Podcast appearances and mentions of hank greely

NBDF CEO, Phil Gattone, is back on the show to share his thoughts on the current events happening in our bleeding disorder community. Plus, Hanna speaks with Stanford law professor Dr. Hank Greely and legendary hematologist Dr. Margaret Ragni about how we know when gene therapy is the right choice—and is our system ready to support it? And, an interview with the founder of Hope Runs Red, Breana Sinkfield. All this and more!   Presenting Sponsor: Takeda, visit bleedingdisorders.com to learn more.   It's a Whole New World Gene Therapy Segment brought to you by CSL Behring, which now has a first-of-its-kind hemophilia B treatment. Visit BeyondHemB.com or download B SUPPORT wherever you get your apps for more information.   Segment is brought to you by Genentech: Visit www.hemashort.com to watch the short film.   Show Notes:   Visit Hope Runs Red and watch or share your story!    Subscribe: The BloodStream Podcast   Connect with BloodStream Media: BloodStreamMedia.com BloodStream on Facebook  BloodStream on X/Twitter   

Professor Hank Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics at Stanford University. He is also the Director of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences. He talks about his career path into bioethics and ethical considerations for organoids, bodyoids, and embryo models. He also discusses the potential future of reproduction, including gametogenesis, ectogenesis, and genetic selection and editing of embryos.

In this edition of Naked Genetics, we take a closer look at CRISPR gene editing. What is it? And what are the ethics involved in rewriting the human genome? Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

The powerful gene editing tool CRISPR is already being tested on animal and plant cells. It has even been used on humans. How might this revolutionary tool change our lives? On the one hand, it could cure inherited diseases and rid the world of malaria-spreading mosquitoes. On the other hand, scientists using it are accelerating evolution and introducing novel genetic combinations that could transform our biological landscape in unforeseen ways. We explore the ramifications of this revolutionary technology. Guests: Nathan Rose – Molecular biologist and head of malaria programs at U.K. based biotech company, Oxitec. Hank Greely – Law professor and director of the Center for Law in the Biosciences at Stanford University and author of “CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans.” Antonio Regalado – Senior Editor for Biomedicine, MIT Technology Review. *Originally aired April 17, 2023 Featuring music by Dewey Dellay and Jun Miyake Big Picture Science is part of the Airwave Media podcast network. Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com to inquire about advertising on Big Picture Science. You can get early access to ad-free versions of every episode by joining us on Patreon. Thanks for your support! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When does life begin? In this episode of Stanford Legal, co-hosts Rich Ford and Pam Karlan dig into the recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court that has sent shockwaves through the fertility treatment community. The ruling, which considers frozen embryos as children under state law, has wide-ranging implications for in vitro fertilization (IVF) practices. Bioethics and law expert Hank Greely joins the discussion, providing insights into the background of the case, its legal implications, and the potential ramifications for IVF clinics and patients in Alabama—and throughout the country. The conversation highlights the intersection of law, medicine, and ethics, revealing the complex challenges surrounding embryo rights and reproductive freedoms.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Hank Greely >>> Stanford Law School Page | Twitter/X(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction & The Alabama Supreme Court RulingHank Greely, discussing the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision regarding frozen embryos. He provides background on the Alabama Supreme Court decision and the implications for fertility treatment in the state along with explaining the legal basis of the ruling and the claims brought forth by the plaintiffs.(00:03:43) Chapter 2: Wrongful Death Act & Implications of the DecisionDiscussion on the Alabama Wrongful Death Act and its application to unborn children, including frozen embryos. Exploration of the broader implications of the decision, including ethical and legal concerns.(00:08:21) Chapter 3: Understanding Frozen EmbryosHank Greely explains the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the concept of frozen embryos, including the harvesting of eggs and the reasons for freezing embryos.(00:14:05) Chapter 4: Legal and Ethical ConcernsAnalysis of the legal and ethical implications of the Alabama decision for IVF clinics and patients. Greely, Karlan, and Ford then discuss the political and legislative responses to the Alabama decision, including potential future actions(00:26:49) Chapter 5: Gender and Control Over ReproductionShow Notes: Discussion on the gender dynamics and control over reproduction highlighted by the Alabama Supreme Court ruling.(00:33:29) Chapter 6: Political Ramifications and PredictionsHank Greely offers his perspective on potential legislative responses and the broader implications for reproductive rights. From congressional bills to grassroots activism, we explore the evolving landscape of reproductive justice. They also explore the political ramifications and the future outlook for fertility treatment.

Fr. Michael Baggot joins the show to talk about Transhumanism. Who are the leading thinkers in the movement? What philosophies underpin the movement? What is the goal of tranhumanism? How does Transhumanism relate to Transgenderism? Father addresses all these questions. Show Sponsors: Ascension: https://ascensionpress.com/fradd Strive21: https://strive21.com/matt Father's Book: https://www.routledge.com/Enhancement-Fit-for-Humanity-Perspectives-on-Emerging-Technologies/Baggot-Gomez-Carrara-Tham/p/book/9781032115856 Fr.'s Links: https://www.magisterium.com/ https://upra.org  https://catholic.tech https://catholicworldview.com  @ThoseTwoPriests  References: When Harry Became Sally by Ryan T Anderson: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/when-harry-became-sally-ryan-anderson/1125792437 The Transhumanist FAQ by Nick Bostrom: https://nickbostrom.com/views/transhumanist.pdf Unfit for the Future by Julian Savulescu: https://www.amazon.com/Unfit-Future-Enhancement-Uehiro-Practical/dp/019965364X Better Than Well by Carl Elliot: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Than-Well-American-Medicine/dp/0393325652 A Free Man's Worship by Bertrand Russel: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/fmw.htm The Space Trilogy by CS Lewis: https://www.amazon.com/Space-Trilogy-C-S-Lewis/dp/068483118X The End of Sex by Hank Greely: https://www.amazon.com/End-Sex-Future-Human-Reproduction/dp/0674728963  

Sorry, folks, it's official: it's the end of sex.* Henry “Hank” Greely, Professor by courtesy of Genetics at Stanford School of Medicine, Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law, and Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences, is very interested in how new biomedical technologies impact assisted reproduction. He's authored two books: The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction in 2016, and CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans, which published in 2021, and is Chair of the Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics, among other impressive mouthfuls. In this episode, Ruby, Anne, and Hank dive into the changes that are already happening in human reproduction — and the possible changes to come. In addition to the scientific challenges, what are the ethical and legal questions we'll need to tackle as the landscape changes? Many of us became aware of genetic questions with Dolly the cloned sheep and the controversy over stem cells and how they might be used to repair damaged bodies. But Hank took the question even further, asking, What happens when we can make eggs and sperm from skin cells? Does that signal the end of human reproduction as we know it? Hank can pinpoint the origin of his curiosity to October 19, 2010 in Muenster, Germany — a conference talk on how induced pluripotent stem cells (iPscs) could be used to make other cells, including, the speaker said off-handedly, sperm and eggs. Wait, what? Science fiction? Maybe not. If you're curious about the possible future of fertility (and sex), this is the episode for you. Be sure to check out the book as well. There's not only theory about what the future could hold but also a well-researched history of how we've gotten here  As always, please rate and review, and most of all, share the episode and show with anyone you think could benefit.  *Spoiler: New technologies might mean the end of sex for reproduction and the start of sex purely for pleasure. So the news isn't bad after all.  Learn more about Hank Greely on the Stanford Law School Directory: https://law.stanford.edu/directory/henry-t-greely/ Find more episodes from Ruby and Anne at https://thewholepineapple.com.   Resources mentioned: Purchase the book from the Harvard University Press: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674984011 Episode 29: My Embryos are Mosaic? https://thewholepineapple.com/episode-29-my-embryos-are-mosaic-interpreting-your-pgt-results/  

Over the last week, news of “synthetic human embryos” has made headlines around the world. Science in Action is getting to the bottom of the sensational story. We talk to two of the researchers who have made the embryo models from stem cells in their labs; Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz from the University of Cambridge and California Institute of Technology, and Professor Jacob Hanna from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. They tell us how they made the embryo models, what their aims are, and their own ethical considerations. The scientific community is excited, but not surprised, by the breaking research. We hear how Dr Andreia Bernardo, group leader at Imperial College London, could use these structures in her future research. Finally, Director of the Reproductive Sociology Research Group at Cambridge University, Professor Sarah Franklin, and Professor of Law at Stanford University, Hank Greely, tackle the legal and ethical constraints on this kind of work, and why it is important for understanding the health of mothers and babies. Photo Credit: Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz Lab Presenter: Roland Pease Producer: Ella Hubber

Sasa Woodruff loves food—she's been accused of having far too many cookbooks. But in 2019, a phone call from an unknown caller changed her relationship to eating. A genetic counselor called to tell her that she had a rare genetic mutation which could lead to a lethal form of stomach cancer.The only way to prevent that cancer was to get her stomach surgically removed. While she's now grateful for the information that genetic testing gave her, Woodruff's story raises questions about what kind of information patients should have and how they can use it. Professor of law and philosophy at Duke University, Nita Farahany and professor of law and biosciences at Stanford University, Hank Greely discuss the implications of growing access to genetic testing and how to weigh health decisions. In participating regions, you'll also hear a local news segment to help you make sense of what's going on in your community. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.See Consider This from NPR sponsors and promo codes.

On this edition of the book review we have author Hank Greely with us to talk about his book CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans! Purchase the book at CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans: Greely, Henry T.: 9780262044431: Amazon.com: Books For more information on this topic visit asrm.org Tell us your thoughts on the show by e-mailing asrm@asrm.org Please subscribe and rate the show on Apple podcasts, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts. ASRM Today Series Podcasts are supported in part by the ASRM Corporate Member Council

What does the birth of babies whose embryos had gone through genome editing mean--for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos--as dramatic a development in genetics as the cloning of Dolly the sheep was in 1996. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences. Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pbliving/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/pbliving/support

When a Chinese doctor changed the genes of two baby girls he thought he'd be acclaimed. Instead, his experimental treatment alarmed scientists and ethicists around the world. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/clearandvivid See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's episode is about a future where we try to control crime with brain implants. Guests: Stephen Kinzer, a journalist and author of Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control. Dr. Shaun Patel, a neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Steph Griffiths and Dr. Jarkko Jalava, co-authors of The Myth of The Born Criminal: Psychopathy, Neurobiology, and the Creation of the Modern Degenerate. Dr. Liat Ben-Moshe, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois Chicago and author of Decarcerating Disability: Deinstitutionalization and Prison Abolition. Dr. Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University. Dr. Apryl Alexander, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Denver. Elliott Fukui, a community organizer and facilitator. Dhruv Mehrotra, a data reporter at Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. Voice Actors: Chelsey Coombs Aiya Islam Anjali Kunapaneni → → → Further reading & resources here! ← ← ←  Flash Forward is hosted by, Rose Eveleth and produced by Julia Llinas Goodman. The intro music is by Asura and the outtro music is by Hussalonia. The episode art is by Mattie Lubchansky. Get in touch:  Twitter // Facebook // Reddit // info@flashforwardpod.com Support the show: Patreon // Donorbox Subscribe: iTunes // Soundcloud // Spotify  Episode Sponsors:  Dipsea: An audio app full of short, sexy stories designed to turn you on. Get an extended 30 day free trial when you go to DipseaStories.com/flashforward. BetterHelp: Affordable, private online counseling. Anytime, anywhere. Flash Forward listeners: get 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com/flashforward Realm: Part podcast studio, part magical refuge, realm is the audio entertainment company that creates original fiction podcasts, including official continuations of popular franchises like Orphan Black. Check out Elixer, a Prohibition-inspired fantasy, wherever you get your podcasts. Shaker & Spoon: A subscription cocktail service that helps you learn how to make hand-crafted cocktails right at home. Get $20 off your first box at shakerandspoon.com/ffwd. Tab for a Cause: A browser extension that lets you raise money for charity while doing your thing online. Whenever you open a new tab, you'll see a beautiful photo and a small ad. Part of that ad money goes toward a charity of your choice! Join team Advice For And From The future by signing up at tabforacause.org/flashforward. Tavour: Tavour is THE app for fans of beer, craft brews, and trying new and exciting labels. You sign up in the app and can choose the beers you're interested in (including two new ones DAILY) adding to your own personalized crate. Use code: flashforward for $10 off after your first order of $25 or more.  Purple Carrot: Purple Carrot is THE plant-based subscription meal kit that makes it easy to cook irresistible meals to fuel your body. Each week, choose from an expansive and delicious menu of dinners, lunches, breakfasts, and snacks! Get $30 off your first box by going to www.purplecarrot.com and entering code FLASH at checkout today! Purple Carrot, the easiest way to eat more plants! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

#crispr #genetics #stanforduniversity #invitrogametogenesis #dna #geneticeditingHenry T. (Hank) Greely specializes in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to genetics, assisted reproduction, neuroscience, or stem cell research. He is a founder and immediate past president of the International Neuroethics Society; a member of the Multi-Council Working Group of the NIH's BRAIN Initiative, whose Neuroethics Working Group he co-chairs; chair of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Committee of the Earth BioGenome Project; and chair of California's Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee. He served as a member of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law of the National Academies from 2013-2019; Neuroscience Forum of the Institute of Medicine from 2012-2019; as a member of the Advisory Council of the NIH's National Institute for General Medical Sciences from 2013-2016; and from 2007-2010 as co-director of the Law and Neuroscience Project. Professor Greely chairs the steering committee for the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and directs both the law school's Center for Law and the Biosciences and the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society. Greely is also a professor (by courtesy) of genetics at Stanford School of Medicine. In 2007 Professor Greely was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, received Stanford University's Richard W. Lyman Award in 2013, and the Stanford Prize in Population Genetics and Society in 2017. He published The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction in 2016 plus CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 1985, Greely was a partner at Tuttle & Taylor, served as a staff assistant to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, and as special assistant to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense. He served as a law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. https://law.stanford.edu/directory/henry-t-greely/ https://twitter.com/hankgreelylsju Watch our highest viewed videos: 1-India;s 1st Quantum Computer- https://youtu.be/ldKFbHb8nvQ DR R VIJAYARAGHAVAN - PROF & PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AT TIFR 2-Breakthrough in Age Reversal- -https://youtu.be/214jry8z3d4 DR HAROLD KATCHER - CTO NUGENICS RESEARCH 3-Head of Artificial Intelligence-JIO - https://youtu.be/q2yR14rkmZQ Shailesh Kumar 4-STARTUP FROM INDIA AIMING FOR LEVEL 5 AUTONOMY - SANJEEV SHARMA CEO SWAAYATT ROBOTS -https://youtu.be/Wg7SqmIsSew 5-TRANSHUMANISM & THE FUTURE OF MANKIND - NATASHA VITA-MORE: HUMANITY PLUS -https://youtu.be/OUIJawwR4PY 6-MAN BEHIND GOOGLE QUANTUM SUPREMACY - JOHN MARTINIS -https://youtu.be/Y6ZaeNlVRsE 7-1000 KM RANGE ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITH ALUMINUM AIR FUEL BATTERIES - AKSHAY SINGHAL -https://youtu.be/cUp68Zt6yTI 8-Garima Bharadwaj Chief Strategist IoT & AI at Enlite Research -https://youtu.be/efu3zIhRxEY 9-BANKING 4.0 - BRETT KING FUTURIST, BESTSELLING AUTHOR & FOUNDER MOVEN -https://youtu.be/2bxHAai0UG0 10-E-VTOL & HYPERLOOP- FUTURE OF INDIA"S MOBILITY- SATYANARAYANA CHAKRAVARTHY -https://youtu.be/ZiK0EAelFYY 11-NON-INVASIVE BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE - KRISHNAN THYAGARAJAN -https://youtu.be/fFsGkyW3xc4 12-SATELLITES THE NEW MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SPACE RACE - MAHESH MURTHY -https://youtu.be/UarOYOLUMGk Connect & Follow us at: https://in.linkedin.com/in/eddieavil https://twitter.com/intothechange

I can hardly believe I’ve been doing this podcast for more than 2 years and never had Hank Greely on before. Hank Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law at Stanford University, and Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences. When you want an opinion on anything at the intersection of law, policy, and bioethics, Hank is where you go. And I want an opinion on everything at the intersection of law, policy, and bioethics. Luckily, Hank’s new book, CRISPR People, brings him on the podcast today.

What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos—as dramatic a development in genetics as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences in CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans (The MIT Press, 2021). Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. The two babies, nonidentical twin girls, were the first “CRISPR'd” people ever born (CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a powerful gene-editing method). Greely not only describes He's experiment and its public rollout (aided by a public relations adviser) but also considers, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the lessons to be drawn both from these CRISPR'd babies and, more broadly, from this kind of human DNA editing—“germline editing” that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Greely doesn't mince words, describing He's experiment as grossly reckless, irresponsible, immoral, and illegal. Although he sees no inherent or unmanageable barriers to human germline editing, he also sees very few good uses for it—other, less risky, technologies can achieve the same benefits. We should consider the implications carefully before we proceed. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos—as dramatic a development in genetics as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences in CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans (The MIT Press, 2021). Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. The two babies, nonidentical twin girls, were the first “CRISPR'd” people ever born (CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a powerful gene-editing method). Greely not only describes He's experiment and its public rollout (aided by a public relations adviser) but also considers, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the lessons to be drawn both from these CRISPR'd babies and, more broadly, from this kind of human DNA editing—“germline editing” that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Greely doesn't mince words, describing He's experiment as grossly reckless, irresponsible, immoral, and illegal. Although he sees no inherent or unmanageable barriers to human germline editing, he also sees very few good uses for it—other, less risky, technologies can achieve the same benefits. We should consider the implications carefully before we proceed. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos—as dramatic a development in genetics as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences in CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans (The MIT Press, 2021). Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. The two babies, nonidentical twin girls, were the first “CRISPR'd” people ever born (CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a powerful gene-editing method). Greely not only describes He's experiment and its public rollout (aided by a public relations adviser) but also considers, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the lessons to be drawn both from these CRISPR'd babies and, more broadly, from this kind of human DNA editing—“germline editing” that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Greely doesn't mince words, describing He's experiment as grossly reckless, irresponsible, immoral, and illegal. Although he sees no inherent or unmanageable barriers to human germline editing, he also sees very few good uses for it—other, less risky, technologies can achieve the same benefits. We should consider the implications carefully before we proceed. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos—as dramatic a development in genetics as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences in CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans (The MIT Press, 2021). Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. The two babies, nonidentical twin girls, were the first “CRISPR'd” people ever born (CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a powerful gene-editing method). Greely not only describes He's experiment and its public rollout (aided by a public relations adviser) but also considers, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the lessons to be drawn both from these CRISPR'd babies and, more broadly, from this kind of human DNA editing—“germline editing” that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Greely doesn't mince words, describing He's experiment as grossly reckless, irresponsible, immoral, and illegal. Although he sees no inherent or unmanageable barriers to human germline editing, he also sees very few good uses for it—other, less risky, technologies can achieve the same benefits. We should consider the implications carefully before we proceed. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos—as dramatic a development in genetics as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences in CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans (The MIT Press, 2021). Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. The two babies, nonidentical twin girls, were the first “CRISPR'd” people ever born (CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a powerful gene-editing method). Greely not only describes He's experiment and its public rollout (aided by a public relations adviser) but also considers, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the lessons to be drawn both from these CRISPR'd babies and, more broadly, from this kind of human DNA editing—“germline editing” that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Greely doesn't mince words, describing He's experiment as grossly reckless, irresponsible, immoral, and illegal. Although he sees no inherent or unmanageable barriers to human germline editing, he also sees very few good uses for it—other, less risky, technologies can achieve the same benefits. We should consider the implications carefully before we proceed. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos—as dramatic a development in genetics as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences in CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans (The MIT Press, 2021). Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. The two babies, nonidentical twin girls, were the first “CRISPR'd” people ever born (CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a powerful gene-editing method). Greely not only describes He's experiment and its public rollout (aided by a public relations adviser) but also considers, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the lessons to be drawn both from these CRISPR'd babies and, more broadly, from this kind of human DNA editing—“germline editing” that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Greely doesn't mince words, describing He's experiment as grossly reckless, irresponsible, immoral, and illegal. Although he sees no inherent or unmanageable barriers to human germline editing, he also sees very few good uses for it—other, less risky, technologies can achieve the same benefits. We should consider the implications carefully before we proceed. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? In November 2018, the world was shocked to learn that two babies had been born in China with DNA edited while they were embryos—as dramatic a development in genetics as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep. In this book, Hank Greely, a leading authority on law and genetics, tells the fascinating story of this human experiment and its consequences in CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans (The MIT Press, 2021). Greely explains what Chinese scientist He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. The two babies, nonidentical twin girls, were the first “CRISPR'd” people ever born (CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a powerful gene-editing method). Greely not only describes He's experiment and its public rollout (aided by a public relations adviser) but also considers, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the lessons to be drawn both from these CRISPR'd babies and, more broadly, from this kind of human DNA editing—“germline editing” that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Greely doesn't mince words, describing He's experiment as grossly reckless, irresponsible, immoral, and illegal. Although he sees no inherent or unmanageable barriers to human germline editing, he also sees very few good uses for it—other, less risky, technologies can achieve the same benefits. We should consider the implications carefully before we proceed. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, of Stanford Law School, to discuss gene editing, the bioethics involved in gene manipulation, the legal considerations of developing new biotechnologies, CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), the line between good and bad, and quite literally, the future of humanity.     What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? Professor Hank Greely explores this question and more in his new book, CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans. Hank’s new book comes out February 16th and today he and Aaron discuss CRISPR capabilities, the potential “butterfly affect” editing genes may have, and what the ethical concerns are surrounding gene manipulation. In his upcoming book, Professor Greely tells the fascinating story of He Jiankui’s 2018 human experiment and its consequences; he explains what He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. Today, Hank talks about this further, and the conversation revolves around He Jiankui’s 2018 experiment, today’s COVID vaccines, DNA, RNA, and MRNA. Hank explains how he feels about “slippery slopes” and expresses his opinions and predictions about what will happen with this new technology. Are we playing God?   A graduate of both Stanford University and Yale Law School, Hank Greely is the Dean F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law; Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences; Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics, Chair of the Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics; and the Director of the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society. Professor Greely specializes in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to genetics, assisted reproduction, neuroscience, or stem cell research. He is a founder and immediate past president of the International Neuroethics Society; a member of the Multi-Council Working Group of the NIH’s BRAIN Initiative, whose Neuroethics Working Group he co-chairs; chair of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Committee of the Earth BioGenome Project; and chair of California’s Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee.   Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty, Professor Greely was a partner at Tuttle & Taylor, served as a staff assistant to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, and as special assistant to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense. He served as a law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.   Listen now!   To learn more about Professor Greely, please click here. To check out Professor Greely’s 2016 publication, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, please click here. To order Professor Greely’s brand-new book, CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans, please click here. There are more ordering options available here. *Note: Professor Greely’s new book will be released on Feb. 16th   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Henry T. (Hank) Greely   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Hank Greely is a professor of law and a professor of genetics at Stanford University. He specialises in ethical, legal and social issues arising from advances in the biosciences, particularly from genetics, neuroscience and human...

In this interview, Don MacPherson is joined by Hank Greely, a specialist in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies. They discuss the roles CRISPR, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and in vitro fertilization will have on the future of reproduction. They also discuss the ethical questions that will accompany selecting specific characteristics for implanted embryos and the possibility of creating babies with superhuman capabilities.Hank Greely specializes in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to neuroscience, genetics, or stem cell research. Hank is a genetics professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, the Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences, and the Chair of the Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Nikki Teran’s conversation with Stanford Law and Genetics Professor Hank Greely on the scientific, ethical, legal, and social considerations around immune certificates. Recorded on April 20. Read his piece in STAT here: https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/10/immunity-certificates-covid-19-practical-ethical-conundrums/

Hank Greely, JD is a leading expert in law, and particularly its applications in scientific advancement, and the ethical concerns brought about by gene editing, specifically. Recent events, including the He Jiankui case, have captured international attention as the scientific community, national governments, and citizens of the world ask, “How far is too far?” when it comes to gene editing. Dr. Greely lends his insight into the case and shares the biggest lessons we can learn and apply to future advancements.

Once a hot topic of popular science, we check in on the science and state of human cloning in our discussion of the 2009 film Moon. Ariel and Norm are joined by Hank Greely, Director of the Center for Law and Biosciences at Stanford to talk biomedical ethics, cloning body parts, and artificial wombs as they relate to the future of human space travel.

On November 25th, 2018, the world was shocked to find out a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, had edited the germline of twin girls-and the twins had been born. Many in the scientific community remember that Sunday afternoon well as the story broke on MIT's Tech Review, "EXCLUSIVE: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies." Today’s guest can even tell you what he had for dinner that Sunday and just what was his reaction. "Holy Shit!"

Today we explore CRISPR and gene editing, embryo selection vs embryo editing, parental vs societal needs, emerging mind-reading technologies, and the ethics surrounding all of these issues. August Bradley's guest is Hank Greely, a Stanford Law School professor specializing in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to genetics and neuroscience. Hank frequently serves as an advisor on policy issues — he's the chair of California’s Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, a member of the Advisory Council on the NIH’s National Institute for General Medical Sciences, a member of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law of the National Academies, and a member of the Neuroscience Forum at the Institute of Medicine. He chairs the steering committee for the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and directs both the Stanford law school’s Center for Law and the Biosciences, and the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society. His book "The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction" gives us a look at the future of making babies through new technologies. Podcast Audio version at: http://mindandmachine.libsyn.com More on Hank Greely at: https://law.stanford.edu/directory/henry-t-greely/ https://profiles.stanford.edu/henry-greely Twitter: https://twitter.com/hankgreelylsju __________ More at: https://www.MindAndMachine.io

The Washington Post recently reported that Pfizer buried data that one of their drugs, Enbrel (etanercept), might prevent Alzheimer’s disease. While some researchers expressed outrage over this decision, others argued Pfizer's findings were barely worth talking about. We speak to Hank Greely, a Stanford law professor about whether pharma has a moral obligation to share research findings with the public, plus what you should know when sharing your genetic data with testing companies.

It's already been successfully accomplished in mice: the joining of sperm and egg cells that were developed from skin-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), and the consequent creation of healthy infants. But could the same thing be done in humans? And if so, should it?   Dr. Hank Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and professor by courtesy of genetics at Stanford University with expert knowledge on the social, legal, and ethical implications of various research endeavors in genetics and the biosciences. He's also the author of The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, a fascinating book that focuses largely on the concept of embryo selection, which, aided by the latest developments in stem cell and iPS research, could become a reality in the coming years. Imagine being able to flip through a catalog of hundreds of options of embryos—some with a high likelihood of having blonde hair and brown eyes and a low risk of developing a certain disease, and others with a high likelihood of having brown hair , or blue eyes, or a high risk of developing that same disease.   Dr. Greely discusses a range of interesting topics, including the potential for the development of skin-derived induced pluripotent stem cells to allow hundreds of thousands of couples to have genetic children despite not having functional sperm and/or eggs, the potential for homosexual couples to have genetic children, and unibabies—the concept of developing an embryo created by egg and sperm cells from the same individual. What would that look like, and what's the next step after unibabies? Dr. Greely discusses all this and more, so tune in, check out his book on Amazon, and watch his Ted Talk by following this link    https://law.stanford.edu/directory/henry-t-greely/#slsnav-featured-video.

Hank Greely, an expert in ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, discusses gene-edited babies and DNA testing. For past episodes, visit: https://stanford.io/2SqmNob

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "Gene-edited Babies with guest Hank Greely" Hank Greely, an expert in ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, discusses gene-edited babies and DNA testing on this episode of Stanford Legal. Originally aired on SiriusXM on February 16, 2019 Recorded at Stanford Video.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "The legality of Truth Detection w/ guests Hank Greely & Bob Weisberg" Stanford Law professors Hank Greely and Bob Weisberg discuss advances in truth detecting technology and how those technologies intersect with the legal system and societal ethics now and in the not too distant future. Originally aired on SiriusXM on May 26, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "The legality of Truth Detection w/ guests Hank Greely & Bob Weisberg" Stanford Law professors Hank Greely and Bob Weisberg discuss advances in truth detecting technology and how those technologies intersect with the legal system and societal ethics now and in the not too distant future. Originally aired on SiriusXM on May 26, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

"In a world turned upside down, this is an area where I don’t think he’s had much effect. I don’t think he knows how to spell “DNA.”" So begins Hank Greely in today’s interview on genetic testing in the age of Trump. Hank is a Professor of Law and, by courtesy, Professor of Genetics at Stanford.

We’ve made babies pretty much the same for a very long time. No need to get into the specifics, but for the majority of people throughout human history, sex and reproduction have been inextricably linked. But, according to Hank Greely, a professor at Stanford and author of “The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction,” that all may change. And it may change sooner than we think.

First up, after WWII, lots of soldiers came home and started families. And businessman Bill Levitt saw that as an opportunity. We’ll talk with Lawrence Levy, the Executive Dean of Hofstra University’s National Center for Suburban Studies, about the rise of the American suburbs and how this new version of the American dream left some people out. Then, an entirely different sort of baby boom. According to Stanford’s Hank Greely, “In 20 to 40 years, most babies born to people with good health coverage anywhere in the world will not have been conceived in bed or in the backseat of a car, but will have been conceived in a clinic.” Yep, you read that right. And finally, will a pay raise really make you happy? Turns out, not necessarily. Cornell economist Robert Frank walks us through the value people put into their paycheck - and what kinds of jobs are worth taking a pay cut for.

Bio  Henry T. Greely (@HankGreelyLSJU) is the Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences; and Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine. He is also the Chair of Stanford's Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics and the Director of Stanford's Program in Neuroscience and Society. Hank specializes in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to neuroscience, genetics, or stem cell research. He frequently serves as an advisor on California, national, and international policy issues. He is chair of California's Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, a member of the Advisory Council of the NIH's National Institute for General Medical Sciences, a member of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law of the National Academies, a member of the Neuroscience Forum of the Institute of Medicine, and served from 2007-2010 as co-director of the Law and Neuroscience Project, funded by the MacArthur Foundation. In 2007 Professor Greely was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 1985, Greely was a partner at Tuttle & Taylor, served as a staff assistant to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, and as special assistant to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense. He served as a law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He received Stanford University's Richard W. Lyman Prize in 2013.  Resources Stanford University Center for Law and the Biosciences War & Peace by Leo Tolstoy News Roundup N.Y. Times: Data Firm with links to Trump Campaign Exploited Facebook User Data  The New York Times dropped a bombshell story on Sunday and it has sent Washington and the stock market into a tailspin. The Dow dropped more than 1%, or by over 300 points, Facebook lost some $37 billion in value, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg saw his net worth decline by $5 billion. In addition,  Congressional leaders including Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar, John Thune, Adam Schiff, Mark Warner and Chuck Grassley are just HAMMERING Facebook at this moment and I wouldn't want to be in Zukerberg's shoes right now. The New York Times investigation alleges that a London-based company called Cambridge Analytica, with deep ties to Republican donor Robert Mercer, who invested $15 million in Cambridge Analytica, Mercer's daughter who's on the board of Cambridge Analytica, and none other than Steve Bannon, who allegedly named the company, exploited Facebook user data to influence the 2016 presidential election to target users based on their psychographic profiles—things like religion, life statisfaction, conscientiousness, and extraversion. Of course, it's illegal under U.S. election laws to employ foreigners in political campaigns. So, The Times alleges, Cambridge set up a shell corporation and hired a Russian-American front man, Alexander Kogan, who was a researcher with the University of Cambridge. Kogan then created a Facebook personality quiz that paid users to share their private information and download the app. Some 50 million users were affected. This quiz allegedly scraped their information, and Cambridge Analytica gave him $800,000 for it. A former Cambridge Analytica employee, Christopher Wylie, was the whistleblower in all this. Facebook says it would suspend working with Cambridge Analytica and conduct an internal review, including the hiring of a forensics team. Channel 4 News London reported in an internal investigation that Cambridge Analytica uses bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians. This is just the surface. Summarizing every detail of this is way above my pay grade. But it's just layers upon layers of deception and bullshittery. You can find summaries and analysis in The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. Trump administration issues new Russian sanctions on same day it reveals attacks on power plants Russia has stepped its capability with regard to cyberattacks on nuclear power plans, water, and electric systems, according to U.S. intelligence officials.The country now has moved from having the ability to surveil American power plants to having the ability to disable them anytime tensions escalate, and in a similar manner with which it disabled power in the Ukraine on two separate occasions in 2015 and 2016. The accusations came on the same day the Trump administration imposed new economic sanctions against Russia for its role in hacking the 2016 presidential election. Sanctions include freezing assets and prohibiting business deals from being transacted with two-dozen Russian individuals and entities. Nicole Perlroth and David Sanger report in the New York Times and Jonathan Easley reports in The Hill. First pedestrian casualty for self-driving cars Ali Breland reports in the Hill that a 49-year-old woman was struck and killed by an Uber fully self-driving car while she was walking through a crosswalk in Tempe, Arizona on Monday. The state attracted Uber because of its deregulatory approach to self-driving vehicle technology. The National Transportation Safety Board announced that it would be investigating. Uber has suspended its testing of self-driving cars in Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto. Walmart whistleblower sues after reporting e-commerce cheating A former Walmart executive has sued the world's largest retailer for firing him after he reported that the company was fudging its e-commerce results to show better numbers against Amazon. The complaint alleges that Walmart mislabeled products and deliberately failed to properly process returns in order to inflate sales numbers. Jonathan Stempel and Nandita Bose report in Reuters. Japanese regulators raid Amazon Ali Breland reports for the Hill that Japanese regulators raided Amazon last week. Japan's Fair Trade Commission may be concerned about Amazon's alleged practice of strong-arming suppliers to show cheaper prices on Amazon as compared to their competitors in Japan. Amazon recalls portable chargers  Amazon is recalling 260,000 AmazonBasics portable chargers after it received 53 complaints that they were overheating. One person reported being burned by the charger's battery acid. Four others reported fire and smoke. Kate Gibson reports for CBS. Google introduces wheelchair accessibility in Maps Google released Thursday a new wheelchair-friendly maps navigation feature. The feature will include accessible routes and information on accommodations in public transportation. Josh Delk reports in the Hill. Google bans Bitcoin ads  Google has decided to ban ads for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Facebook had previously initiated a similar ban. The company did not state why it decided to make the policy change. However, it comes as many in the policy community have expressed concern that online ads could be used to promote cryptocurrency scams. Daisuke Wakabayashi reports for The New York Times. Microsoft logs 200 discrimination, harassment complaints over 6 years Ali Breland reported in the Hill that, according to court filings filed by women suing Microsoft for gender pay and promotion discrimination, women working at the company lodged some 238 gender discrimination or harassment complaints between 2010 and 2016. Of the 118 that were gender discrimination complaints, Microsoft found only one to be “founded”. According to Natasha Bach at Fortune, Microsoft has changed the way it addresses harassment complaints by banning forced arbitration agreements. The question, of course, is whether that's enough. Conservative forms bogus company to lure tech workers Finally, Gizmodo reports that James O'Keefe—the undercover conservative activist— created a fake company and sent in employees of his Project Veritas organization to pose as recruiters. These fake recruiters then reached out to employees at major tech companies like Twitter to interview them and record their responses. In one case, an employee stated that Twitter hired few conservatives and secretly hid content posted by conservative users in a practice called “shadow banning”. Project Veritas then allegedly posted the videos as evidence of an anti-conservative bias at Twitter. Twitter has denied in Congressional testimony that it engages in shadow banning activities.

We may be moving baby-making from the bedroom to the lab. Hank Greely walks us through the future of reproduction.

This week on Innovation Hub, we examine the future of reproduction, how fringe ideas become mainstream, and the life of Leonardo Da Vinci.

Biologists today have the knowledge, the tools, and the ability to influence the evolution of life on Earth. Do we have an obligation to bring back species that human activities may have rendered extinct? In this podcast, host and moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson leads a panel of experts in a discussion about this possibility - and the technology needed to get there. You will hear from George Church of Harvard University and MIT, Hank Greely of Stanford University, Gregory Kaebnick of the Hastings Center, Beth Shapiro of University of California Santa Cruz The 2017 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate took place at the Museum on March 29, 2017. Watch a video version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LnAtMeSVeY The late Dr. Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific and influential authors of our time, was a dear friend and supporter of the American Museum of Natural History. In his memory, the Hayden Planetarium is honored to host the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate — generously endowed by relatives, friends, and admirers of Isaac Asimov and his work — bringing the finest minds in the world to the Museum each year to debate pressing questions on the frontier of scientific discovery. Proceeds from ticket sales of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates benefit the scientific and educational programs of the Hayden Planetarium.

We're entering a different world when it comes to procreating. In this episode of the Future of Everything radio show, Stanford Bioengineering Professor Russ Altman talks with Stanford Law Professor Hank Greely, author of The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, about the medical, legal and ethical implications of giving parents greater control over the baby-making process.

The Future of Everything with Russ Altman: "Hank Greely: ​How babies (will) get made" On the Future of Everything radio show, a bioengineer and law professor discuss the future of human reproduction and its significant implications for society. Aired originally on SiriusXM on February 25, 2017 Recorded at Stanford Video.

Each year at this time we bring on a guest who is somewhat out of the way of our normal lineup, for example, a science fiction writer or a philosopher. Today Theral interviews a law professor who loves to philosophize and write about the impact of biotechnology on our lives now and in the near future. His newest book out this year, “The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction,” is another comprehensive and provocative example of what has made Stanford’s Hank Greely such an in-demand speaker both to scientist and non-scientist audiences alike.

We talk to Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University’s School of Medicine about his new book The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction.

Host Lisa Kiefer interviews Innovative Genomics Initiative lab member and UC Berkeley post-doc Mark DeWitt, PhD., about the perils and promise of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology.TRANSCRIPTSpeaker 1:You're listening to method to the madness at my weekly public affairs show, k a l x Berkeley Celebrating Bay area innovators. I'm your host, Lisa Kiefer, and today I'm going to be interviewing biophysicist Mark Dewitt. We'll be talking about gene editing, both Fitz promise and itch perils [00:00:30] as well as his work here at the innovative genomics initiative lab at the La coshing center for Genomic Engineering on the UC Berkeley campus. Welcome to the program, Mark. Thanks for having me. Speaker 2:You're a biophysicist a postdoc researcher at the innovative genomics initiative here on the UC Berkeley campus at the La cashing center for Genomic Engineering, and you're doing some exciting work on many [00:01:00] things and we're going to get into what you're doing. But before we do that, I want to talk about the golden age of gene editing and talk about some of the fundamental parts of that so that our listeners who are not scientists or biophysicists can understand what we're talking about. Here's UC Berkeley's very own professor Jennifer Doudna a few years ago with my colleague Emmanuel sharp on ta. I invented a new technology for editing genomes. It's called CRISPR cas nine the CRISPR technology [00:01:30] allows scientists to make changes to the DNA in cells that could allow us to cure genetic disease. The CRISPR technology came about through a basic research project that was aimed at discovering how bacteria fight viral infections. Speaker 2:Bacteria have to deal with viruses in their environment and we can think about a viral infection like a ticking time bomb. A bacterium has only a few minutes to diffuse the bomb before it gets destroyed. So many bacteria have in their cells [00:02:00] and adaptive immune system called CRISPR that allows them to detect viral DNA and destroy it. Part of the CRISPR system is a protein called cas nine that's able to seek out and cut and eventually degrade a viral DNA in a specific way, and it was through our research to understand the activity of this protein cas nine that we realize that we could harness its function as a genetic engineering technology, a way for scientists [00:02:30] to delete or insert specific bits of DNA into cells with incredible precision. The CRISPR technology has already been used to change the DNA in the cells of mice and monkeys. Other organisms as well. Chinese scientists showed recently that they could even use the CRISPR technology to change genes in human embryos and scientists in Philadelphia showed they could use CRISPR to remove the DNA of an integrated HIV virus Speaker 3:from [00:03:00] infected human cells. Okay. Mark, let's get a little bit more into this gene editing. Speaker 4:You can imagine that our genome is essentially like a document that has 3 billion letters. Those were the different bases in the DNA that makes up our genome, right? A 20,000 genes, 3 billion characters, which I think is about a million pages. This is an, if it was an award document, I think that would be about three gigabytes of data. Right? So is this one really long document and gene editing is quite simply the ability to edit that [00:03:30] document. Speaker 3:It's like a cut and paste system, right? And a global global positioning system. Speaker 4:Yeah. What Dean editing lets you do is you can now go into this document and before all we could do is really read it. We could just know what was in it. But now with, with gene editing, we have the whole edit menu, right? So we can go to a location within the genome, we can cut out a sequence that we want to remove and then we can paste in a new sequence. So for example, if you have a, uh, a gene, uh, with a disease causing mutation in it, you [00:04:00] can cut that disease causing mutation out and then paste in a healthy gene. Speaker 3:Right. Okay. So it's, it's Kinda two parts, right? You know, you've got the, the CRISPR. Okay. And that stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Yeah, Speaker 4:it's a pretty, it's quite a mouthful. Basically what happens is that the bacteria would store this array of short sequences. That's the CRISPR array. And the sequences would match the sequences of the invading virus viral DNA, Speaker 3:so [00:04:30] that if it ever came again, it would recognize it. Speaker 4:Yeah. If the virus ever came back, it'd be like, oh, I know you. And then it would end the way that it recognizes the invading that DNA from its own DNA is because of, it's in this CRISPR array, it gets put onto the cas nine nucleus and the nucleus goes to the finding invading DNA and chops it up, but it won't chop up your own DNA because you don't have any of that sequence. You provide a guide, you have the cast nine nucleus and then you provide a guide, which is like a little RNA guide. It's an RNA guide. Yeah, we do it. We do it with RNA. Other [00:05:00] people can use RNA that's transcribed inside the cell. We actually provide the RNA outside the cell and put it right on the cas nine so RNA as a sequence, just like DNA. The sequence of the RNA can match a piece of DNA somewhere in the genome. So when you provide the guide and the CAS nine at the same time they get together and they go find the part of the genome that matches the sequence of the guide. So the guy guide has literally a guide Speaker 3:so you can program the guide to tell it where to go. Speaker 4:Exactly. So it's very, very easy to, to construct different SDR [00:05:30] and Aes, different guide rns to direct casts down to different places and in fact that's a major advantage of CRISPR cas nine technology over other gene editing technologies where they're not so easily repurposed to go after different targets. We've been doing gene editing for I think about 10 years in the old days, you know? Yeah. You'd have to do a lot approach in engineering. You have to synthesize a lot of different constructs, you know, different plasmids to continue to make different reagents, send them into cells and then pick the best one. It takes a lot of work, maybe a whole team of people, right? If you're working at a company that have like a whole team of people that do just [00:06:00] protein engineering, whereas mcast nine if I want to make a cas nine reagent that targets anywhere in the genome, I essentially order, I can order a template to make the RNA by typing it into the computer. A company sends it to me a day later. I can make you know, 10 different targets, hundreds of targets, right? People have done thousands or hundreds of thousands at once and then take that, make the RNA in my lab, mixed that with the protein in the night and introduce it into cells and generally almost all the cells get at it or they at least get the cut. The turnaround is, I mean I have my undergrads [00:06:30] doing it. I have visiting students doing it. I do it all the time. Speaker 3:What kind of oversight can anybody like? I can recreate the polio virus. Speaker 4:I can't just order a huge chunk of DNA that is big enough to encode an entire virus, Speaker 3:but are there other regulations on who can order what? Speaker 4:There are for sequences that contain toxins or infectious particles Speaker 3:like the polio or something like that, the whole polio virus. Speaker 4:And you're not allowed to order those synthetically. Or if you are, you have, you have to demonstrate that you have the qualifications [00:07:00] to work with that kind of genetic material. But you know, in our case we're going after genomes that are already there. So it's like your genome doesn't have any, you know, infectious particles in it. It has nothing contained in what we order that actually causes a disease. Okay. We're just going after disease genes that are already there. Okay. So in some senses it's actually much safer because there's no information that we're providing to the cells that could cause a disease unless we, you know, really want it to. Whereas for example, uh, the older version of gene therapy was to do viral delivery of [00:07:30] genes. And so since you're working with viruses, there's always risk of side effects. Even though the viruses are essentially de weaponized, there's still issues of where it puts the DNA, whether it could evolve into a different type of virus, these kinds of things. Speaker 3:Okay. You know who Hank Greely is at? Stanford law school. Oh, that sounds fun. Okay. He Dura, he's the director of the center for law and bio-sciences down there and he calls a the CRISPR cas nine the model t of bio-science. Hmm. Speaker 4:I guess what he's thinking is the model t was not the first car [00:08:00] or even the first car to be manufactured and just as that CRISPR cas nine is not the first gene editing technology. We've had it for some time, but it is the, it is the most robust and it's the easiest to work with. It's the one that everybody is out getting and trying and using. I mean not people that, not just people that specialize in gene in genomics or genetics, but really everybody. Yeah, and that sense it is the model t. It's the first one. It's the first version of this technology that everyone can use. What is the goal of it? Right off the bat, it is completely changed [00:08:30] the way that we do basic research. So, as I mentioned, it's very easy to work with now even if you're not a specialist in gene editing, but you have a, you know, a favorite gene that you like to, you want to characterize, you can target and manipulate that gene in human cells with such ease that you don't have to be a specialist and you can target many, many, many, many, many targets at once. Speaker 3:And so you in, in other words, like a goal of eradicating a certain that's heritable Speaker 4:[inaudible] well, so first is this used in basic research and then the other [00:09:00] potential application for CRISPR cas nine gene editing, early gene editing in general. And this is indeed already sort of underway, is m for gene therapy. As I mentioned, you know, you could have a genetic disease and then in some part of your body and then we can synthesize and inject reagents that will correct that mutation, fix the broken gene. And instead of, in the past we've been able to introduce genes into tissues, but only we can't fix a broken gene. Now we can actually go to the broken gene and replace it with healthy [00:09:30] sequence. Speaker 3:Okay, mark, let's break away for a minute and tell our audience they're listening to method to the madness here on k a l x Berkeley. Mark Dewitt is a postdoc over at the innovative genomics initiative at La caching center for Genomic engineering here at UC Berkeley. It sounds like you can do it one of two ways. You can go in and and fix an individual's broken chain system, or you can go in and correct it in embryonically and then it affects generations [00:10:00] later down the road Speaker 4:potentially. That's called germline editing and that's where you're editing the human germline. So that means that you create a heritable mutation in an embryo or probably a a fertilized embryo. Once you create that mutation or once you make that change, you know that that embryo will be implanted into a mother. She'll, uh, the baby will grow up, they'll have that change and then that, that kid will pass on that, that change to their kids. Most therapeutic applications of gene editing aren't really focused on that. Instead, [00:10:30] we're really focused on, and at the IGI we're only focused on, you know, editing healthy adults or sorry, adult patients. So it's just about the individual. And so in that case, when we make the edit, it's not transmitted to their progeny. So if you have a disease of your, so for example, I studied sickle cell disease, if I correct the sickle cell mutation inside your bone marrow, your bone marrow will be corrected and it'll be fixed, but your germline, your eggs or your sperm will not. Speaker 3:And we don't want it to be right because didn't it arise out of a resistance [00:11:00] to malaria thousands of years ago? To me, that's the issue of going after a germline. You don't know. That Speaker 4:raises the possibility that there could be unintended consequences of introducing things of introducing genetic alterations into the human germline. And that's absolutely true. And that's one reason why I think that, especially at this stage, it is just way too premature to undergo that kind of undertake that kind of research. The other issue is that it cuts at the place. You tell it to almost all the time, but sometimes it cuts other places. [00:11:30] That's called off target cutting. So it's not on your target, it's somewhere else. It's off your target. What's the success rate? Usually though the frequency of off target cutting is, it depends on the application. It's usually on the order of 1% or less. So it's too bad. Yeah. But if you have 4 trillion cells, a substantial number of cells in a gene edited individual. So if one of those off target cuts causes a nasty side effect, like for example, it knocks out a gene that's supposed to protect [00:12:00] yourselves from cancer, but then you could, all it takes is one cell to be edited to be edited in that manner. This unintended manner to cause the cancer. Speaker 3:Weren't you in a paper recently? I think nature biotechnology where you guys came up with a bubble technique that avoids cutting. Speaker 4:Yes. So one way to avoid off target cutting is to just don't cut it all. What we found in that paper was is that if you use a a cast nine that doesn't cut it simply can't cut it all. It still creates a structure, DNA protein structure that is accessible to the [00:12:30] replacement sequence you're trying to provide. It's not nearly efficient enough to really drive the kinds of levels of editing that would be relevant. You can think of it as DNA has two strands, the famous double helix. What we found is as the task then goes and pries open those two strands and clamps really hard on one of the strands, but then the other strand is essentially released and is free and so if you provide a sequence of DNA that binds to that strand, it will get incorporated. Now you've opened it up, you can stick stuff onto it. The advantage [00:13:00] of that technique is that you get no, is that since there's no cutting, the chances of off target activity are vastly reduced. Speaker 3:Are you primarily working on sickle cell? Speaker 4:So sickle cell disease is a disease of your red blood cells and you know, we've known about the genetics and the molecular basis of the disease. For almost 70 years. I mean it's one of the oldest, it's the oldest genetic disease that we know about and it was the first genetic disease to truly be characterized. I mean right around the time we discovered the structure of DNA, [00:13:30] we were already figuring out how sickle cell, Speaker 3:right and it's a defect in only one gene, which is very different from a lot of other diseases. Speaker 4:Exactly. So we call that monogenetic versus poly genetic. It's a moto genetic disease and that it has exactly one cause and in fact that's all the way down to the molecular level. There is a single letter or a single base pair change in your genome that causes the disease. And so that change is in this gene called Hemoglobin Beta, which is one of the two proteins that make up hemoglobin, which is what makes your red blood cells red. [00:14:00] It's what carries oxygen, you know, from your lungs to the rest of your tissues. It's all going through this hemoglobin protein, hemoglobin protein that has this sickle cell mutation will aggregate inside the south, will form these long, these big clumps inside your red blood cells. And these clumps cause the cells to become deformed and adopt that, that this characteristic sickle cell. Yeah. It's more like a crescent moon. Speaker 4:I mean we're not farmers anymore. So I figured, yeah, we should update the language, but I sip like a crescent moon or a sickle. The sickle RBCs [00:14:30] well, first off, they're not as effective at carrying oxygen. So you have anemia, but also they can clog blood vessels and like your capillaries, they won't fit in your capillaries very well and that can damage the capillaries and also can lead to these crises where your blood vessels get clogged. So it causes that increased risk of stroke and pulmonary hypertension and also the damage to your blood vessels can cause organ failure. So it's a progressive disease in the sense that individuals in, in countries with developed health systems like the United States, their symptoms aren't very [00:15:00] severe and they're very manageable for the first few years of life. But then as they get older and older and older, um, increasingly severe symptoms will manifest. Speaker 4:And ultimately it leads to something like a 25 to 30 year detriment in lifespan. And it's an inherited disease, inherited disease, and we have two copies of every gene, right? Individuals that have one copy of this, of this mutation. So they have a mutated gene and the healthy gene are called carriers and they also have this clinical presentation is called from sickle cell trait and individuals with sickle cell trait [00:15:30] are generally healthy and also have some resistance to malaria. And that's how the, that's how this mutation is maintained in the populations in, in populations and malarial regions to Subsaharan Africa and southern India where the mutation first arose. The United States is not a malarial country, but of course we have a large minority of African Americans whose genetic heritage is from Subsaharan Africa from these regions. And that's why sickle cell disease, which is when you have both of your genes have the mutation in America is found [00:16:00] almost entirely in the African American population. Speaker 4:So about a hundred thousand Americans, again, almost all African American had the disease in the country as a whole and I think 10,000 in California. So it's actually quite a lot of people close. Are you to a cure? I'd like to think we're pretty close. We, we, we haven't moved towards the clinic yet. I'm hoping that one of us will be able to start trials within the next two or three years. But there are other strategies for treating sickle cell disease that are more indirect, that are already in clinical trials using gene editing. [00:16:30] How are those different from what you're doing or our approach at IGI is to directly correct the mutation so we know exactly where the mutation is and we've known it for 70 years. But as I mentioned, just because you know where something is in the word document doesn't mean you could fix it until now. Speaker 4:What our approach is is to make a cut at the mutation and then supply replacement sequence. The replacement sequence is a short piece of DNA. So in order to cause a lasting alteration to your, to the genetics of your blood cells, we actually have to edit your bone marrow cells. [00:17:00] So we take bone marrow cells from patients that have sickle cell disease and then we, this is all in the labs. So we're working this Albridge called ex Vivo or in the lab we cut at the [inaudible] at the mutated region using cas nine and then we supply a short piece of DNA that has the corrected sequence in it. So it just doesn't have any grow. Yeah. And so that will get incorporated in some fraction of the cells. We generally get about 20 to 30% in view in vitro. Then you let the cells grow, then we just analyze them. Speaker 4:So we'll differentiate them into red blood cells and see if they still have sickling [00:17:30] properties. We'll look at their, their gene expression, um, viability, all sorts of, you know, in vitro and points. The other thing we do is that we will edit the cells and inject them into a mouse carrier where the cells will live for months and months and months and then take the cells out of the mouse four months later to see if they still have enough editing to cure the disease. And so none of this goes back into people. Now, the way it would eventually work, if you actually were doing this in a clinical setting, is that you would take a fraction of a patient of a sickle patients bone marrow. You would correct [00:18:00] it using the same exact technique that we're using, but at a much, much larger scale, like we're doing a hundred thousand to a million cells. Speaker 4:You'd be doing more like a billion cells. You would correct the cells, culture them for a day or two in an incubator and then pull them back together and reinfuse them into the patient. Now meanwhile, you would be ablating the patient's bone marrow are using chemotherapy. You can't avoid that. No. What we're hoping is is that if the editing is efficient enough, you don't have to completely ablate the bone marrow, so you don't, you can use a lighter course of chemotherapy, [00:18:30] but you still have to use a certain amount of chemotherapy to get rid of all the remaining uncorrected bone marrow that we just don't have the ability to, to correct that many cells at once. It's just the scale is not practical. So most, um, applications for now for gene editing or gene therapy in general, whether using viruses or, or CRISPR, cas nine or anything else, uh, they generally do this chemotherapy step. Speaker 4:There are many, many groups working on noninvasive methods to do gene editing. So one is to inject a virus that contains [00:19:00] all the stuff you need to make the edit into straight into the compartment that you're trying to treat. So in this case, it would be the, you inject the reagent into the bone marrow, which is painful, but it's a lot better than chemotherapy. Right? Virus is sort of nature's oldest nanoparticle. It's very good at finding cells and putting stuff inside of them. I think we can do better. We can engineer synthetic particles that can do all the same things. They can find the target cell, in this case, a bone marrow stem cell, the cell that leads to all of your other blood cells and they can find them. [00:19:30] And then they can inject all the reagents into that cell specifically and they'll go in and make the edit while the bone marrow cells are still inside your bones. Speaker 4:Um, and that's called Invivo gene editing and that's still very, very much in the early stages. But you know, whether using a viral technique or a nanoparticle technique, you know, from what I've seen in the literature, it's probably only a matter of time. It could be 20 years, it could be 30 years, but you know, it's only a matter of fact. Well, I mean in medical biomedical terms, that's pretty short. You know, when you read the articles, I mean this stuff is all [00:20:00] over the media now and it just sounds so exciting. Like in a couple of years, everything's going to be, these technologies take a very, very, very long time to perfect and try and then get through FDA approval and so on and so forth. A lot of that is just that it takes a lot of time to iron out all of the kinks and biotech. Speaker 4:But what about in other countries won't develop countries? They still don't, they still don't exactly move very quickly. First off, it's hard to prove efficacy. Sometimes it's hard to show that your treatment is actually being effective and you need to try [00:20:30] it. On a whole bunch of people in a whole bunch of different settings and for a whole bunch of reasons and that's just never not going to be really expensive to get the numbers you need to show that something's effective, whether you're the FDA, FDA or anybody else. It's a very expensive process. Getting enough statistical power to do that. You're still talking or thousands of people that you have to test it on and the process is lengthy and expensive. But you know, in my opinion, I think that's all well and good that we have that level of oversight, but it doesn't mean that things take years to really come to fruition and maybe maybe gene editing [00:21:00] might be a little quicker. Speaker 4:There's a lot of very specific problems associated with viral techniques that hopefully we won't have for our approach. I wouldn't be surprised if it took another five or 10 years to really get all the, get all the kinks ironed out. So down the road, what are some of the goals of this research? Monogenetic diseases like sickle cell. The second goal is poly genetic diseases. So this is sort of more of a pie in the sky idea here. We're just beginning to uncover that there are significant genetic contributions to non genetic diseases [00:21:30] to the chances of coming down with a non genetic disease. And I'm speaking specifically about Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. And so we found that there are certain mutations that we're not exactly sure why the sudden mutations that appear to increase your susceptibility to the disease or decrease your subset susceptibility to the disease. Speaker 4:And so that provides a handle for researchers to determine whether or not there is a sort of silver bullet genetic solution to actually curing this disease so that the [00:22:00] patients with these mutations or individuals with these mutations have almost no chance of getting Alzheimer's. Does that mean if I take a person who is, um, coming down with or starting to show signs of Alzheimer's or is at a high risk of Alzheimer's and I introduce this mutation into their, you know, into their tissues, you know, would that cure the disease? Would that essentially short circuit? Would that beat out whatever factors are making them get the disease by providing a different mutation entirely. How do you make that mutation in cells? Well, you should use gene [00:22:30] editing and then make the mutation and then see if all things being equal, that mutation alone can confer resistance to the Alzheimer's phenotype. Speaker 4:That'd be pretty exciting. It is very exciting. So I really think that, I guess as a gene editor or as a hammer looking for a nail, there are a lot more nails, especially in America, developed health system that are non genetic diseases. Are you from California? No, I'm from Boston. Where did you go undergrad? Um, I went to Undergrad at this small liberal arts college [00:23:00] in Portland called Reed College. It's, it's a, it's a fascinating place. Some enormous percentage of Reed college graduates go on to get PhDs. And so after I finished at Reed, I was there for a couple of years and he came down here to get my phd and I stayed on for my postdoc. Now my phd was in something completely different than what I do biophysics. And specifically I studied, um, these proteins that carry materials around your cells called motor proteins. My entire phd was, you imagine a bunch of white dots [00:23:30] on a computer screen moving across the screen, like in a straight line. Speaker 4:That's what I did. I looked at these dots and looked at how fast they're moving. And so I did that for about seven years. And then I just, you know, went to this seminar here, actually the first rewriting genome seminar. It was a, it was a seminar organized by Jennifer Doudna and it had all of the top investigators in gene editing at the time. So I went to the seminar. I was just blown away. I was like, this is so cool. This is just the coolest thing ever. Right? Like I have to do this. I emailed Jennifer, who [00:24:00] is in my building, my old building, Stanley Hall up the hill from here. I'd heard that she was trying to set up this, this organization, this, um, initiative to explore the applications of CRISPR cas nine, whereas her lab is focused on the, the core technology itself, making the technology better. Speaker 4:We would be taking those kinds of innovations and the innovations of others and using it to find applications. Right. And so I was more interested in that, partly strategically thinking, you know, we're going to get past the developing the technology [00:24:30] part pretty soon, but we're going to be exploring applications for hopefully the rest of our careers. So, you know, I thought that was a good decision for a lot of reasons. And so I talked to Jennifer and she said, oh yeah, like yeah, I'm doing it. We need postdocs. She could put me in touch with Jacob Korn, who's the director of IGI who hadn't formally joined yet. Speaker 2:And IGI is again Speaker 4:the innovative genomics initiative. The research lab is about 15 people. It's going to get a little bit bigger and then, but as you had just lots of other stuff, IGI also does some outreach. [00:25:00] The most inefficient thing we've done yet is we host a workshop. So we invite scientists from all around the community, ideally scientists that don't work in the field of gene editing, but want to try it out. Not just scientists or doctors, but also, you know, policymakers. And Speaker 2:there is a reason to make sure that it stays in the right hands. Yes there is. Does anything scare you about it at all? I mean, you're right in the heart of it, Speaker 4:you know, you think of bad actors and things like that. Although again, whether we're happy about it [00:25:30] or not, humanity has invented a whole host of really dangerous bad things from nuclear weapons to infectious agents to chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. And you know, we're all still here. It's, I guess what I mean. Should there be any controls on the use of the technology for research compared to other technologies like I don't think so. Should we be very careful about, well, what if someone wanted to do something not so good with this method that I'm outlining in publishing in a paper, [00:26:00] right? I mean, yes, we should. And that's exactly why we, I think should be very careful about germline editing. And again, that's why at IGI we're really focused on more traditional therapeutic editing. Speaker 2:Yeah, you're lucky that Jennifer is a big part of that because you know, she is a vocal person about the ethics involved. Here's a short segment from a Ted talk that she gave recently. Together with my colleagues, I've called for a global conversation about the technology that I co-invented so that we can consider all of the ethical [00:26:30] and societal implications. Imagine that we could try to engineer humans that have enhanced properties such as stronger bones or less susceptibility to cardiovascular disease, good eye color, or not to be taller designer humans, if you will. Right now, the genetic information to understand what types of genes would give rise to these traits are mostly not known, but it's important to know that the CRISPR technology gives us a tool to make such [00:27:00] changes. Once that knowledge becomes available, this raises a number of ethical questions that we have to to carefully consider. Speaker 2:This is why I and my colleagues have called for a global pause in any clinical application of the CRISPR technology in human embryos to give us time to really consider all of the, the various implications of of doing so. This is no longer science fiction, genome engineered animals and plants are happening right now. And this puts in front of all of us [00:27:30] a huge responsibility to consider carefully both the unintended consequences as well as the intended impacts of a scientific breakthrough. So mark, what would you like to see happen in this space in the near future? Speaker 4:Suddenly, I'm thinking about a lot lately is that this idea of personalized gene editing. You can imagine a world in which you go into the doctor, they sequence your genome, they see if there's anything that needs fixing [00:28:00] and then they put it in order for the reagent that can be synthesized custom to whatever specifications. So it can go into whatever Oregon you want, whatever cell type you want and program any genetic change you want based on your own genetic sequence. You then go into the doctor's office and they put something into your arm and they infuse you with that reagent and then it starts to make the change. It's certainly our approach with sickle cell, you know, points in that direction. The reasons that we're using are simple. They're easily customizable. [00:28:30] Um, you don't have to have a lot of it on hand. You can produce it in a factory instead of having to grow it from cell culture. Speaker 4:I imagine that future, this far off future in which we have sort of live in this almost Saifai type world where you know, you can make any genetic manipulation you want or your doctor candidly, you know, in the doctor's office, no surgery, no surgery, no nothing. Well then I think about, so what am I doing today that's going to nudge the, the rock a little bit further up the hill in that direction? Where do I want things to be in 20 years and what can I do [00:29:00] to go there? We'll see how I do, right? I mean, I'm still just a postdoc, but I think it really, really helps to think about like what's the La crazy, crazy far off like vision for what you're doing? Like how, how could it totally change the world? And it's important to think about that when you're at the lab bench. Speaker 4:You know, whether you're in a classroom lab at bio one a or whether you're in my research lab, what am I doing to bring that out? That longterm vision. It's so easy to lose track [00:29:30] of where you're going in the day to day, especially as a scientist, because as researchers we have, our head is filled with innumerable minutiae of our day to day experiments that just all we ever think about, and sometimes you need to step back and be like, what am I really doing? That's a characteristic, certainly of the most successful entrepreneurs and probably the most successful scientists as well. Speaker 3:Well, mark, you've helped us understand some very complicated ideas. I've been talking with Mark Dewitt. He is a biophysicist and a lab member of the innovative genomics [00:30:00] initiative here on campus at Lee Kushing center for Genomic Engineering. Thanks again for being on this program and talking about a very difficult and complex subject of gene editing. Thanks for having me. You've been listening to method to the madness. We'll be back again in two weeks is the same. I'm Speaker 1:telling you. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Brains & Bourbon, we chat with Hank Greely about the ethics and laws of neuroscience. Topics include the legal and ethical concerns of personal genomics (such as 23 and Me), using fMRI as a complimentary tool for lie detection, establishing justice in cases of mental or psychiatric instability, bringing back extinct animals, and more! Hank Greely is a Professor of Law at Stanford University, and serves as the chair of the California Advisory Committee on Human Stem Cell Research, director of the Stanford Law School's Center for Law and the Biosciences as well as the new Stanford Program In Neuroscience and Society, or “SPINS.”