The CRISPR Revolution (3/28/2016)

I’ve now mentioned CRISPR (pronounced “crisper”) gene-editing technology on several different occasions (examples here and here), but I’ve never done a very good job explaining what it is or why it matters. Since I’m convinced that CRISPR will transform the life sciences and, in a sense, Life itself, I thought I’d share some of the links that I’ve compiled in an attempt to make sense of it all. First, a couple disclaimers. This list is not comprehensive and I don’t intend for it to serve as an official “history” of CRISPR in any way. (As you’ll read below, that can be treacherous territory.) Also, a great many of the articles I cite are hidden behind paywalls. Lame, I know. To compensate, I link to a lot of science journalists, rather than scientists, which is just as well since the former are so much easier to read anyway (a phenomenon that Carl Zimmer explores at this link). Which reminds me: If you’re just here for the cartoons, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page. Finally, you should know that things are moving fast, and this blog post will probably be out of date by the time you finish reading it.

———-

Basic Introductions to CRISPR
Several of the world’s most prestigious science journals have created websites that assemble all of the latest news related to CRISPR. You can also dig through a trove of articles about CRISPR over at Stat News, the Boston-based upstart dedicated to contemporary biology, as well as the San Francisco-based Center for Genetics and Society.

• “Special Collection: The CRISPR Revolution,” Science (AAAS).
• “CRISPR: The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown,” Nature (Nature Publishing Group). See Nature‘s special issue on gene-editing here.
• “The CRISPR/Cas9 Revolution,” Cell (Cell Press).
• “Topical Collection: Genome Editing,” Genome Biology (BioMed Central).
• “Archive: CRISPR,” Stat News (Boston Globe Media).
• “Archive: CRISPR,” Center for Genetics and Society (CGS).

Multimedia
I’ve found each of the following videos and/or podcasts very helpful.

• Video: “Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9,” McGovern Institute for Brain Science at MIT (November 5, 2014).
• Podcast: “Antibodies Part 1: CRISPR,” RadioLab (June 6, 2015).
• Video: Jennifer Doudna, “We Can Now Edit Our DNA. But Let’s Do It Wisely,” TED London (September 2015).
• Video: “Meet CRISPR,” Stat News (September 25, 2015).
• Video: “Carl Zimmer Explains How CRISPR Works in 90 Seconds,” Business Insider (October 12, 2015).
• Video: Emmanuelle Charpentier, “Breaking the Wall to Precise Gene Surgery,” Falling Walls Berlin (January 18, 2016).
• Video: “Feng Zhang Explains CRISPR,” Stat News (January 19, 2016).
• Video: Emma Frow, “Reframing the Debate around CRISPR and Genome Editing,” Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona (December 9, 2015).
• Podcast: “The Risks of Gene Editing,” Perpetual Notion Machine (Madison, WI: WORT 89.9, February 18, 2016).
• Podcast: “Mind-Blowing Science of CRISPR, with guest Jennifer Doudna,” Fareed Zakaria GPS (CNN: March 4, 2016). The CRISPR portion of the show begins at the 0:30:00 mark.
• Video: “Web Extra: Editing DNA to Cure Cancer, with guest Jennifer Doudna,” Fareed Zakaria GPS (CNN: March 4, 2016).
• Podcast: “Frontiers of CRISPR,” Nature Podcast (March 10, 2016).

Context of Discovery
A few short years ago, scientists began to realize that CRISPR-Cas9, a naturally occurring prokaryotic immune system, could be utilized as a tool to edit DNA with great precision. Note that this list is neither exhaustive nor authoritative, and that the publication dates for some of these articles are a matter of great dispute (more on that below).

• Martin Jinek, et al, “A Programmable Dual-RNA-Guided DNA Nucleocase in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity,” Science 337 (August 17, 2012).
• Martin Jinek, et al, “RNA-Programmed Genome Editing in Human Cells,” eLife (January 29, 2013).
• Le Cong, et al, “Multiplex Genome Engineering Using CRISPR/Cas Systems,” Science 339 (February 15, 2013): 819-823.
• Prashant Mali, et al, “RNA-Guided Human Genome Engineering via Cas9,” Science 339 (February 15, 2013): 823-826.
• Lei S. Qi, “Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-Guided Platform for Sequence-Specific Control of Gene Expression,” Cell 152 (February 28, 2013): 1173-1183.

It did not take long for people to grasp the consequences of such easy genome editing. Within the year, scientists were openly discussing the “CRISPR Revolution.”

• Elizabeth Pennisi, “The CRISPR Craze,” Science (August 23, 2013): 833-836.
• Rodolphe Barrangou, “Cas9 Targeting and the CRISPR Revolution,” Science 344 (May 16, 2014): 707-709.
• Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpientier, “The New Frontier of Genome Engineering with CRISPR-Cas9,” Science (November 28, 2014): 1258096-1-9.
• Carl Zimmer, “Breakthrough DNA Editor Borne of Bacteria,” Quanta Magazine (February 6, 2015).

Scientists Urge Moratorium
By early 2015, scientists had used CRISPR to edit the DNA in a variety of different species (see below for specific examples). Around that time, rumors began to surface that some scientists had started using CRISPR to edit the DNA inside human embryos. In response, many of the leading geneticists in the United States called for a moratorium on editing human embryos, insisting that members of the world community should first contemplate the ethical consequences of human engineering.

• Antonio Regalado, “Engineering the Perfect Baby,” MIT Technology Review (March 5, 2015).
• Edward Lanphier, et al, “Don’t Edit the Human Germ Line,” Nature 519 (March 12, 2015): 410-411.
• David Cyranoski, “Embryo Editing Divides Scientists,” Nature 519 (March 19, 2015): 272.
• Gretchen Vogel, “Embryo Engineering Alarm,” Science 347 (March 20, 2015): 1301.
• David Baltimore, et al, “A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering and Germline Gene Modification,” Science 348 (April 03, 2015): 36-38.

Editing the Human Germ-Line
In April 2015, news broke that a group of scientists in China had used CRISPR to edit human embryos.

• Puping Liang, et al, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated Gene Editing in Human Triponuclear Zygotes,” Protein & Cell 6 (May 2015): 363-372.

As you may have already guessed, reaction to the news was swift, intense, and diverse.

• David Cyranoski and Sara Reardon, “Embryo Editing Sparks Epic Debate,” Nature News (April 22, 2015).
• Carl Zimmer, “So This Happened: Editing Human Embryos,” National Geographic: Phenomena (April 22, 2016).
• Jocelyn Kaiser and Dennis Normile, “Embryo Engineering Study Splits Scientific Community,” Science 348 (May 1, 2015): 486-487.
• Sara Reardon, “NIH Reiterates Ban on Editing Human Embryo DNA,” Nature (April 29, 2015).
• Mika Martikainen and Ole Pedersen, “Germline Edits: Heat Does Not Help Debate,” Nature 520 (April 30, 2015): 622.
• Julian Savulescu, et al, “Germline Edits: Trust Ethics Review Process,” Nature 520 (April 30, 2015): 622.
• Robert Pollack, “Eugenics Lurk in the Shadow of CRISPR,” Science 348 (May 22, 2015): 871.
• Henry I. Miller, “Germline Gene Therapy: We’re Ready,” Science 348 (June 19, 2015): 1325.
• “Gene Politics,” Nature 523 (July 2, 2015): 5.
• Kelly Servick, “U.S. to Review Agricultural Biotech Regulations,” Science 349 (July 10, 2015): 131.
• Courtney Addison, et al, “Gene Editing: Advising Advice,” Science 349 (August 28, 2015): 935.
• Steph Yin, “Stem Cell Experts Support Using CRISPR in Human Embryos,” Popular Science (September 10, 2015).
• Claire Maldarelli, “British Scientists Want Permission to Genetically Edit Viable Human Embryos,” Popular Science (September 18, 2015).
• Sylvia Camoresi and Lara Marks, “UNESCO’s Statement on CRISPR-Cas9 Highlights the Need for Public Engagement,” BioNews (October 12, 2015).
• Heidi Ledford, “Where in the World Could the First CRISPR Baby Be Born?” Nature (October 13, 2015).

Summit in DC
Soon after it was revealed that scientists had used CRISPR to edit human embryos, the world’s leading scientific organizations agreed to convene a summit so that they could debate the implications of this radical new technology. The summit, which was co-hosted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the Chinese Academy of Science, and the U.K. Royal Society, met in Washington D.C. during the first week of December, 2015.

• Antonio Regalado, “Scientist Call for Summit on Gene-Edited Babies,” MIT Technology Review (March 19, 2015).
• Charis Thompson, “Move Beyond Differences,” Nature 522 (June 25, 2015): 415.
• Debra J.H. Mathews, et al, “A Path through the Thicket,” Nature 527 (November 12, 2015): 159-161.
• Sara Reardon, “Human-Genome Editing Summit to Sample Global Attitudes,” Nature (November 30, 2015).
• “International Summit on Human Gene Editing: A Discussion,” National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (December 1-3, 2015).
• Sarah Zhang, “CRISPR is Getting Better, Now It’s Time to Ask the Hard Ethical Questions,” WIRED (December 1, 2015).
• Joel Achenbach, “Scientists Debate the Ethics of an Unnerving Gene-Editing Technique,” Washington Post (December 1, 2015).
• Lenny Bernstein, “It’s Too Early for Gene-Editing of Human Reproductive Cells, Experts Conclude,” Washington Post (December 3, 2015).
• Nicholas Wade, “Scientists Seek Moratorium on Edits to Human Genome that Could be Inherited,” New York Times (December 3, 2015).
• Eric Niiler, “CRISPR Gene-Editing Get Rules, Well, Guidelines, Really,” WIRED (December 4, 2015).
• Sara Reardon, “Global Summit Reveals Divergent Views on Human Gene Editing,” Nature 528 (December 10, 2015): 173.
• John Travis, “Germline Editing Dominates DNA Summit,” Science 350 (December 11, 2015): 1299-1300.

Although many scientists at the summit urged a moratorium on editing human embryos, just as many proved eager to proceed. Sure enough, scarcely two months later, the U.K. granted a team of scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London permission to begin editing human embryos using CRISPR technology.

• Ewen Callaway, “UK Scientists Gain License to Edit Genes in Human Embryos,” Nature (February 1, 2016).

Who Deserves Credit?
As I tell my students on a daily basis, science is a social process. This is especially obvious when it comes to doling out credit for scientific achievements. In January 2016, geneticist Eric Lander published an essay recounting the discovery that CRISPR-Cas9 could be used as a tool. As nearly everyone pointed out, Lander had failed to disclose a rather blatant conflict of interest. He is president of the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard, which is engaged in a high-stakes patent battle over CRISPR technology. Worse yet, many felt that Lander had deliberately shortchanged the contributions of Berkeley scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who are engaged in the exact same patent dispute.

• Eric S. Lander, “The Heroes of CRISPR,” Cell 164 (January 18, 2016): 18-28.
• Dominic Berry, “CRISPR in the History of Science and Intellectual Property,” Engineering Life (January 18, 2016).
• Nathaniel Comfort, “A Whig History of CRISPR,” Genotopia (January 18, 2016).
• Sharon Begley, “Conventional CRISPR History Sets Off An Online Firestorm,” Stat News (January 19, 2016).
• Antonio Regalado, “A Scientist’s Contested History of CRISPR,” MIT Technology Review (January 19, 2016).
• Nathaniel Comfort, “Criticism of Lander Reaches Mainstream Media,” Genotopia (January 20, 2016).
• Joanna Rothkopf, “How One Man Tried to Write Women Out of CRISPR, the Biggest Biotech Innovation in Decades,” Jezebel (January 20, 2016).
• Carolyn Y. Johnson, “A Social Media War Just Erupted over the Biotech Innovation of the Century,” Washington Post, January 20, 2016.
• Sarah Zhang, “Internet Outrage is Shaping the Battle over CRISPR,” WIRED (January 20, 2016).
• Noah Feldman, “When Scientists Dabble in History,” Bloomberg View (January 29, 2016).

Patent Battle
If the response to Lander’s article seems especially pitched, it is because the stakes are so high. Some observers have called CRISPR the “biotech innovation of the century,” and it therefore follows that the patent is worth enormous sums of money. Determining who deserves credit is no easy matter. The case is currently in the courts.

• Sarah Zhang, “The Battle Over Genome Editing Gets Science All Wrong,” WIRED (October 4, 2015).
• Yarden Katz, “Who Owns Molecular Biology?” Boston Review (October 28, 2015).
• Jacob S. Sherkow, “The CRISPR Patent Interference Battle Is On: How Did We Get Here and What Comes Next?” Stanford Law School, Law and Science Blog (December 29, 2015).
• Jacob S. Sherkow, “CRISPR Dispute to Be Decided by Patent Office,” MIT Technology Review (January 12, 2016).
• Heidi Ledford, “Bitter Fight Over CRISPR Patent Heats Up,” Nature (January 12, 2016).
• Stephen S. Hall, “The Embarrassing, Destructive Fight Over Biotech’s Big Breakthrough,” Scientific American (February 4, 2016).
• Andrew Joseph, “A Billion-Dollar Patent Fight Over Gene Editing Hits the Courts,” Stat News (February 25, 2016).
• Heidi Ledford, “How the US CRISPR Patent Probe Will Play Out,” Nature (March 7, 2016).
• Sharon Begley, “Clash of Scientific Titans: CRISPR Hits the Courts, with Money and Prestige at Stake,” Stat News (March 8, 2016).
• Kelly Servick, “Accusations of Errors and Deception Fly in CRISPR Patent Fight,” Science (March 8, 2016).

Biotech Companies
While the patent remains in dispute, many different companies from a variety of different sectors have begun investing heavily in CRISPR-based initiatives.

• Sandra Upson, “Editing the Software of Life, for Fame and Fortune,” BackChannel (June 18, 2015).
• “Editing Humanity,” The Economist (August 22, 2015).
• “DuPont (DD), Caribou Biosciences Announce Strategic Alliance,” StreetInsider.com (October 8, 2015).
• Antonio Regalado, “DuPont Predicts CRISPR Dinners in Five Years,” MIT Technology Review (October 8, 2015).
• Caroline Chen and Doni Bloomfield, “The Gene-Editing Tool on Every Drugmaker’s Wish List This Year,” Bloomberg Business (December 24, 2015).
• Lydia Ramsay, “Editas Files to Go Public,” Business Insider (January 4, 2016).
• Farai Chideya, “The Battle Over CRISPR Could Make or Break Some Biotech Companies,” FiveThirtyEight (January 25, 2016).
• Julia Greenberg, “CRISPR Gene-Editing Upstart Editas Goes Public as Patent Battle Rages,” Wired (February 4, 2016).

Different Species
Since it may have gotten lost in the glare of designer humans, it bears repeating that scientists can also use CRISPR to manipulate the DNA of every other species. At press, they have used CRISPR to edit the DNA of many different animal species, including pigs, monkeys, dogs, rats, and fruit flies, to name just a few. As the New York Times recently remarked, it is currently “open season” when it comes to genetically editing animals. Rest assured, it is open season on plants as well.

• Bjoern Petersen and Heiner Niemann, “Advances in Genetic Modification of Farm Animals Using Zinc-Finger Nucleases (ZFN),” Chromosome Research 23 (January 18, 2015): 7-15.
• Jeongwoo Kwon, et al, “CRISPR/Cas9 as Tool for Functional Study of Genes Involved in Preimplantation Embryo Development,” PLoS ONE 10(3): e0120501. (Since it’s not mentioned in the title, this one’s about pigs.)
• Yuyu Niu, et al, “Generation of Gene-Modified Cynomolgus Monkey via Cas9/RNA-Mediated Gene Targeting in One-Cell Embryos,” Cell 156 (February 13, 2014): 836-843.
• Karen M. Chapman, et al, “Targeting Germline Modifications in Rats Using CRISPR/Cas9 and Spermatogonial Stem Cells,” Cell Reports 10 (March 24, 2015): 1828-1835.
• “CRISPR-y Critters: Cute Pics of Cas9 Gene-Edited Animals,” The Paul Knoepfler Lab (UC Davis) Stem Cell Blog (May 24, 2015).
• Xiaohong Zhou, et al, “Exploiting SNPs for biallelic CRISPR mutations in the outcrossing woody perennial Populus reveals 4-coumarate:CoA ligase specificity and redundancy,” New Phytology 208 (May 13, 2015): 298-301.
• Sarah Zhang, “New Gene-Editing Techniques Mean a Lot of GMO Loopholes,” WIRED (August 19, 2015).
• Qingjian Zou, “Generation of Gene-Target Dogs Using CRISPR-Cas9 System,” Journal of Molecular Cell Biology (October 12, 2015).  CBS News reporter Seth Doane recently visited the lab in China where these gene-edited beagles were created. You can watch his report at this link.
• Christina Larson, “China’s Bold Push in Genetically Modified Organisms,” Nature (November 18, 2015).
• Amy Harmon, “Open Season is Seen in Gene Editing of Animals,” New York Times (November 26, 2015).
• Tom Lawrenson, “Induction of Targeted, Heritable Mutations in Barley and Brassica Using RNA-guided Cas9 Nuclease,” Genome Biology 16 (November 30, 2015).
• Edward Ortiz, “First Genetically Modified Cows Arrive at UC Davis,” Sacramento Bee (December 20, 2015).
• Jocelyn Kaiser, “CRISPR Helps Heal Mice Heal with Muscular Dystrophy,” Science (December 31, 2015).
• Monique Brouillette, ” Scientists Breed Pigs Resistant to a Devastating Infection Using CRISPR,” Scientific American (March 1, 2016).

Gene Drives
As if all that were not enough, CRISPR also enables something known as a “gene drive,” which allows scientists to alter the genetic composition of entire populations. For example, some insist that we can use gene-edited mosquitoes to eradicate malaria from the face of the Earth, once and for all. The technology has raised hopes, but it has also raised fears.

• Video: “Gene Drive,” Wyss Institute at Harvard (July 22, 2014).
• Video: “What is a Gene Drive?” Stat News (December 11, 2015).
• VM Gantz and E Bier, “The Mutagenic Chain Reaction: A Method for Converting Heterozygous to Homozygous Mutations,” Science 348 (April 24, 2015): 442-444.
• James E. DiCarlo, et al, “RNA-Guided Gene Drives can Efficiently and Reversibly Bias Inheritance in Wild Yeast,” BioRxiv (March 19, 2015).
• Jeantine Lunshof, “Regulate Gene Editing in Wild Animals,” Nature 521 (May 14, 2015): 127.
• Heidi Ledford, “Caution Urged Over Editing DNA in Wildlife (Intentionally or Not),” Nature 524 (August 4, 2015): 16.
• Bruce L. Webber, et al, “Opinion: Is CRISPR-based Gene Drive a Biocontrol Silver Bullet or Global Conservation Threat?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (August 25, 2015): 10565-10567.
• Omar S. Akbari, et al, “Safeguarding Gene Drive Experiments in the Laboratory,” Science 349 (August 28, 2015): 927-929.
• Sharon Begley, “Why the FBI and the Pentagon are Afraid of Gene Drives,” Stat News (November 12, 2015).
• James E.  DiCarlo, et al, “Safeguarding CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Drives in Yeast,” Nature Biotechnology 33 (November 16, 2015): 1250-1255.
• Elizabeth Pennisi, “Gene Drive Turns Mosquitoes into Malaria Fighters,” Science 350 (November 27, 2015): 1014.
• Tina Hesman Saey, “Gene Drives Spread their Wings,” Science News (December 2, 2015).
• Valentino M. Gantz, et al, “Highly Efficient Cas9-mediated Gene Drive for Population Modification of the Malaria Vector Mosquito Anopheles stephensi,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (December 8, 2015).
• Nicholas Wade, “Gene Drives Offer Hope Against Pests and Diseases,” New York Times (December 22, 2015).

Historians Weigh In
Several of my fellow historians have attempted to place the CRISPR controversy in historical context. These are the ones I’ve found so far, though I’m sure there may be more.

• Nathaniel Comfort, “Can We Cure Genetic Diseases Without Slipping into Eugenics?” The Nation (July 16, 2015).
• Nathaniel Comfort, “Better Babies,” Aeon Magazine (November 17, 2015).
• Nathaniel Comfort, “Archive: CRISPR,” Genotopia (numerous entries).
• Lijing Jiang, “Chinese Biotech versus International Ethics? Accounting for the China-America CRISPR Ethical Divide,” BioSocieties 10 (December 2015): 483-488.
• Dominic Berry, “CRISPR in the History of Science and Intellectual Property,” Engineering Life (January 18, 2016).
• Podcast: “The Risks of Gene Editing,” Perpetual Notion Machine (Madison, WI: WORT 89.9, February 18, 2016). One of the guests is historian Lynn Nyhart.

On the Promise and Peril of CRISPR
CRISPR has caught the attention of a great many people, and it seems that every day brings a different long-read, think-piece, or letter-to-the-editor about CRISPR. I’ve included links to some of my favorites below.

• Amber Dance, “Core Concept: CRISPR Gene Editing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (May 19, 2015): 6245-6246.
• Veronique Greenwood, “Welcome to the Unpredictable Era of Embyro Editing,” Nautilus (June 2, 2015).
• Heidi Ledford, “CRISPR, the Disruptor,” Nature 522 (June 4, 2015): 20-24.
• Daniel Sarewitz, “Science Can’t Solve It,” Nature 522 (June 25, 2015): 413-414.
• Amy Maxmen, “The Genesis Engine,” WIRED (July, 2015).
• Steven Pinker, “The Moral Imperative for Bioethics,” Boston Globe (August 1, 2015).
• Heidi Ledford, “Biohackers Gear Up for Genome Editing,” Nature 524 (August 27, 2015): 398-399.
• Jennifer Kahn, “The CRISPR Quandary,” New York Times Magazine (November 15, 2015).
• Michael Specter, “The Gene Hackers,” The New Yorker (November 16, 2015).
• Keith Joung, et al, “Accelerating Research through Reagent Repositories,” Genome Biology 16 (November 20, 2015). This article describes the important role that plasmid repositories have played in the developing field of genome editing. (April 10, 2016 update: To learn more about the unique role that nonprofit AddGene has played in the CRISPR revolution, see: Antonio Regalado, “The Scientific Swap Meet Behind the Gene-Editing Boom,” MIT Technology Review (April 8, 2016).
• Tom Shakespeare, “Gene Editing: Heed Disability Views,” Nature 527 (November 26, 2015): 446.
• Gregor Wolbring, “Govern Ability Expectations,” Nature 527 (November 26, 2015): 446.
• Silvia Camporesi and Lara Marks, “Survey Invites Opinions,” Nature 527 (November 26, 2015): 446.
• Lucy Odling-Smee, Heidi Ledford, and Sara Reardon, “Genome Editing: 7 Facts about a Revolutionary Technology,” Nature (November 30, 2015).
• Joel Achenbach, “A Harvard Professor Says He Can Reverse Aging, but Is That a Good Idea?” Washington Post (December 2, 2015). George Church repeated his claims about age reversal when he appeared on Colbert earlier this year (video here).
• Ed Yong, “What Can CRISPR Actually Do with Your Fancy Gene-Editing Technology?” The Atlantic (December 2, 2015).
• Editorial Board, “A Pause to Weigh Risks of Gene Editing,” New York Times (December 18, 2015).
• Keith T. Gagnon and David R. Corey, “Stepping Toward Therapeutic CRISPR,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (December 22, 2015): 15536-15537.
• Jennifer Doudna, “My Whirlwind Year with CRISPR,” Nature (December 22, 2015).
• Max Evans, “Could Scientists CRISPR Dragons?” BBC.com (January 3, 2016).
• Ed Yong, “CRISPR’s Most Exciting Uses Have Nothing to Do With Gene Editing,” The Atlantic (January 5, 2016).
• Ben Zimmer, “CRISPR Breaks Out Of The Lab,” Wall Street Journal (January 7, 2016).
• Rosario Isasi, et al, “Editing Policy to Fit Genome?” Science 351 (January 22, 2016): 337-339.
• Francoise Baylis and Janet Rossant, “This CRISPR Moment,” The Walrus (February 12, 2016).
• Allan Boyle, “‘X-Files’ Climax Shines Spotlight on CRISPR Gene-Editing Technology,” GeekWire (February 23, 2016).
• Erika Check Hayden, “Should You Edit Your Children’s Genes?” Nature 530 (February 23, 2016): 402-405.
• Sarah C.P. Williams, “Genetic Mutations You Want,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (March 8, 2016): 2554-2557.
• Heidi Ledford, “Gene Editing is Just the Beginning,” Nature 531 (March 10, 2016): 156-159.
• Jennifer Kuzma, “Reboot the Debate on Genetic Engineering,” Nature 531 (March 10, 2016): 165-167.
• Sara Reardon,” The CRISPR Zoo,” Nature 531 (March 10, 2016): 160-163.
• Todd Kuiken, “Learn from DIY Biologists,” Nature 531 (March 10, 2016): 167-168.
• Alexandra Wolfe, “Jennifer Doudna: The Promise and Peril of Gene Editing,” Wall Street Journal (March 11, 2016).
• Adele Peters, “CRISPR is Going to Revolutionize Our Food Systems, and Start a New War Over GMOs” Co.Exist (March 15, 2016).
• Sharon Begley, “In the CRISPR Patent Fight, the Broad Institute Gains Edge in Early Rulings,” Stat News (March 18, 2016).
• Kate Lunau, “CRISPR Pioneer Feng Zhang Talks About What’s Next for Gene Editing,” Motherboard (March 23, 2016).