Skip to Content

Revisiting the Fast Rise of Crispr

Background reading for the weekend: a gene-editing primer.
September 26, 2015

What’s the biggest invention of the past five or 10 years? I would pick the gene-editing technology known as Crispr-Cas9. Because it gives scientists an easy way to fix mutations and activate dormant genes, Crispr has already helped them better understand the links between genetics and disease and opened the door to precise gene-therapy treatments. It’s also raising the prospect of genetically modified crops and livestock that don’t borrow genes from other species. It’s no wonder that dozens of startups are racing to harness Crispr and related technologies.

But how far should we take it, and how fast? Should we edit human embryos to remove deleterious traits, and while, we’re at it, put in some beneficial ones? The prospect is real—and already troubling even some of the early developers of the technology.

Revisiting MIT Technology Review’s top Crispr-related stories from the past two years, I was struck by how quickly the technology has reshaped biotechnology and attracted hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital. Will it soon revolutionize medical practice as well?

Innovator Under 35: Feng Zhang, August 2013, by David Rotman

Genome Surgery, February 2014, by Susan Young

Genome Editing: the Experiment and the Impact, April 2014, by Christina Larson and Amanda Schaffer

On the Horns of the GMO Dilemma, September 2014, and A Potato Made with Gene Editing, April 2015, by Antonio Regalado

Who Owns the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century?, December 2014, by Antonio Regalado

Engineering the Perfect Baby, March 2015, by Antonio Regalado

Genome Gambits, April 2015, by Jennifer A. Doudna

Keep Reading

Most Popular

The inside story of how ChatGPT was built from the people who made it

Exclusive conversations that take us behind the scenes of a cultural phenomenon.

How Rust went from a side project to the world’s most-loved programming language

For decades, coders wrote critical systems in C and C++. Now they turn to Rust.

Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?

An approach that promised to democratize design may have done the opposite.

Sam Altman invested $180 million into a company trying to delay death

Can anti-aging breakthroughs add 10 healthy years to the human life span? The CEO of OpenAI is paying to find out.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.