Crispr-Cas9 explained: the biggest revolution in gene editing

Professor Jennifer Doudna, one the pioneers of Crispr-Cas9 gene editing explains how this important discovery enables precise changes to our DNA , which can be used to correct mutations that cause genetic disease and completely eradicate it from a germline. Doudna raises the 4 key issues of debate around this revolutionary discovery and suggests what will have the most immediate impact.

The Guardian YouTube network:

[chidubem]

For her to have had that dream, her subconscious might have been telling her that this could go wrong.

[sandracaldwellcooper]

One problem with all such breakthroughs is the industrial military complex. As soon as a benign technical/biological advancement comes out, they always find a way to weaponize it. Science fiction eventually becomes science fact. I agree that one way to combat this eventuality is make it transparent to everyone. There the issue becomes is it true transparency or is it opaque transparency? For now, I will adopt an attitude of wait and see. "The answers are out there."

[ravehz]

We kept telling ourselves it would take thousands of years to evolve and now we can do that in a couple years

[sevengenerations]

No matter how accurate or precise genetic modification/engineering becomes (and CRISPR is over-rated in that respect*), these scientists tend to ignore one basic reality about gene editing: genes exist in an ecosystem; a network that is dynamic, fluid, always in flux. Any modification, no matter the technique, no matter how "precise", will impact that network in some unexpected, unanticipated way that will likely result in unwanted mutations. That's the science. That is the science that is ignored all the time. While Doudna gets credit for raising ethical concerns (after the fact), she seems to have never been outspoken about the intrinsic flaws about gene editing in general. Where there is money to be made ....
.
*see, for example, "God’s Red Pencil? CRISPR and the Three Myths of Precise Genome Editing, " by Jonathan Latham, PhD, Independent Science News, April 25, 2016

[c-light]

The cost and access ... a discussion we should be having? Couldn’t that be a cut and dry answer? Those pioneers who developed certain medical advancements and stated they should not be administered for profit, guess what happened and who doesn’t have access. Greed is paramount in healthcare and not answering that question is very telling.

[benjamiah]

The possible nefarious implications of this technology is rather scary brave new world!

[englandsensation]

Fascinating and terrifiyng at the same time.

[williamjayaraj]

Greatest invention of all in the recent times in chemistry that will revolutionise the medical system itself in the near future . Congratulations to Professor Jennifer Doudna and Immanualle Charpentier.
Best wishes.

[MoreChannelNoise]

Scientists often say this will probably happen within the next decade and then 30 years later we are still waiting. In the 1960's and 70's I would watch programs on how great eveything would be in the year 2000 + and here we are in 2020 and all that's changed is TV. sets have gotten bigger and we have the internet.

[BrendanClearyMadFood]

Bang on. We just discussed the very subject last night. But my idea is to score some goals on viruses first

[janedoe]

In a world like that where morality is subjective what do you think the outcome will be?

[NaturalMystic]

If you people in the comments think these people want to prevent disease you are extremely naive.

[lkfqzce]

Yes it's very important to cure generic diseases. And also be accessible to every class of people around. We are waiting for a treatment for muscular distrophy on our family. Hope it's very soon to approach.

[ASLUHLUHC]

2:35 She's either lying or naive. It is currently physically possible, and our understanding of the genome will not stop progressing. Therefore, designer babies/post-human species are inevitable (unless an extinction even occurs beforehand).

[mrsmithlocksmiths]

If CRISPR-Cas9 can cut the 'intruder' DNA code, allowing it to be replaced with the "correct" sequence - does every variation of cancer have the same genetic address?
Like a MAC address?
Shouldn't genetic editing be used for life threatening illnesses more than it is already?

[lauraanderson]

moral imperative to use technology for the benefits of humans

[lostcause]

I'm all for this new tech! Are you too? 😋

[DGill]

We have had the power to remove my favorite invasive species in the western hemisphere....Aedes Egypti mosquitoes no more Zika, yellow fever, dengue, etc. But we don't. Please explain to me.

[tree_VR_Gliding]

I think someone used Crispr gene editing on the camera editing.

[Kikilang]

Stand aside Crispr-Cas9, because a new technique has come along. It's called Prime editing, and it works much better the then crispr.