avocados that can resist disease or survive in drier conditions.”

26 September: Beth Kenkel Nanoblades: Tiny CRISPR Ninjas for Genome Editing Difficult Cells https://blog.addgene.org/nanoblades-crispr-genome-editing-difficult-cells?utm_campaign=crispr&utm_content=101195222&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-82411462.

“CRISPR is a simple and versatile tool for genome engineering, but its utility is dependent on its ability to infiltrate cells. Options for CRISPR delivery include plasmid transfection, RNP electroporation, and viral transduction; but these methods aren’t stealthy enough to gain access to some cells and tissues, such as human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs). Nanoblades, a new CRISPR delivery method developed by the Ricci Lab, adds a covert tool to the CRISPR tool box. Nanoblades are engineered murine leukemia virus (MLV)-like particles loaded with Cas9-gRNA ribonucleoproteins (RNPs). According to the authors, they named their tool Nanoblades because they think of these particles as tiny DNA cutting ninjas that deliver CRISPR to multiple types of targets: primary cells, embryos, and animals. Nanoblades can also carry different types of CRISPR cargo including RNPs for indel formation via NHEJprecise modification with Homology Directed Repair (HDR), CRISPR activation or repressiontransgenic mouse line creation, and in vivo gene editing of mice, with the potential to be used for other types of CRISPR applications. “

25 September: Sharon Begley ‘I just want to live’: California man pleads with scientists around the world to ‘CRISPR me’ https://www.statnews.com/2019/09/25/plea-to-scientists-crispr-me/.

“For the last few months, he has been asking scientists and companies if they’ll give him the biological supplies he would need — he isn’t always clear on what those might be — to receive the tardigrade gene, using CRISPR or some other technology to slip it into his cells. Hashimoto’s experiment, Vohryzek told STAT, demonstrates “that I’m not proposing something insane. … I want to participate in [the] use of CRISPR on full genome gene insertion.””

25 September: Emily Waltz With CRISPR and machine learning, startups fast-track crops to consume less, produce more — Small players take on big seed conglomerates with next-generation non-GMO crops. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-019-00027-2.

“Inari, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, plans to use the total $144 million it has raised so far to develop crops that are more productive and consume less water and fertilizer than those currently produced by seed conglomerates. The company will focus on major crops such as corn, soybean, wheat and tomato. “All the genetics [for these crops] are owned by just a couple of multinational companies, and we want to challenge that,” says Ponsi Trivisvavet, CEO of Inari. “We want to bring back genetic diversity to make seeds that are better for the environment and the farmer,” she says”

24 September: Steven Cerier Viewpoint: How organic industry opposition to CRISPR gene editing encourages pesticide use https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/09/24/viewpoint-how-organic-industry-opposition-to-crispr-gene-editing-encourages-pesticide-use/.

“As crop biotechnology continues to advance, conventional farmers are gaining access to new tools that drastically cut pesticide use. This downward trend in chemical dependency goes back to the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops in the 1990s, and will only accelerate as more gene-edited crops and animals reach the market in the near future. The organic industry, meanwhile, continues to sit out this sustainability revolution for ideological and economic reasons, which ultimately encourages pesticide use.”

24 September: Amy Maxmen CRISPR might be the banana’s only hope against a deadly fungus — Researchers are using the gene-editing tool to boost the fruit’s defences and prevent the extinction of a major commercial variety. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02770-7.

“The race to engineer the next-generation banana is on. The Colombian government confirmed last month that a banana-killing fungus has invaded the Americas — the source of much of the world’s banana supply. The invasion has given new urgency to efforts to create fruit that can withstand the scourge. Scientists are using a mix of approaches to save the banana. A team in Australia has inserted a gene from wild bananas into the top commercial variety — known as the Cavendish — and are currently testing these modified bananas in field trials. Researchers are also turning to the powerful, precise gene-editing tool CRISPR to boost the Cavendish’s resilience against the fungus, known as Fusarium wilt tropical race 4 (TR4).”

16 September: Marinelle Rodrigues, Sara W. McBride, Karthik Hullahalli, et al. Conjugative delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 for the selective depletion of antibiotic-resistant enterococci https://aac.asm.org/content/early/2019/09/05/AAC.01454-19 also https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d58qh0/researchers_have_engineered_a_plasmid_with_crispr/.

“…Here we present work describing the adaption of [a] CRISPR-Cas system… for the selective removal of antibiotic resistance genes” from intestinal bacteria.

11 September: Michelle Cortez Chinese Scientists Edit DNA in Attempt to Cure Man’s Cancer, HIV https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-11/chinese-scientists-edit-dna-in-attempt-to-cure-man-s-cancer-hiv.

“Chinese researchers safely treated a man with leukemia and HIV using gene-edited stem cells, a step forward in a field that was shaken last year when another Chinese scientist used the same technology to create the world’s first genetically-edited babies. The man’s medical case, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first detailed report in a major academic journal of how doctors are using the experimental tool Crispr to manipulate the DNA of a living patient in an effort to cure disease… “This is a green light for the whole field of gene editing,” Carl June, a pioneer in the use of gene therapy to treat cancer and HIV at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. He published a companion piece in the journal.”

4 September: Norma Aliaga Fanco, et al. Identification of transgene-free CRISPR edited plants of rice, tomato and Arabidopsis by monitoring DsRED fluorescence in dry seeds https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01150/abstract (ISAAA Crop B iotech Update New Cloning System Allows Development of Transgene-free Edited Crops http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=17722).

“Efficient elimination of the editing machinery remains a challenge in plant biotechnology after genome editing to minimize the probability of off-target mutations, but it is also important to deliver end users with edited plants free of foreign DNA. Using the modular cloning system Golden Braid we have included a fluorescence-dependent transgene monitoring module to the genome editing tool box.”

4 September: Verenardo Meeme African scientists urge use of gene editing to improve crops http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/09/african-scientists-urge-use-gene-editing-improve-crops/.

“Though genome editing tools should be integrated into Africa’s farming systems to boost crops yields, enhance nutrition and accelerate the breeding process for new varieties, they must be accompanied by new communication efforts, scientists say. ‘‘Gene editing provides an opportunity to capture the tremendous potential for African scientists to develop homegrown solutions to food security and climate change by producing high-yielding seeds [that are] disease- and pest-resistant with a sound, diverse nutritional base,’’ said Prof. Yaye Gassama, chair of the African Union’s High-level Panel on Emerging Technologies (APET) and vice chair of the National Science Academy of Senegal.”

30 August: Robert Service Modified CRISPR cuts and splices whole genomes https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/849?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2019-08-29.

“Now, researchers report they’ve adapted CRISPR and combined it with other tools to cut and splice large genome fragments with ease. “This new paper is incredibly exciting and a huge step forward for synthetic biology” …The technique will enable synthetic biologists to take on “grand challenges,” she says, such as “writing of information to DNA and storing it in a bacterial genome or creating new hybrid bacterial species that can carry out novel [metabolic reactions] for biochemistry or materials production.”

26 August: Kevin V. Pixley, Jose B. Falck-Zepeda, Ken E. Giller, et al. Genome Editing, Gene Drives, and Synthetic Biology: Will They Contribute to Disease-Resistant Crops, and Who Will Benefit? https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045954.

“Genetically engineered crops have been grown for more than 20 years, resulting in widespread albeit variable benefits for farmers and consumers. We review current, likely, and potential genetic engineering (GE) applications for the development of disease-resistant crop cultivars. Gene editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology offer novel opportunities to control viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens, parasitic weeds, and insect vectors of plant pathogens. We conclude that there will be no shortage of GE applications to tackle disease resistance and other farmer and consumer priorities for agricultural crops. Beyond reviewing scientific prospects for genetically engineered crops, we address the social institutional forces that are commonly overlooked by biological scientists. Intellectual property regimes, technology regulatory frameworks, the balance of funding between public- and private-sector research, and advocacy by concerned civil society groups interact to define who uses which GE technologies, on which crops, and for the benefit of whom. Ensuring equitable access to the benefits of genetically engineered crops requires affirmative policies, targeted investments, and excellent science.”

23 August Steven H. Strauss, Wout Boerjan, Vincent Chiang, et al. Certification for gene-edited forests https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6455/767.2/tab-pdf and https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/petition-in-support-of-modern-forest-biotechnology.html and https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/scientists-say-sustainable-forestry-organizations-should-lift-ban-biotech-trees.

“Forest certification bodies were established to provide consumers with confidence that they are purchasing sustainably sourced wood products… However, certification bodies have consistently excluded all genetically engineered or gene-edited (GE) trees from certification, including from field research on certified lands that is essential for understanding local benefits and impacts. We, leading forest biotechnology scientists from around the world, with the support of more than 1000 globally diverse signatories to a recent detailed petition, call for all forest certification systems to promptly examine and modify these policies.”

22 August: Antonio Regalado The next trick for CRISPR is gene-editing pain away — A family of street performers could walk on coals. Here’s how the secret of why they felt no pain could benefit others https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614210/the-next-trick-for-crispr-is-gene-editing-pain-away/.

“The street performer was only 10 years old. He put knives through his arms and walked on hot embers. By 14 he was dead. Someone dared him to jump from a roof. He did it, knowing it wouldn’t hurt. The case of the Pakistani boy with a rare genetic disorder was described in 2006. He could feel warmth and cold and the texture of objects. But he never felt pain. Now scientists have paired the discovery with the gene-editing tool CRISPR, in what they say is a step toward a gene therapy that could block severe pain caused by diabetes, cancer, or car accidents without the addictive effects of opioids.”

21 August Masatoshi Toda Rain-resistant wheat variety developed using genome editing http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201908210010.html.

“Scientists have created a rain-resistant wheat variety using genome-editing technology, a breakthrough that could lead to the development of higher-quality flour. The research team from the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO) and Okayama University said genome editing enabled them to develop the variety in just about a year. It takes nearly 10 years to develop such a wheat species using conventional breeding technology because the plants must be bred over generations. The wheat used for the study is not a species currently sold on the market, but the team believes the method utilized could someday succeed in developing an edible variety resistant to rain. “The variety we developed has excellent properties, so we’ll use it as a parent to create new species through breeding,” a team member said.”

20 August: Steve Cerier Viewpoint: Organic food movement ‘shoots itself in the foot’ by rejecting CRISPR gene editing https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/08/20/viewpoint-organic-food-movement-shoots-itself-in-the-foot-by-rejecting-crispr-gene-editing/

“While most organic food producers view rejection of technology as a way to set their “natural” products apart from the conventional alternatives, they have miscalculated the importance of plant breeding advances and may put themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage as a result. NBTs are beginning to radically improve food production, yielding products that appeal to both consumers and farmers. This feat cannot be replicated by organic growing practices.”

14 August: Tina Hesman Saey CRISPR enters its first human clinical trials: The gene editor targets cancer, blood disorders and blindness https://www.sciencenews.org/article/crispr-gene-editor-first-human-clinical-trials.

“In the first spate of clinical trials, scientists are using CRISPR/Cas9 to combat cancer and blood disorders in people. In these tests, researchers remove some of a person’s cells, edit the DNA and then inject the cells back in, now hopefully armed to fight disease. Researchers are also set to see how CRISPR/Cas9 works inside the human body. In an upcoming trial, people with an inherited blindness will have the molecular scissors injected into their eyes. Those tests, if successful, could spur future trials for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and a wide variety of other genetic diseases, affecting millions of people worldwide.”

13 August: Ricki Lewis How a one-time CRISPR shot could obliterate lower back pain https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/08/13/how-a-one-time-crispr-shot-could-obliterate-lower-back-pain/

“Imagine a single injection that quells the inflammation behind lower back pain — perhaps forever. CRISPR may make that possible by dampening the immune system’s cytokine signals, according to a report in the July issue of Human Gene Therapy.”

10 August: Nuño Domínguez Scientists rebel against European transgenic law — Thousands of researchers require the EU to remove obstacles to genetic editing to create fruits and vegetables more nutritious and resistant to climate change https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/08/07/ciencia/1565191737_505932.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CC.

“A few weeks ago, scientists from 127 research institutes across Europe that group some 25,000 scientists demanded that the EU authorities urgently change the legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), transgenics. In an open letter addressed to the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council, scientists warn that the current regulation leaves Europe out of play in the face of the possibility of designing new plant varieties using CRISPR to create “sustainable agriculture” in the context of climate change with drought-resistant varieties that need less water and pesticides. “The ability to use genetic editing is crucial for the well-being and food security of European citizens,” the text claimed.”

8 August 2019: Jose A. Bernat Crispr Can Help Solve Our Looming Food Crisis — Here’s How — There’s not enough land to feed everyone on Earth without ruining the climate, a new IPCC report shows. Gene-edited crops could help reduce agriculture’s footprint. https://www.wired.com/story/gene-editing-food-climate-change/?verso=true.

“To have a shot at truly combating climate change, countries around the world are going to have to finally face the dirt-encrusted, fertilizer-soaked, methane-farting elephant in the room: agriculture… And though far from a cure-all, the potential for gene editing to make every acre of land more productive even in the face of climate change has captured the imagination of plant scientists, the agtech industry, and governments alike. These days, they’re placing ever-bigger bets on Crispr’s ability to future-proof the world’s food supply from the threats of an increasingly unpredictable environment.”

2 August: Jon Cohen, Nirja Desai With its CRISPR revolution, China becomes a world leader in genome editing https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/its-crispr-revolution-china-becomes-world-leader-genome-editing?utm_campaign=ScienceNow&utm_source=JHubbard&utm_medium=Facebook.

“The lights are burning late at CRISPR labs around the world. In 2012, the year researchers transformed a bacterial immune system into the fast and versatile tool for genome engineering, scientific publications mentioning CRISPR totaled 127. Since then there have been more than 14,000. Although the United States has had the most CRISPR publications — and continues to have the most cited papers — China is now a close second and is pouring money into CRISPR’s uses. With support from the Pulitzer Center, Science visited scientists in five Chinese cities who are harnessing CRISPR in a wide range of disciplines. China’s biggest push is in agriculture but researchers there are also applying the editor on a large scale in animals, with pig organs for human transplants the most provocative goal. And China is aggressively exploring genome editing in medicine, having launched far more clinical trials using CRISPR, mainly for cancer, than any country.”

31 July: Sharon Begley The latest CRISPR patent fight is on. So is the mudslinging https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/31/latest-crispr-patent-fight-mudslinging/?utm_content=bufferf2828&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_organic.

“The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard lied about who invented the use of CRISPR genome editing in animal cells, and its lead CRISPR scientist Feng Zhang made statements to the patent office that he knew were “untrue,” attorneys for the University of California and its partners claim in legal documents filed Tuesday night with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In strikingly tough language, the lawyers accused the Broad of trying to “deceive the Office” in order to win patents on the revolutionary technology, claimed another Broad scientist made a “materially false declaration” about when Zhang’s lab got CRISPR to work, and argued that Zhang didn’t know what molecules the genome editor needed until he read a rival’s key paper — all of which makes Zhang’s work “unpatentable.””

31 July: Jon Cohen China’s CRISPR push in animals promises better meat, novel therapies, and pig organs for people https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/china-s-crispr-push-animals-promises-better-meat-novel-therapies-and-pig-organs-people.

“China now has at least four groups of CRISPR researchers doing gene editing with large colonies of monkeys. “The most startling part of what is coming out of China is seeing how they have just a brute-force approach,” says reproductive biologist Jon Hennebold at the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Hillsboro. “The level of animal support they have to do those experiments is really astounding.” It’s not just monkeys. China’s researchers have racked up a long list of CRISPR firsts in dogs, mice, rats, pigs, and rabbits. That research promises higher quality meats, disease-resistant livestock, and new medical treatments and organs for human transplantation. So far, many of the animals are simply proofs of concept. Despite the multitude of CRISPR-altered monkeys, for example, Chinese teams have published “very little follow-up in terms of characterizing what these mutations mean from a [disease] model or a treatment perspective,” Hennebold says.”

29 July: Hanae Armitage CRISPR algorithm predicts how well gene editing will work https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/07/29/crispr-algorithm-predicts-how-well-gene-editing-will-work/

“Now, using the power of machine learning, James Zou, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical data science, and collaborators have created an algorithm that predicts what type of mistakes are likely to occur during CRISPR editing. A paper detailing the work appears in Nature Biotechnology.”

29 July: Rob Stein Sickle Cell Patient Reveals Why She Is Volunteering For Landmark Gene-Editing Study https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/29/744826505/sickle-cell-patient-reveals-why-she-is-volunteering-for-landmark-gene-editing-st

“Victoria Gray is waiting patiently in a hospital room at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s a good time to get healed,” she says. The 34-year-old from Forest, Miss., has struggled with sickle cell disease throughout her life. Gray is at the hospital because she volunteered for one of the most anticipated medical experiments in decades: the first attempt to use the gene-editing technique CRISPR to treat a genetic disorder in the U.S. She’s the first patient ever to be publicly identified as being involved in such a study. “I always had hoped that something will come along,” Gray says in an exclusive interview with NPR. “It is just amazing how far things have come. I just want to kind of help bring awareness to this disease and let other people know that there is hope.””

29 July: Jon Cohen To feed its 1.4 billion, China bets big on genome editing of crops https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/feed-its-14-billion-china-bets-big-genome-editing-crops.

“IN BEIJING AND DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA — If Gao Caixia were a farmer, she might be spread a little thin. Down the hall from her office at a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) here in Beijing, seeds from a strain of unusually soft rice and a variety of wheat with especially fat grains and resistance to a common fungus sprout in a tissue culture room. A short stroll away, wild tomato plants far hardier than domestic varieties but bearing the same sweet fruit crowd a greenhouse, along with herbicide-resistant corn and potatoes that are slow to brown when cut. In other lab rooms Gao grows new varieties of lettuce, bananas, ryegrass, and strawberries. But Gao isn’t a farmer, and that cornucopia isn’t meant for the table — not yet, anyway. She is a plant scientist working at the leading edge of crop improvement. Every one of those diverse crops has been a target for conventional plant breeders, who have slowly and painstakingly worked to endow them with traits to make them more productive, nutritious, or hardy. But Gao is improving them at startling speeds by using the genome editor CRISPR.

25 July: Marilynn Marchione First CRISPR study inside the body to start in US https://apnews.com/132d29e760834699b12c0c5b0a77e4c0?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=APHealthScience&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

“Patients are about to be enrolled in the first study to test a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR inside the body to try to cure an inherited form of blindness. People with the disease have normal eyes but lack a gene that converts light into signals to the brain that enable sight. The experimental treatment aims to supply kids and adults with a healthy version of the gene they lack, using a tool that cuts or “edits” DNA in a specific spot. It’s intended as a onetime treatment that permanently alters the person’s native DNA.”

25 July: Kemal Malik Genome editing: Europe can embrace innovation while assuring safety — Bayer calls on the College of Commissioners for a cross-functional platform where parties can discuss a way forward for genome editing. https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/genome-editing-europe-can-embrace-innovation-while-assuring-safety/.

“Having learned about the need to reconsider well-entrenched ways of thinking from past debates on the regulation of new technologies, we support initiatives that advance a broad stakeholder and societal debate on the future use of genome editing in Europe… Bayer, along with leading scientists, asks for an EU-wide regulatory approach to genome-edited plants that considers not only the technical process of breeding and development, but, more importantly, the end product of that process too.”

25 July: Umeå Plant Science Centre Scientists call for new European regulations for genetically modified organisms https://www.upsc.se/about-upsc/news/5605-scientists-call-for-new-european-regulations-for-genetically-modified-organisms.html?fbclid=IwAR0OKCNGmd4YFfhf40y5gxpHY4GFJiiME3nC3E8OG32EOLKa-ksAYd7To-A

“Today, on the anniversary of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on plant breeding with the help of gen-editing, an open letter was sent to the Swedish European parliamentarians and the Swedish government. The letter is a call to action for an expedited change of the European legislation for genetically modified organisms (GMO). It has been signed by the leaders of 14 Swedish universities/research centres, royal science academies or research financiers as representatives of the independent Swedish research community.”

25 July: VIB European scientists ask the EU Parliament and EU Commission reconsider genome editing for sustainable agriculture and food production http://www.vib.be/en/news/Pages/Open%20Statement%20for%20the%20use%20of%20genome%20editing%20for%20sustainable%20agriculture%20and%20food%20production%20in%20the%20EU.aspx

“European scientists urgently reach out to the newly elected European Parliament and European Commission to enable the potential of genome editing for sustainable agriculture and food production… The European scientific community, signatory to this Open Statement, urgently calls upon the European institutions including the European Council, the new European Parliament and the upcoming European Commission to take appropriate legal action to enable European scientists and breeders to apply genome editing for sustainable agriculture and food. The ability to use genome editing is crucial for the well-fare and food security of European citizens.”

24 July: Mateusz Perkowski USDA clears gene-edited, virus-resistant tomatoes https://www.capitalpress.com/nation_world/usda-clears-gene-edited-virus-resistant-tomatoes/article_375a039e-ae38-11e9-b0dd-47a18a6c6225.html.

“Gene-edited tomatoes that are resistant to common viruses can be introduced into the U.S. without coming under federal regulations for genetically engineered plants. The USDA has determined that six tomato lines developed by Nexgen Plants of Australia aren’t potential plant pests and thus don’t fall under the agency’s jurisdiction for regulating biotech crops. Nexgen altered the tomatoes with “particle bombardment” of gene sequences that allows the plants to detect and destroy the tomato spotted wilt virus and cauliflower mosaic virus.”

23 July: Heide Ledford CRISPR conundrum: Strict European court ruling leaves food-testing labs without a plan https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02162-x

“A landmark European court ruling that made gene-edited crops subject to the same stringent regulations as other genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has created a conundrum for food-testing laboratories across Europe. The ruling that the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered on 25 July 2018 requires these scattered laboratories — which already spot-check freighters and supermarkets for foods that contain unapproved GMOs — to look for gene-edited crops. But there is no easy way to do this. Gene edits often alter just a few DNA letters, whereas conventional genetic modifications often involve transplanting longer stretches of DNA from one species to another. “Some of these [gene-editing] alterations are small enough that they are simply indistinguishable from naturally occurring organisms,” says Martin Wasmer, who studies the legal aspects of genome editing at the Leibniz University Hannover, Germany. “It will not be possible to enforce in those cases.” Scientists struggle to detect the unauthorized sale of gene-edited crops whose altered DNA can mimic natural mutations.”

23 July: Ron Bailey E.U. Regulators Can’t Detect the Gene-Edited Crops They Banned The difference between two identical genes — one edited and the other a natural mutation — is entirely metaphysical. https://reason.com/2019/07/23/e-u-regulators-cant-detect-the-gene-edited-crops-they-banned/.

“The European Court of Justice ruled last summer that the European Union’s absurd regulatory scheme for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) must be applied to gene-edited crops. Such regulations, however, are scientifically nonsensical. GMO crops (typically modified by adding genes from other organisms)and gene-edited crops (using techniques like CRISPR to modify genes already in the crop variety) are safe for people and for the environment. Such crops need no more regulation than do crops created via conventional techniques such as crossbreeding or random mutation by blasting them with ionizing radiation and harsh chemicals. Now foods labs are telling would-be E.U. regulators that there are no tests that can reliably distinguish between gene-edited and conventional crop varieties. Why? Because many of the edited genes are indistinguishable from those in naturally occurring organisms. Consequently, E.U. regulators are worried that gene-edited horrors from the U.S., such as Calyxt’s healthy high-oleic-acid oil or Intrexon’s non-browning lettuce, might sneak into European supermarkets undetected.”

20 July: Naaman Zhou Taking the sting out: Australian gene editing is crossing the pain threshold — A Sydney team has developed a box jellyfish antidote so simple it can go on as a spray. But it’s only the first step https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/21/taking-the-sting-out-australian-gene-editing-is-crossing-the-pain-threshold.

“In May, the Sydney-based scientist and his team of 22 announced they had potentially cured the sting of the box jellyfish, the most venomous creature in the world, whose toxins cause excruciating pain as a best-case scenario, and cardiac arrest as the worst. It was a simple but groundbreaking technique, using the latest in genetics technology — Crispr, the gene-editing tool that allows scientists to make precise changes to DNA.”

16 July: Jef Akst US Senators Call for International Guidelines for Germline Editing https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/us-senators-call-for-international-guidelines-for-germline-editing-66162

“Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced a resolution yesterday (July 15) calling for global collaboration in developing guidelines for the use of gene editing technologies in the context of reproduction. The senators specifically pledge their support for the international commission established in May by the US National Academy of Medicine, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society of the UK to develop a framework for scientific research into the use of germline editing, and encourages the US Secretary of State to help “forge an international consensus regarding the limits of ethical clinical use of genome-edited human embryos.”

13 July: Rod A. Herman, Maria Fedorova, Nicholas P. Storer Will Following the Regulatory Script for GMOs Promote Public Acceptance of Gene-Edited Crops? https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(19)30156-8?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0167779919301568%3Fshowall%3Dtrue.

“Risk-disproportionate regulation of gene-edited crops has been proposed to gain public acceptance for this breeding technique. However, confounding safety regulations with advocacy for an underlying technology risks weakening achievement of both objectives. Dedicated factual communication and education from trusted sources is likely to better support public acceptance of gene-edited crops.”

12 July: Zachery Eanes This RTP startup is using gene editing to improve crops, from corn to raspberries https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article232437938.html.

“As Tom Adams sees it, there are two main problems in the world related to food. There are those who don’t have enough of it and there are others that have too much of the wrong stuff. He’s hoping his startup, nestled near the center of Research Triangle Park, can be a part of changing that equation. Just over a year old, Pairwise is at the forefront of agriculture technology, creating experimental crops that might one day show up on the shelves at your grocery store. The company uses CRISPR technology — most famous for its controversial use by a Chinese scientist in an attempt to make two unborn children resistant to HIV — to create plants that are, in the words of Pairwise’s head of trait development, Mike Mann, “more affordable, attainable and also convenient.” Adams, the company’s CEO, thinks if they can improve produce in slight ways, it will help people “go to the produce aisle instead of the potato chip aisle.””

12 July: Kristin Houser Scientists gene edit plants to be better at carbon capture https://futurism.com/the-byte/scientists-gene-editing-plants-carbon-capture.

“While some scientists are focusing on mechanical solutions to carbon capture, researchers at the Salk Institute’s Harnessing Plants Initiative are taking a more organic approach, by looking for ways to optimize plants’ natural ability to capture and store carbon — and they just discovered a gene that could be a game-changer.”

11 July: Justin Cremer Activists slow to embrace gene editing that benefits animal welfare https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/07/activists-slow-embrace-gene-editing-benefits-animal-welfare/.

“Though researchers are turning to gene editing to address animal welfare issues, it appears that activists remain lukewarm to that use of the technology. Hornless dairy cows, disease-resistant swine and poultry, male pigs that never reach puberty and cattle that can better tolerate heat are some of the projects now in the works to reduce suffering among livestock. Animal welfare groups, however, are treading carefully and appear hesitant to embrace precision breeding, even when it’s intended to spare livestock from painful procedures. This raises the question of whether they’ll ever endorse research aimed at improving conditions for livestock under the current methods of agricultural production.”

6 July: Amir Hameed, Muhammad Aamer Mehmood, Muhammad Shahid, et al. Prospects for potato genome editing to engineer resistance against viruses and cold-induced sweetening, GM Crops & Food DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2019.1631115

“…CRISPR technology is predicted to reduce the cost of potato production and is likely to pass through the regulatory process being marker and transgene-free. The current review summarizes the potential application of the CRISPR/Cas9 system for traits improvement in potato. Moreover, the prospects for engineering resistance against potato fungal pathogens and current limitations/challenges are discussed.”

5 July: Jennifer Shike Could Genome Editing Eliminate Need for Surgical Castration of Swine? https://www.porkbusiness.com/article/could-genome-editing-eliminate-need-surgical-castration-swine

“Recombinetics/Acceligen and Hendrix Genetics have successfully used a genome editing method to create swine that remain in a pre-pubertal state, thus eliminating the need for surgical castration, according to a release from the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR). “The first litter of castration-free prototype piglets using commercially relevant genetics confirms the methodology is working,” FFAR said.”

4 July: Elinor Hortle Why the ‘molecular scissors’ metaphor for understanding CRISPR is misleading https://theconversation.com/why-the-molecular-scissors-metaphor-for-understanding-crispr-is-misleading-119812.

“…the molecular scissors metaphor is pretty damn accurate as far as it goes. But in focusing on the relatively simple relationship between CRISPR and DNA, we miss the far more complicated relationship between DNA and the rest of the body. This metaphor ignores an entire ecosystem of moving parts that are crucial for understanding the awe-inspiring, absolutely insane thing scientists are trying to do when they attempt gene editing. I prefer the metaphor of malware. In my research I use CRISPR from time to time. To design experiments and interpret results effectively, I need a solid way to conceptualise what it can (and can’t) do. I do not think of CRISPR as molecular scissors. Instead I imagine a city. The greater metropolis represents the body, the suburbs are organs, the buildings are cells, the people are proteins, and the internet is DNA. In this metaphor CRISPR is malware. More precisely, CRISPR is malware that can search for any chosen 20-character line of code and corrupt it. This is not a perfect metaphor by any stretch, but it gets me closer to understanding than almost anything else.”

2 July: Brittany Flaherty Researchers use CRISPR to eliminate HIV in mice https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/02/crispr-hiv-eliminated-in-mice/.

“The most advanced drugs for HIV suppress the virus, essentially rendering it a chronic disease — but none can cure the infection. Now, a team of scientists has cleared HIV from infected mice using the CRISPR gene-editing tool in what may be the first time the virus has been eliminated from the genomes of living animals.”

25 June: Victor Tangermann Gene-edited, less addictive tobacco could help you quit smoking https://futurism.com/the-byte/gene-edited-less-addictive-tobacco-smoking.

“A team of scientists from the Technical University of Dortmund, Germany have figured out a way to grow tobacco plants that contain 99.7 percent less nicotine. They used the popular gene-editing technique CRISPR to disable six enzymes in the plant that aid in the production of the addictive stimulant. According to the researchers, the new version has just 0.04 milligrams of nicotine per gram — almost undetectable. Their research was published by the Plant Biotechnology Journal earlier this month.”

21 June: Marcel Kunz “Has Europe already lost the battle for new biotechnologies?” https://www.lopinion.fr/edition/economie/marcel-kuntz-cnrs-europe-a-t-elle-deja-perdu-bataille-nouvelles-190521?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=barre-partage-site.

“The new biotechnologies, called “editing” of genes (or rewriting genes) are now present in the basic research laboratories of biology. Various applied domains also seem promising. However, optimism on this topic was showered with a decision last year by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) stating that the organisms obtained by these new technologies, including mutagenesis (the simplest use of gene editing), which is sometimes indistinguishable from natural mutations, should be regulated as GMOs. As a result, the EU directive on GMOs could again rein in innovation, as is the case with classical transgenesis. Plant breeding companies are considering relocating their mutagenesis programs outside Europe “if nothing is done to change EU rules”.”

19 June: The Bench CRISPR: A Solution to the Global Energy Crisis? https://www.synthego.com/blog/crispr-bioenergy?utm_campaign=Blog&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=paidsocial&utm_content=crispr-bioenergy.

“CRISPR is a remarkable genome editing tool that has been revolutionizing research in every industry, and bioenergy is no exception. The recent advances in CRISPR indicate that perhaps this technology may save the day by offering a solution to the energy crisis in the future. In this post, we will discuss the basic concepts of what bioenergy is and how CRISPR is being used in this area.”

17 June: Julia Schachtsiek & Felix Stehle, Nicotine‐free, nontransgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacuml.) edited by CRISPR‐Cas9 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.13193?campaign=woletoc#.XcRtHLWCMt8.twitter.

“The knockdown of the three most highly expressed BBL genes [encoding the synthesis of nicotine] …resulted in a reduction of the nicotine content without increasing the content of other alkaloids (Kajikawa et al., 2011; Lewis et al., 2015)… Thus, the simultaneous knockout of these BBL genes is a promising approach to generate a nicotine‐free tobacco plant.”

13 June: Lauren Martz GSK teams up with Doudna, Weissman labs to create CRISPR genomics center — How GSK’s newest CRISPR lab will advance the technology while b oosting the PHARMA’s R&D capabilities https://www.biocentury.com/bc-innovations/translation-brief/2019-06-13/how-gsks-new-crispr-lab-will-advance-technology-while-.

“GlaxoSmithKline’s latest move to reinvigorate R&D is a collaboration with two of the biggest names in CRISPR research to develop new gene editing technologies and use them to identify drug targets. GlaxoSmithKline plc (LSE:GSK; NYSE:GSK) teamed up with the labs of Jennifer Doudna at the University of California Berkeley and Jonathan Weissman at the University of California San Francisco to form the Laboratory for Genomics Research (LGR), a physical laboratory near UCSF’s Mission Bay campus that will bring together investigators from all three partners.”

11 June: The White House Executive Order on Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-modernizing-regulatory-framework-agricultural-biotechnology-products/?utm_source=link&utm_medium=header.

“Recent advances in biotechnology have the potential to revolutionize agriculture and thereby enhance rural prosperity and improve the quality of American lives. Biotechnology can help the Nation meet its food production needs, raise the productivity of the American farmer, improve crop and animal characteristics, increase the nutritional value of crop and animal products, and enhance food safety. In order to realize these potential benefits, however, the United States must employ a science-based regulatory system that evaluates products based on human health and safety and potential benefits and risks to the environment. Such a system must both foster public confidence in biotechnology and avoid undue regulatory burdens.”

6 June: The Roslin Institute Gene-edited chicken cells resist bird flu virus — Scientists have used gene-editing techniques to stop the bird flu virus from spreading in chicken cells grown in the lab. https://www.ed.ac.uk/roslin/news-events/latest-news/gene-edited-chicken-cells-resist-bird-flu-virus?platform=hootsuite&utm_campaign=HSCampaign.

“Scientists have used gene-editing techniques to stop the virus from spreading in chicken cells grown in the lab. The findings raise the possibility of producing gene-edited chickens that are resistant to the disease.”

3 June: Kate Kelland Scientists edit chicken genes to make them resistant to bird flu https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-birdflu-chickens/scientists-edit-chicken-genes-to-make-them-resistant-to-bird-flu-idUSKCN1T41E9.

“Scientists in Britain have used gene-editing techniques to stop bird flu spreading in chicken cells grown in a lab — a key step towards making genetically-altered chickens that could halt a human flu pandemic.”

27 May: Arlene Weintraub Fred Hutchinson team uses gold nanoparticles to improve CRISPR gene editing https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/fred-hutch-team-uses-gold-nanoparticles-to-improve-crispr-gene-editing.

“Scientists at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center… developed gold nanoparticles that can be packed with all the CRISPR components necessary to make clean gene edits. When they tested the gold nanoparticles in lab models of inherited blood disorders and HIV, between 10% and 20% of the targeted cells were successfully edited, with no toxic side effects… “We engineered the gold nanoparticles to quickly cross the cell membrane, dodge cell organelles that seek to destroy them and go right to the cell nucleus to edit genes,” said Reza Shahbazi, Ph.D., a Fred Hutchinson postdoctoral researcher, in a statement.”

24 May: Gerardo Fortuna 14 EU countries call for ‘unified approach’ to gene editing in plants https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/14-eu-countries-call-for-unified-approach-to-gene-editing-in-plants/.

“The Netherlands and Estonia are leading a coalition of 14 EU member states calling on the next European Commission to update EU GMO laws with regard to so-called new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs)… In their opinion, an update has become necessary after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a ruling last year saying organisms obtained by mutagenesis should be considered GMOs and therefore subject to the safety and marketing obligations laid down in the EU’s GMO directive. In a note to EU farm ministers, the Dutch delegation also reminded that organisms obtained by mutagenesis have been used in farming for many years and have a long safety track record. Until last year’s ruling, NPBTs were exempt from the GMO directive. EU countries were free to decide whether to subject them or not to the obligations laid down in the GMO directive. The European Commission promised after the Agriculture Council that it will come up with a “robust response” to the EU court ruling and draft a legislative proposal in due time. “I expect that a new initiative will be required in the next Commission,” said EU agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan in a press conference after the meeting.”

23 May: Max Planck Society Max Planck Society publishes statement on genome editing — Scientists reject altering human germline at the present time https://www.mpg.de/13509523/genome-editing-statement-mpg.

“The rapid development of CRISPR/Cas technology and other genome-editing techniques raises a variety of scientific, legal and ethical questions. The Max Planck Society has decided to contribute the expertise of its scientists to foster scientific and societal debate on the subject. It has therefore formulated its position on genome editing in a position paper. The paper considers the current state of our knowledge insufficient to justify, among other things, modifying the human germline. It also calls for European legislation to be adapted to the current state of research and for plants with edited genetic material to be no longer be classified as genetically modified if they imitate the natural process of mutagenesis. “The position paper reflects the great potential of genome editing and the ethical and legal challenges it poses. The Max Planck Society wants to show how science can use this potential responsibly in order to gain important insights for the benefit of society, especially with regard to new applications in the fields of medicine and nutrition,” says Martin Stratmann, President of the Max Planck Society.”

23 May: Peter Bickerton and Nicola Patron The case for the UK to embrace gene edited crops http://www.earlham.ac.uk/articles/case-uk-embrace-gene-edited-crops?utm_campaign=Oktopost-The+case+for+the+UK+to+embrace+gene+edited+crops&utm_content=Oktopost-004jo3f75p4fx9a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.

“Gene editing could allow incredible crop improvements, with the potential to reduce the harmful impact of agrochemicals on biodiversity while boosting yield. However, the recent European Court of Justice ruling that gene editing be regarded the same as GM poses a huge barrier to farmers and hamstrings European science.”

21 May: Cathie Anderson Is genetic editing safe? UC Davis center will test new tools using $9 million NIH grant https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article230656054.html.

“Primate researchers at the University of California, Davis, will be testing the safety and efficacy of gene editing tools that they expect will have future applications in humans, work that the university said Monday is being financed by $9 million from the National Institutes of Health.”

21 May: Washington Post Editorial Board We have the technology to customize our babies. It needs regulation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/we-have-the-technology-to-customize-our-babies-it-needs-regulation/2019/05/21/ce6c554c-50b0-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.e1af3af3f30a.

“A commentary in the journal Nature has called for a global, temporary moratorium on clinical uses of human germline editing, defined as “changing heritable DNA (in sperm, eggs or embryos) to make genetically modified children.” The moratorium could be hard to enforce, but it would offer a breather to sort out scientific and ethical issues… The authors suggest that a goal might be some kind of international research framework. Genome editing ultimately can affect all humankind, but any regulation must be sensitive to individual nations and societies — not an easy task.”

21 May: Gerardo Fortuna [European] Commission in search of ‘robust response’ to gene editing challenge https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/commission-in-search-of-robust-response-to-gene-editing-challenge/.

“What Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis has done is to continue to get the legal advice from the Commission to evaluate the outcome” of the European Court of Justice ruling on new plant breeding techniques, Hogan said after a meeting of EU agriculture ministers on 14 May. Meanwhile, he said the Commission has asked EU member states to provide the necessary data in order to help the EU executive to come up with a “robust response” to the EU court’s ruling and draft a legislative response for the next Commission.”

16 May: Science News Genus shares surge on deal to market gene-edited pigs in China https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-genus-plc/genus-shares-surge-on-deal-to-market-gene-edited-pigs-in-china-idUSKCN1SM121 & http://ir.q4europe.com/Tools/newsArticleHTML.aspx?solutionID=3694&customerKey=Genus&storyID=14316221

“BEIJING (Reuters) — British livestock genetics firm Genus agreed on Thursday to license its know-how on virus-resistant pigs to Beijing Capital Agribusiness Co Ltd, which will seek regulatory approval for the pigs in the world’s biggest pork market. Genus has a global patent for commercialisation of pigs genetically edited to resist Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS), also known as blue-ear disease, which causes billion-dollar losses for the global pig industry each year. Under the deal, BCA will set up Beijing Shou Nong Future Bio-Tech Co. Ltd that will fund the development of the market and seek approval for commercial production of pigs resistant to the virus. This is expected to take several years and cost tens of millions of dollars, said Genus in a statement.”

15 May: Kostas Vavitsas Meet CRISPR’s new small molecule inhibitor https://synbiobeta.com/meet-crisprs-new-small-molecule-inhibitor/.

“There are several applications that could benefit from CRISPR inhibitors. As CRISPR/Cas9 has off-target effects, limiting the activity time window can increase its precision. In particular for germline editing applications, modulated editing can decrease mosaicism — organisms consisting of cells with different genotypes, caused by off-target mutations. In cell-free CRISPR applications, the ability to switch CRISPR on and off offers design flexibility. In medical applications, controlled inhibition can reduce CRISPR-associated cellular toxicity by activating the protein only when it is needed.”

15 May: First Gene-Editing Competitiveness roundtable in Argentina http://news.agropages.com/News/Detail-30438.htm.

“Last week, the AgroIndustry Secretariat run the first roundtable on the competitiveness of the gene-editing industry. The meeting was headed by secretary Luis Miguel Etchevehere, which said he is proud about the Argentine regulatory system on biotechnology and gene editing, remembering the audience that the Biotechnology National Advisor Committee (Conabia) was reelected by the FAO as Reference Centre. The Secretariat invited representatives from the local gene-editing industry, regulatory affairs consultants, and agricultural counselors from foreign countries, like the US, Spain, Germany, the EU, China, Brazil, and Paraguay. The National Agriculture Technology Institute (INTA) was represented by Sergio Feingold, while Simplot Company was represented by Juan Pablo Burzaco, Regulatory Affairs manager. “One of the critical points is how the world will harmonize the regulatory system on the gene-editing technology and its products”, National Biotechnology director Martin Lema said in a dialogue with eFarmNewsAr.com. “Our regulatory scheme inspirited the Chilean, Brazilian and Colombian ones, and in a few days Paraguay will publish its own”, Lema added.”

14 May: Olga Dobridova Russia joins in global gene-editing bonanza — A US$1.7-billion programme aims to develop 30 gene-edited plant and animal varieties in the next decade https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01519-6.

“Russia is embracing gene-editing. A 111-billion-rouble (US$1.7-billion) federal programme aims to create 10 new varieties of gene-edited crops and animals by 2020 — and another 20 by 2027.”

10 May: Wang Xiaoyu Gene editing reassuring for safety of crops http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201905/10/WS5cd4cd65a3104842260bade3.htmlScientists say China should follow other countries in removing market barriers.

““In essence, gene editing technology is no different from natural mutations that take place in nature all the time,” Zhu said. “The same result can also be achieved through traditional plant breeding, but gene editing is more precise.” …In Jinan, Shandong province, an industrial base devoted to developing gene-edited plants with advice from Zhu’s team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is on track to roll out roughly 50 species within about six years… crop developers need greater flexibility than what the current regulatory mechanism allows, Zhao said…”

9 May: Leon Vlieger The Inquisitive Biologist Book Review — Hacking the Code of Life: How Gene Editing Will Rewrite Our Futures https://inquisitivebiologist.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/book-review-hacking-the-code-of-life-how-gene-editing-will-rewrite-our-futures/.

“For people in a hurry, Nessa Carey here provides a primer on the powers and pitfalls of gene editing. Hacking the Code of Life is accessible to readers without much background in genetics, focusing more on the applications and the questions it raises than the nitty-gritty details of the tool itself.”

9 May: Amanda Mah More Than a Gene Editor: CRISPR as an Imaging Tool https://www.synthego.com/blog/crispr-imaging?utm_campaign=Blog&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=paidsocial&utm_content=crispr-imaging.

“Scientists are using the principles of CRISPR and its components to visualize the three-dimensional organization of cellular components in real time.”

3 May: CRISPR Under Control: Small-Molecule Inhibitors of Cas9 Identified https://www.genengnews.com/news/crispr-under-control-small-molecule-inhibitors-of-cas9-identified/.

“These studies lay the foundation for the rapid identification and use of small-molecule inhibitors against both SpCas9 and next-generation CRISPR-associated nucleases,” said Amit Choudhary, PhD, of the Broad Institute. “Small-molecule inhibitors targeting CRISPR-associated nucleases have the potential for widespread use in basic, biomedical, and defense research, as well as in biotechnological applications.”

30 April: Greg Neely How we used CRISPR to narrow in on a possible antidote to box jellyfish venom https://theconversation.com/how-we-used-crispr-to-narrow-in-on-a-possible-antidote-to-box-jellyfish-venom-116283.

“Published today, our new research has uncovered a potential antidote for box jellyfish venom. By working with humans cells and the gene-editing tool CRISPR, we identified a common, cheap drug that is already on the market and which could be a candidate for treating box jellyfish stings.”

30 April: Joshua Young, Gina Zastrow-Hayes, Stéphane Deschamps, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 Editing in Maize: Systematic Evaluation of Off-target Activity and Its Relevance in Crop Improvement https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43141-6.

“CRISPR-Cas9 enabled genome engineering has great potential for improving agriculture productivity, but the possibility of unintended off-target edits has evoked some concerns. Here we employ a three-step strategy to investigate Cas9 nuclease specificity in a complex plant genome. Our approach pairs computational prediction with genome-wide biochemical off-target detection followed by validation in maize plants. Our results reveal high frequency (up to 90%) on-target editing with no evidence of off-target cleavage activity when guide RNAs were bioinformatically predicted to be specific. Predictable off-target edits were observed but only with a promiscuous guide RNA intentionally designed to validate our approach. Off-target editing can be minimized by designing guide RNAs that are different from other genomic locations by at least three mismatches in combination with at least one mismatch occurring in the PAM proximal region. With well-designed guides, genetic variation from Cas9 off-target cleavage in plants is negligible, and much less than inherent variation.”

24 April: EuropaBio Over 20 EU business associations call for innovation-friendly rules on mutagenesis https://www.europabio.org/cross-sector/publications/over-20-eu-business-associations-call-innovation-friendly-rules. An open letter jointly calls upon member states and the EU Commission to initiate a legislative change to ensure that targeted genetic variation in organisms can help Europe to achieve important sustainable development goals.

“An open letter signed by over 20 European business organisations jointly calls upon member states and the EU Commission to initiate a legislative change that provides innovation-friendly rules, to ensure that targeted genetic variation in organisms, including crops and other organisms, can help Europe to achieve important sustainable development goals. They highlight widely shared concerns amongst numerous other stakeholders, including scientists and academics, stemming from the 25 July 2018 Court of Justice of the EU ruling on mutagenesis, which equates products developed using targeted forms of mutagenesis with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), thereby subjecting them to disproportionate regulation when compared to other parts of the world. In addition to stressing the unworkability of the CJEU’s ruling, they explain that more practical and science-based rules would foster public confidence and trust, as well as unlock great potential for innovative, bio-based solutions in sectors ranging from agriculture and food to healthcare and energy, thereby contributing to Europe’s resilience to climate change, whilst providing benefits to consumers, patients and the environment.”

23 April: Smriti Mallapaty Australian gene-editing rules adopt ‘middle ground’ — Updated regulations allow scientists to use some genome-editing techniques in plants and animals without government approval https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01282-8.

“The Australian government will not regulate the use of gene-editing techniques in plants, animals and human cell lines that do not introduce new genetic material. The decision, announced on 10 April, is the result of a review of the country’s gene technology regulations.”

April 18: Emily Moon America’s Leading Animal Geneticist Wants to Talk to You About GMOs — Alison Van Eenennaam has spent the last decade explaining gene editing to critics who find fear more compelling than data. Is anybody listening? https://psmag.com/environment/americas-leading-animal-geneticist-wants-to-talk-to-you-about-gmos.

“It’s a crucial morning for the team, one of the only public-sector animal genetic-engineering labs left in the country. Inside the animal science building at the University of California–Davis, the scientists gather around the table in a small, beige-colored conference room decorated by pastoral illustrations of farm animals. The meeting has taken on a frenetic kind of gallows humor, the team joking like a bunch of giddy kids before a big test. Seated near the front of the table, Van Eenennaam runs a hand through her silvery-blond hair and leans back in her chair, commanding the room with ease. Her newest doctoral student, 24-year-old Maci Mueller, pulls up a PowerPoint slide intended to bring their lab manager up to speed. Her slides outline plans to make a “surrogate sire,” a gene-edited bull with the ability to pass on superior traits through generations.”

18 April: Joan Conrow A CRISPR Approach to Saving Banana https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/04/crispr-approach-saving-banana/.

“CRISPR/Cas9‐based genome editing is offering new hope for protecting a critical food security crop by developing climate-smart banana varieties. Research to identify the genes associated with stress‐tolerant traits and other uses of gene editing and genetic engineering to help banana varieties adapt to a changing climate is highlighted in an April 15 article published in Food and Energy Security, the journal of the Association of Applied Biologists.”

April 17: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Researchers use gene editing with CRISPR to treat lethal lung diseases before birth https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417171025.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter.

“Using CRISPR gene editing, researchers have thwarted a lethal lung disease in an animal model in which a harmful mutation causes death within hours after birth. This proof-of-concept study showed that in utero editing could be a promising new approach for treating lung diseases before birth.”

April 17: Jon Cohen Powerful CRISPR cousin accidentally mutates RNA while editing DNA target. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/powerful-crispr-cousin-accidentally-mutates-rna-while-editing-dna-target.

“When researchers first reported 3 years ago that they had created base editors, a version of the powerful genome-editing tool CRISPR, excitement swirled around their distinct powers to more subtly alter DNA compared with CRISPR itself. But the weaknesses of base editors have become increasingly apparent, and a new study shows they can also accidentally mutate the strands of RNA that help build proteins or perform other key cellular tasks. Researchers say this could complicate developing safe therapies with the technology and hamper other research applications.”

April 16: Joseph Opoku Gakpo Ghana’s anti-GMO groups urged to embrace gene editing technology. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/04/ghanas-anti-gmo-groups-urged-embrace-gene-editing-technology/.

“Using CRISPR, the Innovative Genomics Institute has developed cocoa plants to withstand warmer conditions affecting our tropical rainforest, as well as resist viral and fungal diseases,” wrote Dr. Benjamin Senyo Bey, a scientist at the University of Calgary, Canada, in an article published in the Ghanaian media. “Given that Ghana is one of the leading producers of cocoa, but also experiencing increasing deforestation, why would somebody or a group of people resist the introduction of these cocoa varieties in Ghana?”

April 16: Sarah Peyok Gene-Edited Foods Just Took a Big Step Toward Commercialization. https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2019/gene-edited-foods-just-took-big-step-toward-commercialization/83176.

“Agriculture technology (“agtech”) companies of all sizes are vying to enter commercial food markets. Last month, when news broke about the first successful food made with a gene-edited crop, some suggested this new technology could leave genetically modified foods (along with their controversies and regulations) “in the dust.” Various stories focused on the startup Calyxt’s first commercial sale of Calyno high oleic soybean oil to the foodservice industry. Now, the commercialization of gene-edited foods (or as Calyxt dubs it, “concept to fork”) is one step closer to reality.”

April 16: Rob Stein First U.S. Patients Treated With CRISPR As Human Gene-Editing Trials Get Underwayhttps://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/04/16/712402435/first-u-s-patients-treated-with-crispr-as-gene-editing-human-trials-get-underway.

“…a U.S. CRISPR study that had been approved for cancer at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia has finally started. A university spokesman on Monday confirmed for the first time that two patients had been treated using CRISPR. One patient had multiple myeloma, and one had sarcoma. Both had relapsed after undergoing standard treatment.”

April 16: Adam Popescu This scientist thinks she has the key to curb climate change: super plants. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/super-plants-climate-change-joanne-chory-carbon-dioxide?CMP=share_btn_tw.

““We’re trying to do something that’s a huge, complicated thing even though it sounds so simple,” Chory says. “Plants evolved to suck up CO2 and they’re really good at it. And they concentrate it, which no machine can do, and they make it into useful materials, like sugar. They suck up all the CO2, they fix it, then it goes back up into the atmosphere.” She is now working to design plants capable of storing even more carbon dioxide in their roots. Her Ideal Plant project uses gene editing — via traditional horticulture and Crispr — to do so. On a large scale, this could suck enough carbon out of the atmosphere to slow down climate change…This approach essentially supercharges what nature already does.”

April 15: VIB Permit for CRISPR maize field trial that aims to measure climate stress. http://www.vib.be/en/news/Pages/Permit-for-CRISPR-field-trial.aspx

“On April 12, 2019 VIB has been granted a permit for its field trial with maize plants that contain small surgical CRISPR-induced heritable changes. Obtaining this permit allows VIB to continue the field work that was already initiated in 2017.”

April 15: Leena Tripathi, Valentine Otang Ntui, & Jaindra Nath Tripathi Application of genetic modification and genome editing for developing climate‐smart banana. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fes3.168 and https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/04/crispr-approach-saving-banana/.

“Genome editing, an emerging powerful tool, can be applied for developing sustainable solutions to adapt to climate change by resisting biotic and abiotic stresses. CRISPR/Cas9‐based genome editing has been lately established for banana, paving the way for functional genomics allowing identification of genes associated with stress‐tolerant traits, which could be used for the improvement of banana for adaptation to a changing climate.”

April 10: Jessica Pothering Europe’s Gene Editing Regulation Exposes the Messy Relationship Between Science and Politicshttps://agfundernews.com/europes-gene-editing-regulation-exposes-the-messy-relationship-between-science-and-politics.html.

“John van der Oost has a bone to pick with Europe. Van der Oost is a microbiologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. His research in the late 1990s contributed to the development of the CRISPR Cas9 gene editing technology which, among other gene editing tools, has the potential to produce climate-resilient crops to curing genetic diseases in humans to other genomic modifications in both people and animals. And he’s furious about a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last year that he and other proponents of gene editing say will dramatically slow Europe’s innovation in the field of crop science.”

8 April: Michigan Medicine — University of Michigan New DNA ‘shredder’ technique goes beyond CRISPR’s scissors. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408161640.htm & https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1097276519302175?via%3Dihub.

“An international team has unveiled a new CRISPR-based tool that acts more like a shredder than the usual scissor-like action of CRISPR-Cas9. The new approach, based on Type I CRISPR-Cas3, is able to wipe out long stretches of DNA in human cells with programmable targeting, and has been shown to work in human cells for the first time.”

4 April: Oliver Peoples Why now is the time for the convergence of agriculture and CRISPR technologyhttps://www.agdaily.com/technology/time-convergence-agriculture-crispr-technology/.

“The discussion and debate surrounding advances in agriculture have become frequent topics of discussion as the pros and cons of technologies like genetically engineered foods (often referred to as GMOs) and the use of organic versus non-organic agricultural methods continue to creep their way into consumer consciousness and the grocery aisle. However, now more than ever, the concept of genome editing a plant’s actual biological makeup using a precise method such as CRISPR is becoming more prevalent in the agtech conversation.”

3 April: John C. Rose, Nicholas A. Popp, Christopher D. Richardson, et al. Suppression of unwanted CRISPR/Cas9 editing by co-administration of catalytically inactivating truncated guide RNAshttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/597849v1.

“CRISPR/Cas9 nucleases are powerful genome engineering tools, but unwanted cleavage at off-target and previously edited sites remains a major concern. Numerous strategies to reduce unwanted cleavage have been devised, but all are imperfect. Here, we report off-target sites can be shielded from the active Cas9•single guide RNA (sgRNA) complex through the co-administration of dead-RNAs (dRNAs), truncated guide RNAs that direct Cas9 binding but not cleavage.”

3 April: Amfora enters gene editing licensing agreement with Corteva — Biotech company developing food and feed products with increased protein content to address growing consumer health and environmental concerns. https://www.feedstuffs.com/news/amfora-enters-gene-editing-licensing-agreement-corteva & https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/04/04/biotech-firms-amfora-corteva-strike-deal-to-produce-crispr-edited-crops-to-meet-surging-protein-demand/?mc_cid=abb20a8bc8&mc_eid=dafa93b6f2.

“Biotech firms Amfora, Corteva strike deal to produce CRISPR-edited crops to meet surging protein demand.”

2 April: Charleston Noble, John Min, Jason Olejarz, et al. Daisy-chain gene drives for the alteration of local populations. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/01/1716358116 and https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/04/gene-drives-can-controlled-new-modeling-suggests/.

“New scientific modeling suggests that gene drive technology can be controlled and kept from spreading unchecked when released into the environment.” “CRISPR-based gene drive systems — genetic elements which could be engineered to rapidly spread traits through wild populations — could help solve some of humanity’s greatest ecological and public health problems. However, if released, current versions might spread through a nontarget population — possibly across political borders — greatly complicating decision-making. To address this issue, we describe a self-exhausting form of CRISPR-based gene drive called a “daisy-chain drive.”

2 April: Charlotte Harrison (paywall) Berkeley strikes back in CRISPR patent tussle https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0102-6.

“The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has alerted the University of California that a CRISPR-Cas9 patent application filed in 2013 is now about to be issued. The USPTO’s decision means that for now at least, both the University of California and the Broad Instituter of Harvard and MIT hold foundational patents for CRISPR-Cas9 technology.”

1 April: Jon Cohen ‘Game-changing’ gene edit turned this anole lizard into an albino. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/game-changing-gene-edit-turned-anole-lizard-albino.

“The mighty genome editor CRISPR isn’t so powerful in lizards and snakes: Never before has it been used to edit the embryos of these reptiles. Now, researchers have come up with a workaround — by editing the immature, unfertilized eggs of brown anole lizards.”

1 April: Tarek Bazley Mosquito scent discovery could change a billion lives — US researchers genetically modify mosquitoes making females less likely to spread diseases like dengue and Zika fever. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/mosquito-scent-discovery-change-billion-lives-190401082408931.html.

“Researchers in the United States have genetically modified mosquitoes to make humans less attractive to them — a discovery that could dramatically reduce the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, such as dengue, malaria and Zika fever… The scientists identified a gene — known as Ir8a — expressed in the mosquito’s antenna. This gene appears to allow female mosquitoes, the ones that suck blood, to smell lactic acid, a particular acidic vapour in human sweat. Using advanced CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology, the researchers were able to disrupt that gene, making the female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes significantly less interested in humans.”

1 April: Sascha Karberg New rules for genome editing demanded FDP wants new genetic engineering lawshttps://m.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/neue-regeln-fuer-genome-editing-gefordert-fdp-will-neue-gentechnik-gesetze/24164974.html.

“The FDP Group wants to reopen the European and German genetic engineering legislation. In a motion in the Tagesspiegel, the Bundestag is called upon to decide that the Federal Government may “advocate a fundamental revision of EU genetic engineering law at European level” and also “adapt German genetic engineering law accordingly”. The occasion is the recent case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 25 July 2018, also new breeding methods such as using the gene scissors CRISPR / Cas9 or other genome-editing methods as under the release directive “2001/18 / EC” fall and to be regulated as “genetic engineering”. This means that even if Genome Editing brings about the same genetic change as a conventionally bred variety, only the genomed plant will have to undergo extensive, lengthy and costly safety testing prior to commercialization. The Liberals’ proposal therefore seeks to ensure that, at European level, “the long-term objective of breeding is placed at the center of the authorization assessment and thus the transition to a product-oriented authorization procedure is taken into due consideration of the actual risk levels for humans, animals and the environment “.

29 March: Megan Molteni CRISPR Gene Editing Could One Day Cut Away Human Painhttps://www.wired.com/story/crispr-gene-editing-could-one-day-cut-away-human-pain/.

“What if you could genetically edit out not just pain, but existential dread and angst from the human condition altogether?”

26 March: European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL). Detection of food and feed plant products obtained by new mutagenesis techniques. http://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/JRC116289-GE-report-ENGL.pdf.

“The European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL) has reviewed the possibilities and challenges for the detection of food and feed plant products obtained by new directed mutagenesis techniques leading to genome editing. The focus of this report is on products of genome editing that do not contain any inserted recombinant DNA in the final plant. The procedures for the validation of detection methods as part of the market authorisation application process for genome-edited plant products will in principle be the same as for the current conventional GMOs. It is, however, questionable if event specific identification and quantitative detection methods can be developed readily for all genome-edited plants. For instance, detection methods for those plant products that are characterised by a non-unique DNA alteration will probably lack the specificity required to identify the genome-edited plant. Moreover, accurate quantification may be challenging if only changes of just one or a few basepairs are introduced.”

26 March: Michael Le Page Genome-editing record smashed with 13,000 edits made in one cell. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2197656-genome-editing-record-smashed-with-13000-edits-made-in-one-cell/ and https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/574020v1.

“A team has used CRISPR to make a record-breaking 13,200 changes to the DNA of a single human cell. The feat takes us a step closer to being able to thoroughly rewrite the genomes of our cells and other organisms.”

26 March: Han Somsen Scientists Edit Genes, Courts Edit Directives. Is the Court of Justice Fighting Uncertain Scientific Risk with Certain Constitutional Risk? https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/scientists-edit-genes-courts-edit-directives-is-the-court-of-justice-fighting-uncertain-scientific-risk-with-certain-constitutional-risk/E4A5087303858FDA997337D3AEF7B413.

“The gene editing technologies that triggered Case C-528/16, Confédération paysanne, are spearheading a breakthrough in the life sciences. CRISPR/CAS9, for example, allows genes in organisms quickly and with a high degree of precision to be edited, without leaving traces of foreign genetic material. The applications of gene editing are virtually endless, not least commercially, as are therefore the possible implications in terms of a host of (social, ethical, safety, environmental and security) risks.”

25 March: CRISPR-Chip: A New Biosensor for Electronic Detection of Target Geneshttps://www.synthego.com/blog/crispr-electronic-biosensor?utm_campaign=Blog&utm_content=87926548&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-760529971.

“Kiana Aran, a professor at Keck Graduate Institute at Claremont, California, and her team have developed CRISPR-Chip, an electronic biosensor that uses CRISPR to detect specific genes in genomic DNA. Their findings have been published in Nature Biomedical Engineering today.”

22 March: Sarah Lott Scientists test use of genetically modified mosquitoes to fight malaria. https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/scientists-test-use-of-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-to-fight-malaria.

“Researchers in Terni, Italy used CRISPR technology to modify reproduction-related (gene drive) genes in female Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes to render them infertile. The gene drive modification also alters the female mosquitoes’ mouth anatomy to more closely resemble a male mosquito proboscis, making them unable to pierce skin. If the alteration proves successful, eventually almost all of the genetically modified mosquito offspring will inherit the trait. If introduced into nature, this could cause targeted mosquito populations to self-destruct.”

20 March: Megan Molteni The First Gene-edited Food is Now Being Served. https://www.wired.com/story/the-first-gene-edited-food-is-now-being-served/.

“…No, they weren’t growing pot. They were growing something at once even more revolutionary and perhaps more controversial: gene-edited food crops… But last month Calyxt became the first to commercially debut a gene-edited food, a soybean oil it claims to have made healthier.”

20 March: Alison L. Van Eenennaam, Kevin D. Wells & James D. Murray Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-019-0035-y.

“Dietary DNA is generally regarded as safe to consume, and is a routine ingredient of food obtained from any living organism. Millions of naturally-occurring DNA variations are observed when comparing the genomic sequence of any two healthy individuals of a given species. Breeders routinely select desired traits resulting from this DNA variation to develop new cultivars and varieties of food plants and animals. Regulatory agencies do not evaluate these new varieties prior to commercial release. Gene editing tools now allow plant and animal breeders to precisely introduce useful genetic variation into agricultural breeding programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it has no plans to place additional regulations on gene-edited plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding prior to commercialization. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed mandatory premarket new animal drug regulatory evaluation for all food animals whose genomes have been intentionally altered using modern molecular technologies including gene editing technologies. This runs counter to U.S. biotechnology policy that regulatory oversight should be triggered by unreasonable risk, and not by the fact that an organism has been modified by a particular process or technique. Breeder intention is not associated with product risk. Harmonizing the regulations associated with gene editing in food species is imperative to allow both plant and animal breeders access to gene editing tools to introduce useful sustainability traits like disease resistance, climate adaptability, and food quality attributes into U.S. agricultural breeding programs.”

19 March: Gregory Barber A more humane livestock industry, brought to you by CRISPRhttps://www.wired.com/story/crispr-gene-editing-humane-livestock/.

“If there is a purgatory for gene-edited cattle, it can be found in the Davis Beef Barn, which is home to six young penitents. About five years ago, their father, a bull, was genetically dehorned by a Minnesota-based company called Recombinetics. Just as egg farmers prefer hens, dairy farmers prefer polled, or hornless, cows. Often they’ll prevent the horns from growing by burning them off with a hot iron or applying caustic chemicals. So, using a Crispr-like technology known as Talens, Recombinetics gave the bull two copies of the polled variation, in the hope that none of his descendants would have to undergo the procedure.”

19 March: Director of the Institute of Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences opposed equating CRISPR with GMOs. https://www.archyworldys.com/director-of-the-institute-of-genetics-russian-academy-of-sciences-opposed-equating-crispr-with-gmos/.

“Director of the Vavilov General Genetics Institute, Alexander Kudryavtsev, spoke out against equating genetically edited organisms with GMOs in Russia, as they did in the European Union. Speaking at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Kudryavtsev noted that such a measure would lead to the lag of Russian science “for a long time, if not forever… The position of the Russian authorities and science on this issue remains uncertain, but GMOs are de facto in Russia banned in 2016, and domestic institutions sometimes issue highly controversial publications.”

19 March Ron Bailey First Gene-Edited Crop Coming to a Store Near You — Great news for consumers and farmers. https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/19/gene-edited-soy-oil-now-available.

“Healthier oil from gene-edited soybeans similar in composition to olive oil is now being used to fry foods and as an ingredient in salad dressings. To produce Calyno oil, the biotech company Calyxt gene-edited soybeans to turn off two genes involved with fatty-acid synthesis. In the past, hydrogenating soy oil to give it a longer shelf life produced unhealthy trans fats.”

19 March: Dennis Normile Gene-edited foods are safe, Japanese panel concludes. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/gene-edited-foods-are-safe-japanese-panel-concludes.

“Japan will allow gene-edited foodstuffs to be sold to consumers without safety evaluations as long as the techniques involved meet certain criteria, if recommendations agreed on by an advisory panel yesterday are adopted by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. This would open the door to using CRISPR and other techniques on plants and animals intended for human consumption in the country.”

15 March: Cory J. Smith, Oscar Castanon, Khaled Said, et al. Enabling large-scale genome editing by reducing DNA nickinghttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/574020v1.

“To extend the frontier of genome editing and enable the radical redesign of mammalian genomes, we developed a set of dead-Cas9 base editor (dBEs) variants that allow editing at tens of thousands of loci per cell by overcoming the cell death associated with DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and single-strand breaks (SSBs).”

12 March: Candace Choi Gene-edited food quietly arrives in restaurant cooking oilhttps://apnews.com/17f0f799580a483fbd1b2d69bcf2ba18.

“Somewhere in the Midwest, a restaurant is frying foods with oil made from gene-edited soybeans. That’s according to the company making the oil, which says it’s the first commercial use of a gene-edited food in the U.S. Calyxt said it can’t reveal its first customer for competitive reasons, but CEO Jim Blome said the oil is “in use and being eaten.”

12 March: Mark Brazeau Animal gene editing breakthrough: Bringing Angus beef raised from US cattle to Brazil. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/03/12/animal-gene-editing-breakthrough-bringing-angus-beef-raised-from-us-cattle-to-brazil/.

“Brazilians love their beef. Actually, they love our beef. US raised Angus beef is better marbled and more tender than the local Nelore beef, so it sells for a premium. Angus beef sells for about 50 percent more in Brazil than cuts from the native Nelore herds. Brazilian ranchers would love to charge that premium as well, but Angus cattle don’t thrive in the Brazilian heat. They slow down and stop eating enough to gain weight… Enter the biotech company Recombinetics which specializes in breeding cattle through gene-editing techniques. They are better known for the hornless gene edited dairy cows they have in development, but in terms of environmental impact, the heat-tolerant Angus cow that was cloned earlier this year in Brazil could be a much bigger deal.”

11 March: Clive Cookson Why the future of gene-edited foods is in the balance: Regulators will decide the impact of the biggest advance in bioscience since genetic modification. https://www.ft.com/content/12b978aa-0544-11e9-bf0f-53b8511afd73.

“Publicity around gene — or genome — editing has focused on human applications, and particularly the controversy about gene-edited babies born in China. Yet it also promises to transform agricultural production, for example genetically editing crops to make them resistant to disease or developing faster-growing varieties of livestock. The extent of that transformation will depend on variations in regulation around the world.”

11 March: Gene-editing sugarcane for biofuels could ‘secure the industry’s future’. https://biofuels-news.com/display_news/14464/geneediting_sugarcane_for_biofuels_could_secure_the_industrys_future/.

“Australia’s University of Queensland (UQ) revealed a study into gene-editing sugarcane for use in renewable energy and bioplastics. “The industry must think beyond just producing sugar, to also producing electricity, biofuels for transportation and oils to replace traditional plastics,” said Professor Robert Henry, director of the Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) at UQ. “It’s about reinventing sugarcane as a crop with a wider range of end uses, and sugarcane is ideal for renewables because it is fast-growing with abundant biomass.””

4 March: Rim Lassoued, Diego Maximiliano Macall, Hayley Hesseln, Peter W. B. Phillips, Stuart J. Smyth. Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11248-019-00118-5.

“…sustained research and the amalgamation of a number of disciplines has resulted in new breeding techniques (NBTs), such as genome editing, which offer the promise of new opportunities to resolve some of the issues. Here we present the results of an expert survey on the added potential benefits of genome-edited crops compared to those developed through genetic modification (GM) and conventional breeding.”

27 February: Vanessa Schipani Doudna’s Confidence in CRISPR’s Research Potential Burns Bright — Jennifer Doudna, one of CRISPR’s primary innovators, stays optimistic about how the gene-editing tool will continue to empower basic biological understanding. https://www.quantamagazine.org/doudnas-confidence-in-crisprs-research-potential-burns-bright-20190227/.

“But although Doudna argues for caution when contemplating changes that could be passed down for generations, she remains a forceful advocate for the potential of CRISPR in basic research, as well as its medical and biotech applications. “I think when you understand how things work, you can apply them more effectively. And once you apply them, you invariably uncover things that you didn’t understand about the fundamental biology of that system,” Doudna said. “I love that kind of interplay.””

25 February: Europe: The big dilemma: genome editing — forbidden, but undetectable. https://www.transgen.de/aktuell/2742.genome-editing-nachweisverfahren.html. See also http://db.zs-intern.de/uploads/1549640768-Genome%20editing%20report_final%20version%20ENGL.pdf.

“In the EU genome-edited plants are invariably considered as genetic engineering. Internationally, the EU is pretty much alone. Neither the major agricultural exporting countries in North and South America want to follow this strict course, nor the European neighbors Switzerland and Norway. This comes at a price: in the future, imports of agricultural products must be controlled at the borders, so that no genome-edited plant can enter the EU illegally. However, suitable detection methods are not yet available. Europe is facing a dilemma.”

22 February: Robert Sanders With nanotubes, genetic engineering in plants is easy-peasy. https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/02/25/with-nanotubes-genetic-engineering-in-plants-is-easy-peasy/.

“Inserting or tweaking genes in plants is more art than science, but a new technique developed by University of California, Berkeley, scientists could make genetically engineering any type of plant — in particular, gene editing with CRISPR-Cas9 — simple and quick. To deliver a gene, the researchers graft it onto a carbon nanotube, which is tiny enough to slip easily through a plant’s tough cell wall.”

20 February: Heidi Ledford Gene-edited animal creators look beyond US market: Tired of regulatory confusion and a lack of funding, some US researchers are taking their gene-edited livestock abroad. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00600-4.

“In a few weeks, reproductive biologist Charles Long will travel from Texas to São Paulo, Brazil in search of collaborators willing to take on his studies of gene-edited cattle. He is reluctant to ship the project away from his laboratory at Texas A&M University in College Station. But after 20 years of struggling to win US government funding for his research, Long says that he is done. “We’ve essentially given up,” he says. “I’m going to move the entire damn project down there.””

19 February: Amy Maxmen Faster, better, cheaper: the rise of CRISPR in disease detection — Powerful gene-editing tool could help to diagnose illnesses such as Lassa fever early and rein in the spread of infection. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00601-3?utm_source=twt_nnc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=naturenews&sf208419235=1.

“An epidemic of Lassa fever in Nigeria that has killed 69 people this year is on track to be the worst ever recorded anywhere. Now, in the hope of reducing deaths from Lassa in years to come, researchers in Nigeria are trying out a new diagnostic test based on the gene-editing tool CRISPR. The test relies on CRISPR’s ability to hunt down genetic snippets ― in this case, RNA from the Lassa virus ― that it has been programmed to find. If the approach is successful, it could help to catch a wide range of viral infections early so that treatments can be more effective and health workers can curb the spread of infection.”

15 February: Pallab Ghosh Gene-edited animal plan to relieve poverty in Africahttps://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47197896. A researcher in Edinburgh is leading efforts to develop gene-edited farm animals for poor farmers in Africa.

“Prof Appolinaire Djikeng is developing cows, pigs and chickens that are resistant to diseases and more productive. Among them are cattle that have been gene edited to be heat-resistant. Details of the project were given at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington DC. Prof Djikeng is the director of the Centre for Tropical Livestock Genetics and Health. He believes that gene editing along with more targeted traditional cross-breeding will lead to healthy, productive livestock that will transform the lives of some of the very poorest people in the world. “We can drive out poverty in some of the most vulnerable communities,” he told BBC News. “We are talking about smallholders with just one, two or three animals. “If the animals die or are not producing to their potential, it means no income for the smallholder’s family and the risk of falling into absolute poverty.””

February 15: The Broad Institute Researchers advance CRISPR-based tool for diagnosing disease -With SHERLOCK, a strip of paper can now indicate presence of pathogens, tumor DNA, or any genetic signature of interest. http://news.mit.edu/2018/researchers-advance-crispr-based-tool-diagnosing-disease-0215?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=.

“The team that first unveiled the rapid, inexpensive, highly sensitive CRISPR-based diagnostic tool called SHERLOCK has greatly enhanced the tool’s power, and has developed a miniature paper test that allows results to be seen with the naked eye — without the need for expensive equipment.”

12 February: Carolyn Wilke Preliminary Results Point to Success of In Vivo Gene Editing: Two studies show signs that the introduced DNA is functioning, but it’s too early to know if patients actually benefit. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/preliminary-results-point-to-success-of-in-vivo-gene-editing-65452?utm_content=85124144&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-18198832 and https://investor.sangamo.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sangamo-announces-interim-results-phase-12-champions-study.

“Preliminary results from a clinical trial, shared by the researchers at the WORLDSymposium conference in Orlando, Florida, last week (February 7), suggest success in actually altering the DNA, although it’s still unclear whether the intervention will help the patients… The men enrolled in the studies by the company Sangamo include eight patients with Hunter syndrome and three with Hurler syndrome… These are rare metabolic disorders caused by mutations that leave the men without an enzyme needed to break down certain polysaccharides. In turn, sugars accumulate in the body, leading to organ damage and often early death.”

February 11: Benjamin P. Kleinstiver, Alexander A. Sousa, Russell T. Walton, et al. Engineered CRISPR–Cas12a variants with increased activities and improved targeting ranges for gene, epigenetic and base editinghttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-018-0011-0.

“Broad use of CRISPR–Cas12a (formerly Cpf1) nucleases1 has been hindered by the requirement for an extended TTTV protospacer adjacent motif (PAM)2. To address this limitation, we engineered an enhanced Acidaminococcus sp. Cas12a variant (enAsCas12a) that has a substantially expanded targeting range, enabling targeting of many previously inaccessible PAMs. On average, enAsCas12a exhibits a twofold higher genome editing activity on sites with canonical TTTV PAMs compared to wild-type AsCas12a…”

February 11: Timothé Cynober CRISPR: One Patent to Rule Them All. https://labiotech.eu/features/crispr-patent-dispute-licensing/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=meetedgar.

“The gene editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionized research in biology. With several parties fighting for the rights to the technology’s intellectual property, how difficult is it for third parties to access this coveted technology? The CRISPR patent dispute is quite unique. While universities usually work together to disseminate innovation and knowledge, in the CRISPR case they are fighting for a gold mine… Clearing a way