Carrie D. Wolinetz of the NIH on gene editing
By Xavier Symons,
BioEdge
| 02. 23. 2016
Untitled Document
New gene editing technologies like the CRISPR-Cas9 technique hold great promise for medicine and the biological sciences. Some researchers say we may soon be able to eradicate infectious diseases like malaria, and edit HIV out of the genome of AIDS sufferers. Others believe we can use gene editing techniques to make animal organs suitable for human transplants.
Yet there are many ethical questions attentant to research in the area, and ethicists are struggling to catch up with scientists eagerly refining the new gene editing techiques. Recently I spoke with Dr. Carrie D. Wolinetz, assistant director for Science Policy at the National Institutes of Health, about various concerns raised by bioethicists about gene editing.
Dr. Wolinetz worked on biomedical research policy issues as the Deputy Director for Federal Affairs at the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Director of Scientific Affairs and Public Relations at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). She also served as the President of United for Medical Research, a leading NIH advocacy coalition. Outside of NIH, Dr. Wolinetz teaches as an Adjunct...
Related Articles
By Emma McDonald Kennedy
| 09.25.2025
In the leadup to the 2024 election, Donald Trump repeatedly promised to make IVF more accessible. He made the commitment central to his campaign, even referring to himself as the “father of IVF.” In his first month in office, Trump issued an executive order promising to expand IVF access. The order set a 90-day deadline for policy recommendations for “lowering costs and reducing barriers to IVF,” although it didn’t make any substantive reproductive healthcare policy changes.
The response to the...
By Jacob Bogage, The Washington Post | 09.03.2025
The conservative group behind the Project 2025 governing playbook for President Donald Trump’s second term is set to propose sweeping revisions to U.S. economic policy meant to encourage married heterosexual couples to have more children.
The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing...
By Caroline Kitchener, The New York Times | 08.21.2025
Less than two weeks after an Alabama Supreme Court decision upended in vitro fertilization in the state and prompted a national backlash, over 100 conservative congressional staff members and I.V.F. skeptics crammed into a meeting room a few blocks from...
By Carter Sherman, The Guardian | 08.23.2025
For Erica L and her husband, in-vitro fertilization was the “nuclear option”.
After two years of trying to conceive, Erica and her husband had no idea why they could not have a baby. Doctors said only that they had “unexplained...