Latest news with #geneticengineering
New York Times
2 days ago
- Health
- New York Times
William J. Rutter, Biotech Pioneer of Gene-Based Medicine, Dies at 97
William J. Rutter, a scientist who helped create the modern biotechnology industry as a founder of a company that turned breakthroughs from academic labs into commercial medicines, including the first genetically engineered vaccine and a therapy for multiple sclerosis, died on July 11 at his home in San Francisco. He was 97. His daughter, Cindy Rutter, said the cause was complications of urothelial carcinoma, a cancer of the urinary system. In 1981, Dr. Rutter and two University of California colleagues founded the Chiron Corporation in Emeryville, Calif. Along with the South San Francisco start-up Genentech, it established the Bay Area as the country's biotech capital, a counterpart to the computing boom in Silicon Valley. Chiron specialized in recombinant DNA technology, also known as gene splicing — the technique of snipping a gene from one organism and inserting it into the DNA of another organism. In 1968 Dr. Rutter, a biochemist, was recruited by the University of California, San Francisco, to help transform it into a research powerhouse with funding from the National Institutes of Health. He helped pioneer the science of genetic engineering — a foundation of the biotech industry that set it apart from traditional pharmaceutical development. He started Chiron (pronounced KY-ron) with Pablo D. T. Valenzuela, a fellow biochemist at U.C.S.F., and Edward E. Penhoet, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Rutter was chairman of the board. The company was named for a centaur in Greek mythology known for his skill in the healing arts Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The National
20-07-2025
- Science
- The National
Genetic engineering debate emerges before autumn UAE gathering
The use of genetic engineering to save endangered species is the subject of debate ahead of a major international conservation gathering in the UAE later this year. In a motion due to be presented at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress, in Abu Dhabi in October, opponents of the technology have warned of 'unforeseeable impacts' if wild species are genetically modified. The motion to the IUCN congress calls for a moratorium on genetic engineering, which has been used in conservation in efforts to recreate lost species. It says genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could 'significantly damage ecosystems' and move across borders in an 'uncontrollable' way. 'Genetic engineering of wild species in natural ecosystems undermines established and effective nature conservation strategies, many grounded in the traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous people and local communities,' states the motion. It is supported by organisations including the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network and the Stop Gene Drive campaign. The motion argues that genetically engineering wild organisms goes against the 'practices, values and principles of nature conservation' that the IUCN promotes. Promoting conservation However, in a public letter, a group of scientists and organisations have hit back at the moratorium proposal, warning that it would hamper the use of science to promote conservation. They have particular concerns about restrictions on the emerging field of synthetic biology, which involves, for example, genetically engineering organisms to produce substances that confer disease resistance. Signatories to the letter, among them American Bird Conservancy, the Charles Darwin Foundation and the European Bureau for Conservation and Development, say that many existing conservation tools – such as replanting coral reefs or moving organisms to increase genetic diversity – are expensive and difficult to use on a large scale. Technologies such as synthetic biology could, they argue, 'address challenges that have proven difficult or impossible to solve using traditional means'. Approaches that could prove useful include, they say, genetically engineering bacteria to combat coral reef bleaching, which happens at high temperatures and is a major problem in the Gulf region. Other applications they say could be jeopardised by bans on the genetic engineering of wild species include modifying frogs to be resistant to deadly fungi, or engineering rodents to control invasive alien species. They are concerned that scientists could be discouraged from using genetic engineering in conservation if the IUCN comes out publicly against the approach. 'An IUCN moratorium on genetically engineering wild species and microbiome communities would stifle research, compromise potential breakthroughs, and send a discouraging message to the next generation of scientists advancing transformative solutions in conservation and health,' the letter says. Among the signatories to the letter is Colossal Biosciences, an American company attempting to recreate extinct species such as the woolly mammoth. Fantasy becomes reality In April this year the firm claimed to have 'de-extincted' dire wolves, a species made famous by the television series Game of Thrones. Other signatories include scientists in Bulgaria, France, the Philippines, the UK and the US. In total more than 100 individuals, organisations and campaigners have signed the letter. The IUCN World Conservation Congress, held every four years, will take place in the UAE capital from October 9 to 15. The congress includes the members' assembly, where member organisations make decisions that 'influence global policy and set the conservation agenda for years to come'. The UAE has other strong links to the IUCN. The organisation's president is Razan Al Mubarak, who is also managing director of the Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi and the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund. Genetic engineering technologies have caused controversy for decades, particularly in Europe, where the use of GMOs in agriculture remains tightly restricted. In the Philippines, plans to grow Golden Rice, a form of the crop engineered to combat Vitamin A deficiency, were halted by a court last year. Dr Alexander Lees, a reader in biodiversity at Manchester Metropolitan University in the UK, who is not connected to the letter opposing the motion, said the application of synthetic biology to biodiversity conservation 'remains a divisive paradigm for conservationists'. 'Whilst some applications like 'de-extinction' are widely viewed with scepticism, engaging with other applications like species-specific biological control for invasive species would appear to offer real hope of tackling up-til-now intractable problems,' he said. He said another motion presented to the congress offered 'a flexible but cautious path' to deal with the issue on a case-by-case basis, given that 'inaction in many cases may transpire to be a greater risk than taking action without full knowledge of the consequences'. A moratorium may, Dr Lees suggested, 'be overly cautious'. Another biologist not connected to the letter, Prof William Kunin, professor of ecology at the University of Leeds in the UK, said the alternatives to using genetic engineering 'are often much worse' than the technology itself. 'What often happens in these sorts of debates [is] people look at an intervention in isolation compared to the alternatives,' he said. When it comes to controlling mosquitoes that spread malaria, for example, alternatives to genetically engineering the creatures might include, Prof Kunin said, 'spreading pesticides over vast areas or draining swamps', that might be 'incredibly biodiverse'.
The Guardian
20-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph
Eight babies have been born free of a disease that can lead to terrible suffering and early death, thanks to pioneering scientists in the UK employing a form of genetic engineering that is banned in some countries, including the US and France. Ten years ago, when the government and regulators were considering whether to allow mitochondrial transfer technology, critics warned of 'Frankenstein meddling' that would lead to three-parent children. It's hard now to justify such hostility in the face of the painstaking work carried out by the scientific and medical teams at Newcastle, resulting in these healthy babies and ecstatic families. Mitochondria, like tiny battery packs, supply energy to every cell of the body. Their DNA is handed down in the egg from mother to child. In rare instances, there are genetic mutations, which means the baby may develop mitochondrial disease. About one in 5,000 people is affected by it, making it one of the most common inherited disorders. As the cell batteries fail in various organs, the child can experience a range of symptoms, from muscle weakness to epilepsy, encephalopathy, blindness, hearing loss and diabetes. In severe cases, they die young. There is no cure yet, so the aim is prevention. Women who have some damaged and some healthy mitochondria can have IVF and pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) to select embryos that are clear of mutations or only slightly affected. The options for women with 100% mutated mitochondria used to be limited to donated eggs or adoption – until parliament changed the rules to allow the technology in 2015 and the Newcastle Fertility Centre was granted a licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to use it in 2017. The process does indeed involve three people. The would-be mother's egg and a donor egg are both fertilised by the man's sperm. The nucleus of the donated egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus of the woman's egg, but its healthy mitochondria remain. This composite egg is inserted into the woman's uterus. The resulting baby's DNA will be 99.9% from the parents and only 0.1% from the donor. Hardly a three-parent child. Yet there are controversies. Some countries will not permit use of the technology because of concerns over human germline genetic modification. The lab-mixed DNA will be passed to future generations, with who knows what consequences. And a question hangs over something called reversal, or reversion. The results of the Newcastle research published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that some of the embryos with healthy donated mitochondria developed mutations somewhere along the line. Mutations formed in 12% of one baby's mitochondria and 16% in another's. That was not enough to affect the babies, who were healthy, but previous work by other scientists has suggested that mutations can increase with time, and nobody yet understands why. The Newcastle scientists and medics have been highly praised for their slow and methodical work. They have brought joy to some families and hope to others. But this is still experimental technology and caution is absolutely valid. And inevitably there are cost issues. People who can afford it will no doubt pay, but the NHS is unlikely to be able to help the rest. Nonetheless, this groundbreaking research must surely be allowed to continue, albeit only in the same careful fashion.
The Guardian
20-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph
Eight babies have been born free of a disease that can lead to terrible suffering and early death, thanks to pioneering scientists in the UK employing a form of genetic engineering that is banned in some countries, including the US and France. Ten years ago, when the government and regulators were considering whether to allow mitochondrial transfer technology, critics warned of 'Frankenstein meddling' that would lead to three-parent children. It's hard now to justify such hostility in the face of the painstaking work carried out by the scientific and medical teams at Newcastle, resulting in these healthy babies and ecstatic families. Mitochondria, like tiny battery packs, supply energy to every cell of the body. Their DNA is handed down in the egg from mother to child. In rare instances, there are genetic mutations, which means the baby may develop mitochondrial disease. About one in 5,000 people is affected by it, making it one of the most common inherited disorders. As the cell batteries fail in various organs, the child can experience a range of symptoms, from muscle weakness to epilepsy, encephalopathy, blindness, hearing loss and diabetes. In severe cases, they die young. There is no cure yet, so the aim is prevention. Women who have some damaged and some healthy mitochondria can have IVF and pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) to select embryos that are clear of mutations or only slightly affected. The options for women with 100% mutated mitochondria used to be limited to donated eggs or adoption – until parliament changed the rules to allow the technology in 2015 and the Newcastle Fertility Centre was granted a licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to use it in 2017. The process does indeed involve three people. The would-be mother's egg and a donor egg are both fertilised by the man's sperm. The nucleus of the donated egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus of the woman's egg, but its healthy mitochondria remain. This composite egg is inserted into the woman's uterus. The resulting baby's DNA will be 99.9% from the parents and only 0.1% from the donor. Hardly a three-parent child. Yet there are controversies. Some countries will not permit use of the technology because of concerns over human germline genetic modification. The lab-mixed DNA will be passed to future generations, with who knows what consequences. And a question hangs over something called reversal, or reversion. The results of the Newcastle research published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that some of the embryos with healthy donated mitochondria developed mutations somewhere along the line. Mutations formed in 12% of one baby's mitochondria and 16% in another's. That was not enough to affect the babies, who were healthy, but previous work by other scientists has suggested that mutations can increase with time, and nobody yet understands why. The Newcastle scientists and medics have been highly praised for their slow and methodical work. They have brought joy to some families and hope to others. But this is still experimental technology and caution is absolutely valid. And inevitably there are cost issues. People who can afford it will no doubt pay, but the NHS is unlikely to be able to help the rest. Nonetheless, this groundbreaking research must surely be allowed to continue, albeit only in the same careful fashion.
The Independent
12-07-2025
- Science
- The Independent
How scientists plan to ‘resurrect' the extinct South Island giant moa
Colossal Biosciences, a Texas-based company, is attempting to resurrect the extinct South Island giant moa, a 12-foot-tall bird, through genetic engineering. The project is backed by Lord of the Rings filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson, who has provided $15 million (£11m) in funding, and includes the New Zealand -based Ngāi Tahu Research Centre. Scientists aim to genetically engineer living birds to resemble the moa within five to 10 years, starting by extracting DNA from well-preserved bones. This marks Colossal's first attempt to de-extinct a bird, presenting unique challenges compared to their previous work with designer grey wolves. The initiative faces controversy from some scientists who question the feasibility of reintroducing extinct species and worry it may divert focus from protecting existing wildlife.
