The lesson of little Adam: gene therapy and cancer risk

Posted on by
Reply

Four years after an experimental treatment for a rare disease, the child underwent surgery for cancer, the first case caused by a virus widely used as a vector, but he is now doing well.

The question of whether gene therapy using adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) can cause tumors has been the subject of intense debate over recent decades. Until now, our understanding of their mechanisms and the data collected over the years from thousands of patients had appeared reassuring. In fact, AAVs are the most commonly used vectors for “in vivo” therapies precisely because they usually deliver their package, containing the therapeutic gene, near the patient’s DNA without integrating into it, thereby avoiding disruptions. Will the risk-benefit balance now change, after the first documented case of a tumor linked to their use in a clinical trial?

Continue reading →

NGTs in the EU: why the new amendments should be rejected

Posted on by
Reply

A French association and three German associations representing geneticists, agronomists, and other academic and professional figures involved in the field of plant biotechnology have sent a letter to Members of the European Parliament urging them to vote against the latest amendments concerning new genomic techniques (NGTs). The joint message is addressed in particular to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). It defends the text developed over years of negotiations by the European institutions (the Trilogue) and responds point by point to its critics. Further delaying the approval of the new regulation, the experts argue, would hinder the development of solutions needed to tackle the climate challenge and would damage Europe’s competitiveness (currently, more than 50% of peer-reviewed NGT research comes from China, while the EU accounts for only 15%).

Continue reading →

CRISPR creates cancer-fighting cells inside the body

Posted on by
Reply

Don’t miss the video where reserachers from the Innovative Genomics Institute and UC San Francisco explain their cancer immunotherapy work, published in Nature on March 18, 2026. A breakthrough that could make next-generation CAR-T therapies faster, cheaper, and accessible to more patients worldwide.

The Oscars of science honor advanced therapies

Posted on by
Reply
Actors Sean Penn and Octavia Spencer presenting awards to Stuart H. Orkin (Harvard University) and Swee Lay Thein (National Institutes of Health)

They’re called the “Oscars of Science” for their Hollywood-style glamour, but more and more they resemble a grand gala of advanced therapies. A few examples? In 2015, Cameron Diaz presented the Life Sciences award to CRISPR pioneers Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier. In 2025, it was David Liu’s turn (the father of base editing) honored by Jodie Foster and Lily Collins. And now, in 2026, the jury made up of previous laureates (including pioneers of CAR-T therapies and RNA vaccines) has decided to take a step back, paying tribute to seven scientists who investigated the genetic basis of serious diseases and set the scientific community on the right path toward finding a cure. Don’t miss the video of the Breakthrough Prize ceremony, featuring surprise guest Baby KJ.

Craig Venter: many battles won, one left unfinished

Posted on by
Reply
Credit: Brett Shipe / J. Craig Venter Institute

Craig Venter was the first person to read his own genome (his full sequence was published in 2007). He was able to study his genetic predispositions and undergo the most advanced tests to verify their real-world relevance. In 2014, he launched a company called Human Longevity with the goal of building bridges between genetic sequences and diagnosis. In this way, by 2016 he had identified and defeated prostate cancer, but science and luck were not enough to save him a second time in 2026. When he passed away on April 29, he had not accomplished everything he had hoped to, but more than enough to secure a place in history, and perhaps even earn the respect of many of his former rivals.

Continue reading →

CRISPR medicine: a 2026 Snapshot

Posted on by
Reply

Amid research funding cuts under the Trump administration, a slowdown in venture capital investment, and uncertainty driven by shifting policies in adjacent fields such as RNA vaccines, the past year has been anything but smooth for genome-editing therapies. Even so, clinical trials have continued to expand, and a couple of treatments are nearing commercialization. Moreover, the success of the first personalized therapy developed for a newborn with a rare disease (Baby KJ) has sparked a regulatory rethink that could open up new opportunities. This is the latest snapshot from the Innovative Genomics Institute, which regularly tracks the progress and prospects of CRISPR-based medicine. Post scriptum: In addition to the main article, be sure to explore the dedicated sections on specific disease areas, including cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, cancers, rare genetic diseases, red blood cell disorders, diabetes, and infections.

Template-free DNA and no dogma broken

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps you came across a Science news piece published last week, presented with a fair amount of hype. Title: “Scientists stunned by ‘fundamentally new way’ life produces DNA.” Subtitle: “Newly discovered bacterial defense system challenges genetic code’s central dogma.”

Continue reading →

A genetic orchestra for photosynthesis

Posted on by
Reply

Turn one gene up, another down. Enhancing the photosynthetic capacity of plants will likely require learning how to conduct a complex orchestra of genes. Achieving this could help sequester at least part of the carbon dioxide emissions driving climate change, while also increasing crop yields.

Continue reading →

A wolf of a year

Posted on by
Reply

You remember, right? They were created through gene editing. Almost immediately, the debate kicked off: is this really de-extinction? Are they really dire wolves? Of course, dire wolves are fictional creatures, while “de-extinction” is a neologism that can be interpreted more or less strictly. To avoid getting stuck in a semantic argument, let’s just say this was a case of recovering selected genetic traits from the genome of an extinct species that later inspired a sci-fi series. Setting the terminology aside, a year on from the New Yorker and Time articles, the real question is: how are these very special pups doing?

Continue reading →