Gene Editing Controversy Reminds Us Just How Much Money Influences Science
By Kristen V. Brown,
Gizmodo
| 07. 06. 2017
Recently, a kerfuffle in the world of CRISPR illustrated just how easily money—and our perception of it—can impact science.
In late May, a paper came out questioning how effective the gene-editing technology really is. Working with mice, researchers found that edits made with CRISPR can also result in thousands of unintended changes to a genome. The study cast serious doubt on whether CRISPR is ready for prime time.
The fallout was swift. Stock prices of three CRISPR companies—Editas Medicine, Intellia Therapeutics and CRISPR Therapeutics—tumbled. Scientists affiliated with those companies fired back, questioning the study’s methodology. Stocks bounced back. The scientific world was set atwitter, questioning not only the validity of the initial study, but how to trust a rebuttal against that study when it came from those who stood to lose the most from its publication.
Related Articles
By Annika Inampudi, Science | 08.01.2025
In June, Sara* received a message asking whether she wanted to continue to participate in a massive, multicenter research project led by scientists at Aarhus University in Denmark. The iPsych study, the message said, had sequenced her genetic data from...
The Center for Genetics and Society is delighted to recommend the current edition of GMWatch Review – Number 589. UK-based GMWatch, a long-standing ally, was founded in 1998 by Jonathan Matthews as an independent organization seeking to counter the enormous corporate political power and propaganda of the GMO industry and its supporters. Matthews and Claire Robinson are its directors and managing editors.
CGS works to ensure that social justice, equity, human rights, and democratic governance are front...
By Ryan Cross, Endpoints News | 08.19.2025
Human eggs are incredibly rare cells. The ovary typically produces only 400 mature eggs across a woman’s life. But biologists in George Church’s lab at Harvard University — a group that’s never content with nature’s limits — just got a...
By Riley Beggin and Jeff Stein, The Washington Post | 08.03.2025
The White House does not plan to require health insurers to provide coverage for in vitro fertilization services, two people with knowledge of internal discussions said, even though the idea was one of President Donald Trump’s key campaign pledges.
Last...
