Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

CLAIM

[G]enetic evidence within the Spike gene of SARS-Cov-2 genome [] does exist and suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 genome should be a product of genetic manipulation; The characteristics and pathogenic effects of SARS-CoV-2 are unprecedented

DETAILS

Incorrect: The genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 are common in other coronaviruses that occur in nature and have animal reservoirs. Therefore, these features do not prove in any way that the virus was constructed in a laboratory or genetically modified.Unsupported: The author does not provide evidence to support her claim that the virus causing COVID-19 was created in a lab. The pre-print cherry-picks data and overlooks alternative hypotheses about the virus evolving in nature. Contrary to the claim, the most likely scenario is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was transferred to humans from bats or other animal reservoirs, similar to how other viruses were transferred to humans like the SARS-CoV-1 virus (a coronavirus closely related to SARS-CoV-2) and Ebola.

KEY TAKE AWAY

Although the exact origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains unknown, previous claims that the virus contained artificial elements or that it had been patented were debunked. The virus most likely originated in nature, probably in bats, according to the genetic similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and other animal coronaviruses. Dr. Yan claims to prove that the SARS-COV-2 virus originated in a lab, but a careful analysis of her pre-print actually shows this claim is unsubstantiated.

REVIEW On 14 September 2020, the Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan published a a pre-print (an unpublished draft of a science paper) on the website Zenodo claiming to provide evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was created in a laboratory and is not of natural origin. Many outlets promoted the pre-print and Fox News aired an interview with Yan and Tucker Carlson on 16 September 2020. Hundreds of posts shared the unsupported claim, receiving millions of interactions, according to the social media analytics tool CrowdTangle.

This pre-print resurrected the baseless claim that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made, a claim that has been repeated since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and Health Feedback previously covered here, here, here, and here. Yans pre-print, which was not peer-reviewed by other experts in the field, claims that some unique characteristics in the SARS-CoV-2 genome prove that the virus is man-made. However, experts disputed Yans pre-print for being flawed and containing unsubstantiated claims. Gkikas Magiorkinis, Assistant Professor of Hygiene and Epidemiology and Scientific Coordinator of the National Reference Centre for Retroviruses at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, said:

[C]losely related coronaviruses have been retrieved from animals such as bats and pangolins, which makes the scenario of naturally occurring evolution far more likely than any scenario of laboratory manipulation. In fact, we have [a] clear history of zoonotic origin of lethal coronavirus outbreaks such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The paper by Li-Meng et al. does not provide any robust evidence of artificial manipulation, no statistical test of alternative hypotheses (natural evolution vs artificial manipulation) and is highly speculative.

Specifically, Yan focuses on three features of the viral genome to claim that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made. The first feature is an allegedly high similarity between the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and the previously known bat coronavirus ZC45. According to Yan, this similarity indicates that this bat coronavirus served as a template to construct SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory. However, the bat coronavirus is only 89% related to SARS-CoV-2. In virology terms, that is very distant, said Stanley Perlman, a professor of immunology and microbiology at the University of Iowa, in an explanation to FactCheck.org.

According to Yan, the second genetic feature of SARS-CoV-2 that suggests it is man-made is the spike (S) protein that resembles that of SARS-CoV-1 from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. S protein allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to bind to and infect animal cells. SARS-CoV-2 lacks a set of key amino acids within the S protein that conferred SARS-CoV-1 its super-affinity for human cells[1,2], however it can bind to human cells with a greater affinity than SARS-CoV-1. If scientists wanted to engineer improved binding for the S protein in SARS-CoV-2, they would most likely use the already-known and efficient amino acid sequences in SARS-CoV-1 instead of engineering a new amino acid sequence. The differences in S protein between the two viruses strongly suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 evolved independently of human intervention and instead resulted from natural evolutionary processes, undermining the claim that the virus was engineered[3].

The third genetic feature highlighted in Yans pre-print is the presence of unique restriction sites within the S protein of SARS-CoV-2, which she claims contribute to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus. Restriction sites are specific recognition sequences in the genome that researchers use to cut and manipulate genes. Experts who reviewed the pre-print consider this evidence to be incorrect, as these restriction sites frequently appear in nature. Virologist and assistant research professor at Rutgers University Jason Kaelber explained in a point-by-point response to Yans pre-print in Twitter, that these types of restriction sites easily emerge in nature, as it has been documented for flu[4].

Based on these three genomic features, Yans pre-print concludes that SARS-CoV-2 does not derive from natural viral evolution, but from genetic engineering to eventually become a highly-transmissible, onset-hidden, lethal, sequelae-unclear, and massively disruptive pathogen. Cat coronaviruses, which are unlikely to be genetically engineered, also cause a wide spectrum of disease outcomes similar to COVID-19 in humans[5]. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, also discussed these three lines of evidence in a Twitter thread stating that these genetic features also appear in nature and do not prove that the virus was created in a laboratory.

According to an 11 July 2020 statement from the University of Hong Kong (HKU) where Yan worked as a post-doctoral fellow, Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU during December 2019 and January 2020, and what she might have emphasised in the reported interview has no scientific basis but resembles hearsay.

In addition to insufficient support for the claim that the virus is man-made, the authors of the pre-print are not affiliated with a research institution, but rather the Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, two related organizations with no prior record of scientific publications. The authors do not disclose any potential conflict of interests, even though these entities have connections to the former chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon and the exiled political activist Guo Wengui. Bannon and Wengui published misinformation about COVID-19 in the past.

Scientists and public health authorities repeatedly refuted similar claims about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. On 19 February 2020, 27 eminent public health scientists stated in The Lancet that numerous international studies analyzing the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens. On 30 April 2020, the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence concurred with the scientific consensus. Indeed, the transmission of pathogens from animals to humans is a common process called zoonosis, which is responsible for about 60% of the emerging infectious diseases globally, according to the World Health Organization.

The pre-print ignores all recent data from coronaviruses in pangolins and bats, which demonstrate that genetically similar coronaviruses occur in nature and have animal reservoirs. A 17 March 2020 study published in Nature Medicine concluded that SARS-CoV-2 likely originated in pangolins or bats and later developed the ability to infect humans[3]. Accordingly, a recent publication in Science Advances suggests that recombination of SARS-CoV-2 with pangolin coronaviruses was possibly a critical step in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2s ability to infect humans[6]. This process of recombination occurs naturally when two viruses infect simultaneously the same host and exchange pieces of genetic material, resulting in a novel virus with different characteristics to the viruses it comes from.

In summary, the genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 used to support the claim that the virus is man-made are not unique and occur naturally in other coronaviruses. The pre-print does not provide any evidence that the virus has been created in a laboratory setting, and thus the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made remains unsupported by available scientific evidence. Although the possibility of a laboratory leak cannot be completely excluded until the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is precisely determined, evidence from genetic analyses of the virus indicates that it likely originated in bats and later made the jump into humans, probably involving other intermediary animals[7].

Several competing hypotheses have been proposed to explain where the novel coronavirus actually came from. Health Feedback investigated the three most widespread origin stories for the novel coronavirus (engineered, lab leak or natural infection), and examined the evidence for or against each proposed hypothesis in this Insight article.

This article in Medium, comprehensively summarizes the scientific flaws in Yans arguments.This review by National Geographic provides additional comments from scientists.

This fact check is available at IFCNs 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Clickhere, for more.

Read the original:
The virus causing COVID-19 most likely evolved in natural wildlife populations before spreading to humans - Health Feedback

Humans and fish (unless you mean a lungfish) dont really have much in common, except that they are both vertebrates, and all vertebrates have a common ancestor. But how do you go hundreds of millions of years back in time without a fossil of that ancestor?

Technology from the future has now given us a glimpse into the deep past. Biologists from the University of Colorado Boulder have now used CRISPR to genetically reverse-engineer the embryo of a sea lamprey (those freaky fish that stick to their prey and suck its guts out), making it devolve. The wormlike creature they created proved that removing the set of genes that makes vertebrates what they are rewinds evolution. It can also give us a better understanding of the ancestor we have in common with fish and everything else that has a skeleton.

"There is a single gene vaguely similar, and probably distantly related, to the Endothelin receptors in the genome of the invertebrate chordate amphioxus,"biologist Daniel Medeiros, who co-authoreda study recently published in Nature, told SYFY WIRE."What it does is unknown (we have tried to figure out what it does, but have failed so far). So the endothelin receptor likely evolved from some ancient cell surface receptor,perhaps by gaining some new protein coding sequence, or by exon shuffling (being accidentally combined with some other protein-coding sequence from another part of the genome)."

Its kind of like that spell of Ursulas in The Little Mermaid that turned poor unfortunate merpeople into primitive worm-things, just not so grim.

500 million years ago, vertebrates somehow evolved the group of genes that made them vertebrates. These genes make up the Endothelin (Edn) signaling pathway, which switches on specialized cells that develop into parts of the skeleton, the peripheral nervous system and pigment cells to multiply as the embryo develops. These cells are neural crest cells (NCCs). What Square and his team wanted to test was whether taking away the Endothelin signaling pathway would turn a vertebrate into an invertebrate that could be eerily similar to something that existed before skeletons were a thing.

Sea lampreys were used in the experiment because they evolutionarily diverged from other fish around the same time that vertebrates evolved the Endothelin signaling pathway. These jawless fish are living fossils, with ancient vertebrate features that at least give some idea of an early phase of vertebrate evolution.

"The evolution of what we think are two differentendothelin signaling pathways allowed neural crest cells to divide themselvesup into different groupscapable of doing different things," Medeiros said."We think, based on the lamprey mutant phenotypes, that this facilitated the evolution of different types of vertebrates with different head skeleton features."

Endothelin signals are zapped to different cells in order to tell them what functions to carry outthis is intercellular signaling. Ligands, or molecules that bind to other (often larger) molecules for a specific biological function, are released by signaling cells in this process. The ligands produce a chemical signal when they bind with a protein they target, which is the receptor of that signal. Ligands typically bind only to one particular receptor. Multiple ligands and receptors dedicated to varying functions are involved in Endothelin signaling.

"The endothelin ligands really appeared out of nowhere;there is nothing remotely like them in any invertebrate," Medeiros said. "They must have beentranscribed randomly from some non protein-coding DNA on accident at some point.This has been shown to happen in other animals, like fruit flies.Since they are not very large genes, I think that is a good possibility."

In an earlier study, Medierosand his team had analyzed the Endothelin signals in a frog and compared them to those in the lamprey, which they found has specific ligand and receptor pairs that are almost like similar pairs found in jawed vertebrates. This analysis formed the basis of what would be their work with CRISPR.

Genome duplication was previously thought to be behind the evolution of new traits, since copies of genes that already exist can assume new and possibly, such as in the emergence of vertebrates, unprecedented functions.

"You sequence the gene you targeted to make sure that you efficiently broke the gene, and can then analyze the defects caused by missing the gene," said Medeiros. "The CRISPR method uses the 'programmable'Cas9 enzyme, which cuts DNA. We can injected a solution with the Cas9 enzyme and a piece of RNA into the cell with a tinyglass syringe. In the cell, the Cas9 grabs the RNA guide, then moves into the nucleus and cuts the DNA where we want it, then you let the mutated embryo develop."

Mutant sea lamprey larvae showed just about none of the traits that distinguish vertebrates. What makes this experiment such a breakthrough is that it has been notoriously difficult to find the exact roles for genes that exist only in vertebrates. The team also realized that while gene duplication is definitely involved in evolution, it was not the holy grail that could give rise to an entirely new group of genes, such as NCCs, on its own. Formation of new genes has to be going on at the same time as duplications in order for that to happen.

Could you devolve a human like this? Probably not, but its awesome sci-fi-horror movie fodder. What might eventually be done, if you ask Medeiros, is the cancelling out of detrimental genes that could lead to defects.

"As long was we survive as a technological species, we will eventually understand genomes, how they have changed during evolutionto make new organisms, and also how it they are disrupted in genetically based diseases and cancer," he said."At that point we can rewrite the instructions in an intelligent way to create essentially whateverbiological outcome we want."

Go here to see the original:
Could a mutant fish that was genetically engineered backwards tell us where we came from? - SYFY WIRE

Dublin, Sept. 21, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Global CRISPR & Cas Genes Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis by Product & Service (Vector-based Cas, DNA-free Cas, Cell Line Engineering), Application, End Use, and Segment Forecasts 2020-2027" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated (Cas) genes market size is expected to reach USD 4.88 billion by 2027, expanding at a CAGR of 16.6% from 2020 to 2027.

CRISPR & Cas Genes Market Report Highlights

The product segment is anticipated to dominate the market throughout the forecast period. This is attributed to the presence of enhanced individual products that can serve multiple purposes including genome engineering, specific genome cleavage using gRNAs, easy gene knockouts, along with reduced off-target cutting, and increased specificity

Cell line engineering services accounted for the largest market share in 2019. The development of this technology has simplified the genome engineering process to a large extent

In biomedical applications, genome engineering held the largest revenue share in 2019 as a result of an increase in the adoption of genome editing techniques for modifications in germline and therapeutics development

Recent advancements in CRISPR/Cas genome editing allow targeted modification in crops, thereby promising crop improvement and revenue generation in the market

A significant number of research studies carried out to develop disease-specific novel therapies and the presence of a huge clinical pipeline that integrates the application of this gene-editing technology are expected to boost revenue generation for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies segment

Asia Pacific is anticipated to witness the fastest growth over the forecast period. China holds a significant position in the CRISPR market and is increasingly exploring genome-editing for the development of medicines. The country has launched several CRISPER-based clinical trials, especially for cancer treatment.

Rise in the adoption of CRISPR technology in epigenetics, therapeutics, human germline editing, plant genome editing, and other fields of biotechnology is expected to drive the market.

Presence of a large number of service providers that provide knockout, knock-in, gene repression, gene activation, and other cell line engineering services propel the growth of cell line engineering services. In biomedical applications, genome engineering held the largest revenue share in 2019. Adoption of gene editing techniques for human- and non-human-based genomic engineering is one of the key factors that drive the segment.

The molecular scissor can facilitate the detection of viruses, allowing the development of cost-effective, robust, and rapid point-of-care diagnostics. It allows the detection of viruses at a level of molecular concentration that researchers rarely assess. Sherlock Bioscience estimated that a CRISPR-powered diagnostic test would be available in the future at a reasonable price. In recent times, the most important innovation has been the development of a test for COVID-19.

In March 2020, Mesa Biotech announced FDA authorization for its Accula device, a hand-held COVID-19 diagnostic test. Similarly, in April 2020, CSIR lab announced the development of a paper-strip test for Covid-19 that uses CRISPR-Cas9 to target and identifies the genomic sequences of the virus. Unlike the PCR tests, this test is available at a very low price, USD 6.59 (INR 1 = USD 0.013). Therefore, such initiatives are expected to encourage other players to leverage this crisis and launch novel products.

Key Topics Covered:

Story continues

Chapter 1 Research Methodology

Chapter 2 Executive Summary2.1 Market Snapshot, 2019 (USD Million)

Chapter 3 Crispr And Cas Genes Market Variables, Trends & Scope3.1 Market Trends & Outlook3.2 Market Segmentation & Scope3.3 Market Lineage Outlook3.3.1 Parent Market Outlook3.3.2 Related/Ancillary Market Outlook3.4 Crispr And Cas Genes: Patent Landscape3.4.1 By End - Use Settings3.4.2 By Variants Of Crispr Enzymes3.5 Penetration And Growth Prospect Mapping, By Biomedical Applications, 20193.6 Potential Threat Analysis To Crispr Technology3.6.1 Variations In The Crispr System3.7 Investors Perspective Analysis3.8 User Perspective Analysis3.9 Technology Mapping In Crispr Genome Editing Workflow3.10 Developments And Innovations For Analysis Of Off - Target Effects3.11 Crispr Technologies: Clinical Penetration3.11.1 Human Therapeutics3.11.2 Diagnostics3.11.3 Microbiome Research And Drug Resistance3.11.4 Animal Disease Models

Chapter 4 Industry Outlook4.1 Market Dynamics4.1.1 Market Driver Analysis4.1.1.1 Rising Adoption In Diverse Fields Of Biotechnology4.1.1.1.1 Epigenetics4.1.1.1.2 Medicine4.1.1.1.3 Human Germline Editing4.1.1.1.4 Tool For Qualitative And Quantitative Plant Genome Editing4.1.1.2 Technological Advancements In Crispr4.1.1.3 Introduction Of Anti - Crispr Protein4.1.1.4 Ongoing Competition For Crispr Commercialization4.1.2 Market Restraint Analysis4.1.2.1 Off - Target Effects Of Crispr Technology4.1.2.2 Intellectual Property Disputes Pertaining To Cas4.1.2.3 Ethical Concerns And Implications With Respect To Human Genome Editing4.1.3 Market Opportunity Analysis4.1.3.1 Expanding Gene & Cell Therapy Area4.1.3.2 Government Fund In Genomic R&D4.1.4 Market Challenge Analysis4.1.4.1 Risks Pertaining To The Usage Of Genetically Modified Food4.2 Policy Making & Regulation For Genetic Modification Using Crispr4.3 Porter's Five Forces Analysis4.4 SWOT Analysis, By Factor (Political & Legal, Economic, And Technological)

Chapter 5 Competitive Landscape5.1 Companies (Diagnostic & Drug Developers) Leveraging Gene Editing Technologies5.2 Major Deals & Strategic Alliances Analysis5.3 Market Entry Strategies5.3.1 Crispr Therapeutics: Business Translation5.3.2 Crispr Gene Editing Companies' Toolboxes5.4 Crispr And Cas Genes Market: Pipeline Analysis5.4.1 Editas Medicine5.4.2 Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.5.4.3 Crispr Therapeutics5.4.4 Caribou Biosciences, Inc.5.4.5 Egenesis5.4.6 Beam Therapeutics5.4.7 Ksq Therapeutics5.4.8 Cibus

Chapter 6 Product & Service Business Analysis6.1 Crispr And Cas Genes Market: Product & Service Movement Analysis6.2 By Product6.2.1 Global Crispr And Cas Genes Products Market, 2016 - 2027 (USD Million)6.2.2 Kits & Enzymes6.2.3 Global Crispr And Cas Genes Kits And Enzymes Market, 2016 - 2027 (USD Million)6.2.3.1 Vector - Based Cas96.2.3.2 Dna - Free Cas96.2.4 Libraries6.2.5 Design Tools6.2.6 Antibodies6.2.7 Others6.3 By Service6.3.1 Global Crispr And Cas Genes Service Market, 2016 - 2027 (USD Million)6.3.2 Cell Line Engineering6.3.3 Grna Design6.3.4 Microbial Gene Editing6.3.5 Dna Synthesis

Chapter 7 Application Business Analysis7.1 Crispr And Cas Genes Market: Application Movement Analysis7.2 Biomedical7.2.1 Global Crispr And Cas Genes Market For Biomedical, 2016 - 2027 (USD Million)7.2.2 Genome Engineering7.2.3 Disease Model Studies7.2.4 Functional Genomics7.2.5 Epigenetics7.2.6 Others7.3 Agriculture

Chapter 8 End - Use Business Analysis8.1 Crispr And Cas Genes Market: End - Use Movement Analysis8.1.1 Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Companies8.1.2 Academics & Government Research Institutes8.1.3 Contract Research Organizations (Cros)

Chapter 9 Regional Business Analysis

Chapter 10 Company Profiles

Astrazeneca

Addgene

Caribou Biosciences, Inc.

Cellectis

Crispr Therapeutics

Editas Medicine, Inc.

Egenesis

F. Hoffmann - La Roche Ltd.

Horizon Discovery Group Plc

Genscript

Danaher Corporation

Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.

Lonza

Merck Kgaa

New England Biolabs

Takara Bio, Inc.

Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

Synthego

Mammoth Biosciences

Inscripta, Inc.

Cibus

Beam Therapeutics

PlanteditVertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated

Hera Biolabs

Origene Technologies, Inc.

Recombinetics, Inc.

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/lypwvp

About ResearchAndMarkets.comResearchAndMarkets.com is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends.

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Go here to see the original:
Global $4.88 Bn CRISPR & Cas Genes Market to 2027: Opportunities in the Expanding Gene & Cell Therapy Area & Government Fund In Genomic R&D - Yahoo...

The research study presented in this report offers complete and intelligent analysis of the competition, segmentation, dynamics, and geographical advancement of the Global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market. The research study has been prepared with the use of in-depth qualitative and quantitative analyses of the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market. We have also provided absolute dollar opportunity and other types of market analysis on the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market.

It takes into account the CAGR, value, volume, revenue, production, consumption, sales, manufacturing cost, prices, and other key factors related to the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market. All findings and data on the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market provided in the report are calculated, gathered, and verified using advanced and reliable primary and secondary research sources. The regional analysis offered in the report will help you to identify key opportunities of the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market available in different regions and countries.

Request Sample Report @ https://www.researchmoz.com/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2795931&source=atm

The authors of the report have segmented the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market as per product, application, and region. Segments of the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market are analyzed on the basis of market share, production, consumption, revenue, CAGR, market size, and more factors. The analysts have profiled leading players of the global Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market, keeping in view their recent developments, market share, sales, revenue, areas covered, product portfolios, and other aspects.

segment by Type, the product can be split intoGenome EditingGenetic engineeringgRNA Database/Gene LibrarCRISPR PlasmidHuman Stem CellsGenetically Modified Organisms/CropsCell Line Engineering

Market segment by Application, split intoBiotechnology CompaniesPharmaceutical CompaniesAcademic InstitutesResearch and Development Institutes

Based on regional and country-level analysis, the CRISPR/Cas9 market has been segmented as follows:North AmericaUnited StatesCanadaEuropeGermanyFranceU.K.ItalyRussiaNordicRest of EuropeAsia-PacificChinaJapanSouth KoreaSoutheast AsiaIndiaAustraliaRest of Asia-PacificLatin AmericaMexicoBrazilMiddle East & AfricaTurkeySaudi ArabiaUAERest of Middle East & Africa

In the competitive analysis section of the report, leading as well as prominent players of the global CRISPR/Cas9 market are broadly studied on the basis of key factors. The report offers comprehensive analysis and accurate statistics on revenue by the player for the period 2015-2020. It also offers detailed analysis supported by reliable statistics on price and revenue (global level) by player for the period 2015-2020.The key players covered in this studyCaribou BiosciencesIntegrated DNA Technologies (IDT)CRISPR TherapeuticsMerckMirus BioEditas MedicineTakara BioThermo Fisher ScientificHorizon Discovery GroupIntellia TherapeuticsAgilent TechnologiesCellectaGenScriptGeneCopoeiaSynthego

Make An EnquiryAbout This Report @ https://www.researchmoz.com/enquiry.php?type=E&repid=2795931&source=atm

Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market Size and Forecast

In terms of region, this research report covers almost all the major regions across the globe such as North America, Europe, South America, the Middle East, and Africa and the Asia Pacific. Europe and North America regions are anticipated to show an upward growth in the years to come. While Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market in Asia Pacific regions is likely to show remarkable growth during the forecasted period. Cutting edge technology and innovations are the most important traits of the North America region and thats the reason most of the time the US dominates the global markets. Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market in South, America region is also expected to grow in near future.

The Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market report highlights is as follows:

This Japan CRISPR/Cas9 market report provides complete market overview which offers the competitive market scenario among major players of the industry, proper understanding of the growth opportunities, and advanced business strategies used by the market in the current and forecast period.

This Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market report will help a business or an individual to take appropriate business decision and sound actions to be taken after understanding the growth restraining factors, market risks, market situation, market estimation of the competitors.

The expected Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market growth and development status can be understood in a better way through this five-year forecast information presented in this report

This Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market research report aids as a broad guideline which provides in-depth insights and detailed analysis of several trade verticals.

You can Buy This Report from Here @ https://www.researchmoz.com/checkout?rep_id=2795931&licType=S&source=atm

See the rest here:
Japan CRISPR/Cas9 Market size and Key Trends in terms of volume and value 2019-2026 - The Daily Chronicle

As the United Nations General Assembly opens this week amidst the deadliest pandemic in a century, the worst climate change-induced disasters in millennia, and hundreds of millions of the worlds most vulnerable people falling back into abject poverty, one thing is clear: The United Nations ideal, as envisioned by its founders, has in many important ways failed.

Rather than blame the United Nations and other international organizations for this failure, we need to place blame where it is due on the U.N. member states that, for decades, have excessively defended their national sovereignty at the expense of our common good. Unless we find a way to collectively address our greatest global challenges from pandemics to climate change and ecosystem destruction, from systemic poverty and inequality to proliferating weapons of mass destruction our species will not just be at risk, we could even face extinction.

It was not coincidental that when the COVID-19 crisis began late last year, the World Health Organization (WHO) was caught flat-footed. We live in a world of sovereign states with only a thin overlay of international organizations working tirelessly, but too often in vain, to bring us all together. The WHO could not assessChinese government misinformationor send emergency teams to Wuhan, China, because our states have not given the WHO independent pandemic surveillance and emergency response capabilities for fear that this might compromise national sovereignty. The same basic story can be told for why we cant address so many other global issues.

Thats because, while our biggest problems are global, the ways we have organized to address them are predominantly national. Until we fix this fundamental mismatch, we will be in grave and growing danger. We cant do this by platitudes or by singing songs and waving our smartphones in the air.

In very short order, we humans have gone from being disparate bands of roving nomads to becoming a global species with the awesome power to remake almost every aspect of life on earth. But we have become a global species without developing a global consciousness or politics to match. To safeguard our future, we must change that. We needa new global operating system.

The foundation of this new approach must be a recognition of the mutual responsibilities of our deep global interdependence. Its manifestation must be an empowered and fully inclusive global movement of people of all backgrounds. Our national and international leaders have failed us, so regular people must divide upamong ourselvesthe jobs of buildinga better future or face the consequences of our inaction.

First, we must urgently ramp up the funding, staffing, authority, and global coordinating role of the World Health Organization. At a time when walls are going up around the world, we desperately need an empowered global health organization to operate above them. We dont now have the WHO we need but we can build it up, fast, if we put our collective minds to it.

Second, we must create a powerful new specialized agency within the U.N. focusing on common responses to shared, existential threats. Backed by and coordinating with states, but also operating with a high degree of depoliticized autonomy, this agency would be tasked with identifying and analyzing the greatest risks facing our species and our common home, developing, coordinating and implementing ongoing action plans for addressing them, compiling and sharing best practices from around the world, and leading efforts to build capacity everywhere, to prepare for and seek to prevent future global crises, and coordinating emergency responses when crises do occur.

Third,world leaders, particularly from the G-7 and G-20 counties, must commit to a specific, adequately funded plan to ensure safe drinking water, basic sanitation and essential protection from deadly pandemics to every person on Earth by 2030. This pandemic and its economic impact not only put the worlds most vulnerable populations at risk, it threatens all of us. If the virus grows and mutates anywhere, it poses an increased threat to people everywhere. In this context, calling for a massive, concerted global effort to address the emergency needs of the worlds most vulnerable population is not an act of charity but a pragmatic imperative.

Our world today exists at a crossroads. The pandemic, wildfires, poverty and despair we see around us are indicators of the even worse problems we will face if we dont dramatically change course.

The good news is that a hopeful future awaits us where our collective needs can be far better met. The question for the leaders meeting this week for the UN General Assembly and for all of us is whether we have the imagination and courage to together start building that world.

Jamie Metzlis a technology futurist, a member of the World Health Organizations international advisory committee on human genome editing andthe founder and chairman ofOneShared.World,a global social movement focusing on world collective-action policies.He is the author of five books, including Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity (2019). He previously served on the National Security Council and State Department during the Clinton administration and with the United Nations. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter@jamiemetzl.

Read more here:
The United Nations has failed: Fixing the world is now up to all of us | TheHill - The Hill

With 75 percent of current S&P 500 companies expected to disappear until 2027, according to research by McKinsey. The only constant in our world is changing, the pace of change has been expediting significantly over the past years, fueled by huge investments in technology and science, easier access to truly global markets, and a general cultural shift towards innovation among other key drivers are helping to rise of CRISPR Genome Editing market.

This CRISPR Genome Editing research study presented by AMR aims at providing facts necessary to understand market dynamics and to capitalize on them, presenting the CRISPR Genome Editing research study with 118 number of pages and global key trends that can help clients in their CRISPR Genome Editing business to achieve more Goal, Desired Growth with making new business strategies to gain in the market.

Get a free sample and Benchmark your existing business against the market leader and identify fast-growing competitors at: https://www.amplemarketreports.com/sample-request/global-crispr-genome-editing-market-1635229.html

CRISPR Genome Editing Market Research study offers a comprehensive evaluation of the Market and comprises a future trend, current growth factors, focused opinions, details, and industry certified market data, sales, revenue, production and forecast and more.

CRISPR Genome Editing Market competitive landscape and Profile of Market Leaders

This market research study includes compiling intelligence data and structured and professional company profiles which will benefit to analyze competitors, a potential takeover target and Identifying leading market players across markets and find potential target markets.

Moreover, this market report provides in-depth analyses of CRISPR Genome Editing market and display significant data regarding key companies, consumers, market developments, and the competitive landscape focusing Editas Medicine, CRISPR Therapeutics, Horizon Discovery, Sigma-Aldrich, Genscript, Sangamo Biosciences, Lonza Group, Integrated DNA Technologies, New England Biolabs, Origene Technologies, Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Caribou Biosciences, Precision Biosciences, Cellectis, Intellia Therapeutics.

CRISPR Genome Editing Market Segmentation by Product Type and Application

The CRISPR Genome Editing report focuses on consumers behaviors at a specific requirement by end-use, usage pattern providing more insights about its competitive landscape such as By Product Type(Genetic Engineering, Gene Library, Human Stem Cells) and Application(Biotechnology Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies).

Browse and Find out more on competitive landscape of CRISPR Genome Editing at: https://www.amplemarketreports.com/report/global-crispr-genome-editing-market-1635229.html

CRISPR Genome Editing Market Segmentation by Regions

This market research study presents dive deep into CRISPR Genome Editing and turn complex insights into ready-to-use analyses for you.

The research report is about the economic effects of the CRISPR Genome Editing market. This report reveals that there more economic benefits to North America, Europe, Asia Pacific (includes Asia & Oceania separately), the Middle East and Africa (MEA), and Latin America region, as well as other positive commercial and social effects.

Key Points Covered in CRISPR Genome Editing Market Report:

13.Current and historical revenues

Enquire more before buy at: https://www.amplemarketreports.com/enquiry-before-buy/global-crispr-genome-editing-market-1635229.html

Key Questions Answered in CRISPR Genome Editing Market Report:

AMR can provide all-round market research services for clients according to their requirements including Industry Research, Product market research, competitor research, channel research, and consumer research, etc. With evidence-based research methods, professional design, solid implementation, and professional research reports.

With the given market data, AMR offers customizations according to specific needs on Local, Regional and Global Markets.

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise sections or region wise report versions like North America, LATAM, Europe or Southeast Asia or Just Eastern Asia.

About Author

Ample Market Research provides comprehensive market research services and solutions across various industry verticals and helps businesses perform exceptionally well. Our end goal is to provide quality market research and consulting services to customers and add maximum value to businesses worldwide. We desire to deliver reports that have the perfect concoction of useful data. Our mission is to capture every aspect of the market and offer businesses a document that makes solid grounds for crucial decision making.

Contact Address:

William James

Media & Marketing Manager

Address: 3680 Wilshire Blvd, Ste P04 1387 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Call: +1 (530) 868 6979

Email: [emailprotected]

https://www.amplemarketreports.com

Read the original here:
Market trends and outlook coupled with factors driving and restraining the growth of the CRISPR Genome Editing market - The Daily Chronicle