Are we ready for the new era in genome editing?


Biotechnology is advancing faster than ever and it is proving difficult for antiquated funding, patent, regulatory and communication systems to keep up.

Emerging drug therapies, improved medical devices, novel links to cancer and exciting laboratory techniques from industry and academia are published regularly across a broadening range of academic journals. Just last week Chinese scientists published research on their attempts to edit the genome of a non-viable embryo.

Genome editing involves the editing of the wealth of genetic material in our cells. One technique which is generating a lot of excitement among scientists is the application of CRISPR-Cas9 to genome editing in both somatic cells, the cells that make up our body, and germ cells, or egg and sperm cells. Unlike somatic cell engineering, which could be used, for example, to cure genetic diseases in an individual, germ line engineering could see genetic diseases such as Alzheimer’s or cancers eradicated across generations. Proponents of germ line engineering argue this potential, while critics warn of a slippery-slope including “designer babies”, children of the affluent selected on the basis of aesthetics or intelligence or physical ability, representing the darker and increasingly possible side of germ line engineering.

The highly effective and simple to use clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 system was first discovered in a bacterium, Streptococcus pyogenes, as part of the cellular adaptive immune system. In short, CRISPR RNA is used by the cell to prevent infection by identifying foreign DNA that is later removed by the Cas9 nuclease, a native form of genome engineering if you will.

New studies

In March, two separate commentaries on germ line engineering appeared in Nature and Science. Both sought to bring the discussion on the use of genome editing in humans to light, particularly with regards to germ line engineering, while calling for different approaches on continuing research in this area.

Edward Lanphier and his colleagues, writing in Nature, argue for a temporary moratorium on research into germ line engineering. They cite the tenuous benefits of the technique, the restrictions by many European countries on inheritable genetic modification and possible public confusion as reasons against continuing research.

David Baltimore and his colleagues, writing in Science, more astutely recommend a conference on the scale of the Asilomar recombinant DNA conference held in 1975, the conventions of which are still impacting modern biology, including those on enhanced safety factors and recommendations on types of experiments. This proposed conference should pull together an international range of legal experts, ethicists, scientists (from graduate students to industry), policy makers and the lay public to discuss the challenges of germ line engineering. They also strongly discourage attempts at clinical applications of human germ line genome engineering and advocate for the creation of fora for scientists and bioethicists to come together and discuss the ethical, scientific and legal challenges of genome editing.

Although Edward Lanphier and his colleagues bring up valid concerns about the uncertainties and unknown dangers of germ line engineering, I would argue that this is reason for more research, not less, with more open dialogue as advances are made.

How close are we to editing genome in the germ line? It turns out, as simple and efficient as CRISPR/Cas9 is reported to be, that we still have some major technological hurdles to overcome. Last week’s paper by Chinese scientists, published in Protein and Cell, discusses their work on editing the genome of a non-viable human embryo. The research team, led by Junjiu Huang of Sun Yat-sen University, reported they were able to successfully edit a gene in a small fraction of their pool of embryos, but they came up against great technical and biological challenges, including significant off-target effects. They cautioned that further research into off-target effects and the cell’s own DNA repair mechanisms is sorely needed before we can move this technology to the clinic. The authors further emphasised the necessity for more analysis of the molecular mechanisms of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in humans. It is only a matter of time before their call is answered by other research groups around the world.

From the lab to the clinic

We have entered an era where it is possible, in a lab, to edit the human germ line, but there remain great challenges before this technology can be applied to the clinic. Germ line engineering holds great potential, but also great ethical and biological risk. The fact is, we simply do not know enough about biology, human or otherwise, to make predictions on the outcomes of multiple-gene editing in distant generations. By eradicating one disease, could we be selecting for another? Is germ line engineering taking evolution into our own hands with little regard for the consequences?

The global financial crisis that started in 2007 permanently altered the landscape of scientific funding and reengaged the public in discussions on funding priorities. Care is clearly needed for this research to move forward, but it would be hugely detrimental if leading research nations cut funding to genome editing techniques because of fear or ignorance. We must work to keep science open and transparent, but we must also continue with cutting edge research into fundamental processes that will give us a better understanding of inheritance, the genetic basis for disease and the implications of genome editing on organisms and communities. A new era in biology is here. The question is whether we are ready to embrace it.

*Paul Bergen [2013] is doing a PhD in Pathology. Picture credit: and ponsulak.



India’s Daughter and the importance of context


India’s Daughter, Leslie Udwin’s recent and controversial documentary, honed in on the infamous Delhi gang rape of 2012, which has become a highly provocative and sensitive issue in India. Spurring protests across the country, this gang rape brought visceral responses from people across India. It seemed natural, then, to focus on this as a case study for analysing rape in India. Within the domestic context, such a provocative approach was beneficial to the extent that it initiated important conversations in the media and among the general population.

However, for a global audience, the documentary painted a simplistic black and white picture of a highly complex issue. The victim was an educated middle class girl with high ambitions. The perpetrators were uneducated and trapped in a cycle of poverty, with little hope for the future. The class divide could not have been shown in a more obvious way – but this is a narrow portrayal of rape cases. Furthermore, a focus on the graphic details of one particular act (which had already been repeatedly stressed by the Indian press), rather than the wider manifestation of rape across the country and the reasons behind it narrowed the vision of the film even more.

Such narrow portrayals often fail to bring forth into public discourse the more hidden forms of rape that exist in societies, such as domestic rape, child molestation by family members, date rapes and even rape of the socially marginalised by police and the armed forces. Any discussions of rape should consider these other crimes, often less explicit and therefore all the more in need of public discussion and discourse.

The film was screened recently at one of the Gates Cambridge Reel Interventions sessions, preceded by a highly thought-provoking and detailed introduction by Dr Priyamvada Gopal, a professor at the Faculty of English, Cambridge.

In the discussion that followed the screening it was not simply the film itself that was debated, but also the very context of the film screening. There seemed to be two key elements to this context: the international audience viewing the film and the fact that it was in a university setting. These helped articulate two widespread misconceptions about rape. The first is that rape doesn’t just exist in a separate, nebulous space in the outside – developing – world. An international audience has to be careful to avoid assuming that rape is something which happens ‘elsewhere’, when in fact it is a global issue. Rape is very much a reality all around the world.

Secondly, one of the arguments stressed in the documentary and in discussions, was that rape is chiefly the result of a lack of education. This generates the notion that it is only ‘uneducated’ people who are rapists while the educated are merely their victims. This argument was contradicted by research showing the very high occurrence of rape in educational institutions committed by people who often have degrees from top universities. It became evident that it was crucial that we, as students, should not dismiss the issue of rape as a problem only in the developing world, but that we should look at it in the context of the institutions that we are a part of. Rape is something that needs to be addressed in every community.

The screening and talk were highly relevant to the student community not only because they followed the widespread discussions that the documentary has raised in the media, but they provided a platform for students to discuss these issues in the context of a university setting.

*Neha Kinariwalla [2014 – MPhil in Modern Society and Global Transformations], Cillian Ó Fathaigh [2014 – MPhil European Literature and Culture] and Ananya Mishra [204 – MPhil in Modern South Asian Studies]. Photo credit: Nilroy and Wiki Commons.

The downside of moves towards gay equality


In the last decade, we have witnessed a dramatic shift in public discourse about gay issues in the US and the UK. Throughout earlier gay organising, one thing was always clear: whatever else gays were, we were victims. At least, we were at risk of being victims. Victims of hate crimes, police brutality, discriminatory laws, family rejection, AIDS, suicide, conversion therapy, the Holocaust. Gays had No Future, and black comedy was a key part of How to Be Gay.

But with dramatic progress in the social and legal status of gays over the last decade, things are changing. Gays are no longer Longing for Recognition; we have it. Military service, parades and propaganda, prom dates, having sex, and most recently getting married are (mostly) legal and supported by a majority of the US and UK populations. Even The Gay Daddy is now literal. The HRC [Human Rights Campaign]- one of many gay lobbying organisations – reports annual revenues of over 38 million dollars

Some gays are still seen as victims. Those living in Russia and Uganda are subject to horrifying laws, and in Jamaican and Muslim communities they are also imperilled. But British and American gays are described as having forged Safe Space for themselves. Sometimes in school we’re told “Dude, You’re a Fag“, but It Gets Better when we go to a university in a big city.

Having it all?

We’ve come so far that some are even declaring The End of Gay, that the gay community is a myth, and that we’re now post gay. With gay victimisation overcome, little is left to unify gays in one identity. Unlike The Kinks, gay organisers have been arguing that we are like everybody else. We’re normal. At long last, it is possible for gay kids to live the same lives as their straight peers. School dances, weddings, raising children; careers in politics, military, and media – gays can finally have it all.

But a vocal minority of writers push back Against Equality and against The New Homonormativity. For them, the struggles of other queer people – whose bodies, genders, sexualities, bank accounts, and relationships don’t look like Dan Savage and Terry Miller‘s – are left out.

My research on queer university students (an ongoing study at numerous sites across North America) highlights another complication of the cultural shift from gay-as-victim to gay-as-normal. Even in the best of conditions, at wealthy universities in famously gay cities where It Gets Better, queers are sometimes still victims of violence, harassment, discrimination and hostility. And the desire to appear normal often leaves us silent about it.

It’s not that queer people are making a conscious choice to cover up victimisation to further assimilationist politics. Acts of bias and hate have stigmatising effects, and few want to be a victim. Even when we’re “out” and involved in LGBTQ organisations, we frequently cite the desire not to be seen as different as a reason not to speak up in class, not to complain about harassment, not to report offences, not to mention them to friends and family.

The shame of victimisation isn’t new or unique to LGBTQ people. It’s not a product of the turn toward assimilation. But when gay organising called on victimisation as the basis of community, identity and politics, it offered an empowering way to reclaim a positive sense of self identity from that fear and shame. While the current trend of gay assimilation offers unprecidented possibilities for living normal, safe lives, it offers little in the way of support for people who are still victimised. Where they once shared a community-defining problem, victims are now isolated. And with gay victimisation ‘solved’, little thought and energy goes into the ways sexual and gender minorities continue to be victimised, or the ways those harms disproportionately fall on the most marginal groups.

*Jeffrey Lockhart [2014] is doing an MPhil in Multi-Disciplinary Gender Studies. Picture credit: nongpimmy and

What makes good chocolate?


Springtime brings about an awakened sense of curiosity and desire to indulge the senses. Around this time of year we may be thinking about purchasing fresh flowers or luxury chocolate gifts. When it comes to chocolate there’s something to please nearly everyone: from the milk chocolate Easter rabbit to the dairy-free vegan bar. With such an abundance of choice, the hunt for good chocolate is really an exercise of intellectual and gastronomical exploration.

Certifications like Fairtrade mark, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ, Organic, and Vegan can make it seem like this decision is easier. Or they can make it downright confusing. These days consumers are so bombarded with eco-certifications, ethical awards, and health claims that it can be hard to tell which labels are actually doing good for ourselves, the chocolate makers and cacao farmers, and the environment. Many artisanal and truly high quality chocolate bars do not carry any conventional certification at all. What they carry instead is a story behind the bar.

A multidimensional global commodity

Chocolate is a fascinatingly complex global commodity. It intersects disciplines and sectors, addressing topics as diverse as global trade, agriculture, rural livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, commodities speculation, health and heritage. There are 49 major cacao-producing countries in addition to many smaller ones. Additionally, there is no single chocolate flavour. Even more than fine wine, chocolate has over 400 flavour compounds and its bouquet of flavours is influenced by thousands of decisions, from the soil in which the plant is grown to the final phase of processing. Colorful flavour wheels such as those developed by Chocopolis and TCHO can help give consumers a vocabulary to describe this diversity of taste.

However, there is a darker side to chocolate too. Large chocolate manufacturers monopolise the industry, yet the majority of cacao is grown by small-scale farmers who straddle the equatorial line and often the line of impoverishment. The spatial and technological divide between the farmers, the large chocolate companies and the consumers translates to a huge discrepancy between the final price of the product and the income farmers receive. There are also pressing environmental concerns. Cacao thrives in biodiverse hotspots such as the Amazonian region where shade grown forest ecosystems provide a habitat for birds, insects and other forest-dwelling organisms. Grown according to traditional organic methods free of agro-chemicals, complemented by prices that actually improve rural livelihood conditions, cacao can be part of the equation of environmental conservation and social justice.

Hidden gems

The rise of the craft chocolate market has transformed the ways in which the world sees chocolate as much more than a sweet confection. Beyond certifications, small chocolate makers are about forming meaningful relationships with the cacao farmers. They address the ethical concerns through a more transparent supply chain with labels such as “direct trade”, “bean-to-bar”, “single origin”, and “single estate”. They preserve the genetic diversity of the plant by seeking outstanding, bold flavours through fine aroma or heirloom cacao. They keep things simple by using fewer ingredients – sometimes just cacao and sugar – to stay honest to the consumers and honour the nutritional power of pure cacao. And most importantly, they are businesses that strive to do good for people and the environment. Good chocolate is ethical, ecological, and enjoyable.

With such diversity in flavour, country of origin, and type of manufacturing the choice of which chocolate to purchase can be surprisingly complex. When deciding which chocolate to purchase or gift away, there is no “best” chocolate. Certainly there are some not-good chocolates, namely those made with low quality raw ingredients and that are part of a larger industry of quantity over quality production. But perhaps one of the best (and most enjoyable) ways to discover good chocolate is to hunt for chocolate that tells a story. Ask with curious mind: Where was the cacao grown? Where was the chocolate manufactured? What’s the story behind the bar?

*Madeline Weeks [2014] is a Gates Cambridge scholar as an MPhil student in Geographical Research studying linkages between the production of shade-grown coffee and wellbeing of coffee farmers in Veracruz, Mexico. She also pursues a deep passion for chocolate and overall promotion of happiness, both to the consumers and the producers. Follow her on Twitter: @madelinecacao or her blog:  Picture credit: and Salvatore Vuono.