Vox’s  Eliza Barclay and Brad Plumer proclaim that “The gene-editing tool’s potential to upend science is dizzying.” They argue that “designer babies” are “for now, mainly a sideshow.” Instead they turned to Nicola Patron, a molecular and synthetic biologist at at the Earlham Institute in the UK and a variety of other scientists “what they think are realistically the most exciting ways that scientists might one day change the world using CRISPR.” They share some of those ideas from food to Alzheimer’s to fuel in this article.

“A team of Chinese scientists is planning to use a CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing treatment on humans for the first time next month. The procedure at Sichuan University's West China Hospital in Chengdu will attempt to treat lung cancer in patients where chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and other conventional treatments have failed. If successful, the trial could pave the way for more CRISPR-based treatments in the future, potentially revolutionizing the way we treat a wide variety of diseases and ailments.” (Jay Bennett, Popular Mechanics)

This New York Times article now carries the online headline “Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome.” I’d have to confirm, but if I recall correctly it was changed after the scientists - including Harvard Medical School’s George Church (pictured) who we’ve gotten to know a bit through ANYA - protested that the talks weren’t so much “secret” as discussing private details of a yet-to-be-published journal article. Numerous sites (including this link to The Seattle Times) carry the original title. Reading the article by NYT’s Andrew Pollack, gives an interesting insider’s perspective of how cutting-edge science is done. Comparing the two versions reminds me of how powerfully images can communicate subtle bias: in one, George seems serious and imposing. In the other he is warm and welcoming. Which better fits the heralding of a synthetic genome? Like the Times, I opted to lead with James King-Holmes’ image of sixty trays containing the entire human genome as 23,040 different fragments of cloned DNA.

The first mentions of deploying gene modification that we noticed were related to modifying mosquitos in ways that would help eradicate mosquito-born diseases. The headline is from a 2015 PNAS academic journal article. The picture is from a more scandalous 2017 news article “Could this zoo of mutant mosquitoes lead the way to eradicating Zika?”

“An international group of scientists meeting in Washington called on Thursday for what would, in effect, be a moratorium on making inheritable changes to the human genome.” (Nicholas Wade for the New York Times). Our science advisors at Harvard Medical School and their colleagues were part of the conversation. We first heard about this bit of major but under-reported news from them.