60 Minutes Shines Spotlight on the Power and Promise of CRISPR

On Sunday night, 60 Minutes ran a captivating segment on the promise and possibilities of CRISPR – the revolutionary, cutting-edge technology used to delete, insert, or repair DNA in humans. "There are about six thousand or more diseases that are caused by faulty genes. The hope is that we will be able to address most, if not all of them," Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute told 60 Minutes. Catch the full segment here.

Click to Watch

To learn more about genome editing and its potential to produce transformative breakthroughs in both human health and agriculture, head over to our new issue page. We provide important resources and background materials to better understand these groundbreaking innovations and what is needed to ensure the policy and regulatory environments are keeping pace with the scientific advances happening in labs across the nation.

Check it out here.

Gene Editing Is A Continuum of Plant Breeding

At the end of March, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the government agency regulating genetically engineered plants, clarified that under its biotechnology regulations the agency "does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques." Essentially, this statement signals that the USDA does not, and has no intentions to, regulate gene edited plants, because using gene editing to make changes in plants is no different than selective breeding.

You could almost hear a collective sigh of relief on many farms throughout the nation, as this statement provides growers some certainty that researchers will not be forced to spend countless years and millions of dollars investing in their product through the regulatory process. The promise of gene-editing to solve some of the nation's toughest agricultural challenges, suddenly became more promising.

In the wake of this new certainty, however, Wall Street Journal reporters Jacob Bunge and Amy Dockser Marcus dive into the question, "Will people eat it?"

And rightfully so. Even with the Federal Drug Administration and the World Health Organization determining that GMOs are safe, activists worked hard to sow fear and skepticism about the technology in the public. And it worked. Today, these same activists are looking to do the same by blurring the lines between GMOs and gene-editing. However, as Bunge and Marcus explain, these technologies are not the same:

"Those older techniques generally involve adding in genes from outside species, including bacteria, viruses and other plants. Inserting such genes enables crops to survive herbicide sprays or repel destructive bugs.

"The new gene-editing technologies enable scientists to achieve some of the same effects by altering the plants' own DNA, without inserting new genes. With Crispr-Cas9, the most widely used system, scientists can program genetic guides to target a location along the plant's DNA, where the Cas9 protein cuts the DNA. The cells change the DNA sequence as the cut is repaired. Scientists are using Crispr to make drought-resistant corn, reduced-gluten wheat and tomatoes with easy-to-remove stems."

And just like the USDA alludes to in its statement, growers understand that gene-editing should instead be considered an advancement in selective breeding:

"[The agricultural industry] describes the editing technologies as an extension of plant breeding, the centuries-old practice of crossing plant strains to create improved offspring. Gene editing, the industry says, can yield the same results as crossbreeding, only faster."

Bunge and Marcus note that the distinction between GMOs and gene-editing is "critical" for an industry that looks to develop plants that carry beneficial traits, such as disease-resistance and drought-intolerance, without breaking the bank or wasting precious time. According to the agriculture consulting firm Phillips McDougall, Ltd., it takes an average of 13 years and $136 million to develop and launch a traditional biotech crop (i.e. GMOs) through the current regulatory framework.

Therefore, USDA's guidance on gene-editing is a step in the right direction, especially for researchers and farmers looking to harness the technology without heavy burden; however, as this Wall Street Journal piece outlines, for the public to embrace the technology they'll need to understand that it is a continuum of selective breeding, not GMO 2.0.

Rampage: How Hollywood Sees Gene Editing

Genetic engineering has long been a favorite topic for Hollywood screenwriters to exploit to make box office hits. From Jurassic Park to Deep Blue Sea, film writers recognize that science fiction, or genetic engineering fiction, sells. There's even a channel dedicated to science fiction, in which the science of biotechnology frequently makes a cameo.

In the eyes of screenwriters, CRISPR offers another opportunity. And "Rampage", starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, appears to be Hollywood's first attempt at misconstruing gene editing technology to entertain film lovers. In short, the film focuses on gene edited animals – instead of lions, tigers and bears, think gorillas, crocodiles and wolves – that have been altered to be huge, deadly and downright mean.

Megan Theikling and Andrew Joseph from STAT News were lucky enough to catch an advanced screening of the film and sat down to discuss what the film's directors got right and wrong about CRISPR. For argument's sake, the reporters entertain some of the genetic changes that are paramount to the movie, however, they note that many of the mutations in the film aren't really based on science. As Andrew explains:

"The idea is that the biotech company "weaponized" CRISPR research and introduced the genes of a bunch of other animals into our three monster-animals to give them traits such as those bat wings, or the spikes of some other animal, or the strength or regenerative abilities of certain kinds of bugs. This is all explained very quickly in some exposition by our disgraced yet heroic geneticist played by Naomie Harris. "I'm talking about extremely specific results," says Naomie.

"One question I have is whether these animal features are polygenic as opposed to tied to one gene. That would make it a lot harder to introduce them into another species… Whether it [CRISPR] could be used to double the size of a gorilla overnight, well, that might be a different story…"

"The CRISPR'd animals of "Rampage" also become super aggressive, and behavior might be harder to change through editing. Maybe they just ramped up testosterone production somehow? I don't know, Naomie didn't explain that part."

As Megan notes, the changes that can be made though gene editing aren't the only things the film's writers took creatively liberties with. She begs the question: Where are the regulators?

"All of the CRISPR work in this movie seemed to be WILDLY unregulated. There's no FDA cameo here. There's no Scott Gottlieb in skinny jeans."

"In real life, there's a whole system that keeps research in the U.S. involving CRISPR in check. The Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health regulate CRISPR as it relates to medical research, of course. But the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture also play a role in overseeing uses of CRISPR. And the Department of Defense - which is interested in genome-editing as a potential bioterrorism threat - has poured a lot of money into CRISPR research. So there are a lot of people overseeing this kind of work."

And as Megan goes on to mention, the film's producers relied more on fiction than on science when developing their plot:

"And as much as I absolutely loved this movie - I will be seeing it at least four more times in theaters, thanks MoviePass - I do think it played fast and loose with some of the science around CRISPR, which is a real thing that actually exists. I know it's science fiction, but the closest thing I could find on the crew list to a science adviser was a "genetics lab tech advisor."

Even "The Rock" himself weighed in on the movie's use of CRISPR as a scientific background, making light of the fact that he doesn't always remember what the acronym means:

Great RAMPAGE review from my fellow Science majors. We wanted to utilize real CRISPR technology as our scientific backdrop. Of course I still screw up what this acronym means.

Buy GMO to Sustain the Food Supply

The world is getting warmer and the population is growing exponentially. The United Nations predicts that the world's population will increase by more than 2 billion by 2050, drastically driving up our demand for food. And this challenge will only be compounded by global warming. Thanks to biotechnology, primarily genetic modification and gene editing, however, the future may not be so grim.

As Kevin Doxzen, a science communicator at the Innovative Genomics Institute, writes in a piece for the San Francisco Chronicle, genetic modification can help maintain our food supply in the wake of shifting climates:

The California drought of recent years has shown us the precious value of water, which can disappear as quickly as it can arrive. Several varieties of GMO crops can not only survive but also thrive in dry areas - helping to reduce irrigation and water use. On the opposite end of the spectrum, researchers have engineered rice that can grow in overly flooded rice paddy fields, a common occurrence in Asia. As our climate changes, monsoons are intensifying and droughts are lasting longer. Under these dire circumstances, genetically modified agriculture provides an avenue to feed Earth's 7.6 billion people in both developing and industrialized nations.

And as climates change, farmers will be forced to move their farms, creating another challenge that can be stifled by GM crops (italics added):

As the planet warms, land suitable for agriculture slowly migrates north in latitude and higher in elevation. When farmers plant their crops at these higher altitudes, where the air is cooler and more humid, crops can encounter new species of bacteria, fungus and insects. In pursuit of sustainability, genetically modified crops (i.e. disease resistance, insect resistance) can boost the environment by minimizing crop devastation from pests and thus reducing food waste.

In looking to the future, Doxzen explains how scientists are using biotechnology to increase yields to create a more stable food supply:

By altering only one sequence of DNA, researchers in New York developed tomato plants that sprouted additional branches, leading to more tomatoes. By altering only one additional sequence of DNA, tomatoes stayed on the branch longer without prematurely falling off. These two changes help farmers improve their yield and revenue by harvesting more tomatoes per acre of land and by collecting them all at once so a fraction of the crop isn't left to decay on the ground.

If we are to feed the world's population by 2050, in the midst of a warming world, we must continue to harness agricultural innovation. We can't rely on only one form of farming to do so. We must explore all options, especially GM crops.

Read the full piece here.

What Is It with Food Acronyms?

I think it's fair to say, that some, if not most, opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are aware of the science illustrating the safety behind the technology. Still, non-GMO activists are relentless in linking GMOs to negative health effects.

However, as Morgan Manghera writes for Food Insight, the official blog for the International Food Information Council Foundation, GMOs aren't the only food acronyms receiving unfounded criticism. Since the 1960s, MSG (monosodium glutamate) has been facing a similar battle with negative public perceptions:

The MSG frenzy began in 1968 when biomedical researcher Robert Ho Man Kwok penned a letter saying he came down with an illness from Chinese restaurants - specifically restaurants that use MSG in their food preparation. At the time, MSG was popular, but Kwok's letter turned the tables. MSG became the enemy substance: Consumers rebuffed it, and scientists began studying it with a more critical eye.

Despite numerous repeated studies which found that MSG does not cause numbness, weakness and heart palpitations - conditions reported by Dr. Kwok in 1968 - many Americans still say they avoid MSG some 50 years after the Kwok experience.  But why?  Why do consumers continue to avoid this ingredient that is approved as safe?

In trying to answer the why, Manghera spoke with Megan Meyer, PhD, Director of Science Communications at IFIC, and unsurprisingly, her explanations as to why consumers refuse to accept the science around MSG are all too familiar for those working to promote the safety of GMOs:

Consumers trust friends, family and health-centered blogs and websites as their primary influencers. This practice demonstrates a clear lack of trust in science and institutions.

Trusting friends and family is understandable. However, issues arise when friends and family members are influenced by false information provided by "health-centered blogs," and other unscientific outlets, that only look to perpetuate fear. And frankly, fear works.

It's one of the reasons that even through there has been no peer-reviewed scientific study connecting GMO consumption with negative health effects, the technology is still not widely accepted.

It's easy for amateur health bloggers to write 600 words on why they think GMOs are bad. It takes a lot more time and scrutiny for scientists to rigorously study the technology and determine their conclusion.

So, why do many insist on trusting bloggers over scientists? Maybe it's because the science isn't as scary as you think. Plus, fear sells.