Search Immortality Topics:

Page 25«..1020..24252627..3040..»


Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

Innovation in health and agriculture. We need to think bigger – World Economic Forum

2020 must be considered as a global turning point: the year when a lethal virus shook the global community. Within weeks, the pandemic severely affected our private and professional realities. Hundreds of thousands died. Millions lost their jobs. Entire industries slowed down dramatically. These fundamental changes to public life offer us unprecedented insights into our economy and its impact on our climate.

There is a broad consensus that the way we live and manage our economy is not sustainable. We face an urgent call to action. A large share of that responsibility lies with industrial companies like Bayer because, with our size and strength, we are capable of making a difference.

While this was true way before COVID-19, the pandemic has demonstrated how fundamentally we need to change. Despite the massive restrictions of this year from the postponed Olympics to the virtual UN General Assembly the International Energy Agency expects global CO2 emissions to drop by only 8% from 2019. In other words: large parts of the global economy were severely decelerated and our carbon emissions still remain more than 90% of what they were last year.

My takeaway is that behaviour changes like consuming and travelling less is certainly important, but not enough by far. In light of this pandemic, we can clearly see that we need to think bigger to succeed with the transformation to a sustainable economy. We need new technologies, breakthrough innovation and sustainable business models.

Inside the worlds labs, there is a technological revolution looming in the life sciences. Technologies such as synthetic biology, cell manufacturing, gene editing, artificial intelligence, microbe engineering, and others may change how patients are treated and food is produced.

Five years ago, Bayer decided to set up a separate unit, called Leaps by Bayer, solely focusing on breakthrough innovation with the potential to address some of humanitys biggest challenges. We began with the vision to invest in disruptive technologies that could shift key paradigms in our core business. In health, this means moving from treating, to curing and preventing diseases. In agriculture, its about moving from producing more, to better and more sustainable food.

We set out to address 10 huge challenges, such as curing genetic diseases or developing a sustainable protein supply. Each leap is outstandingly ambitious with the potential to impact millions of lives. In its operating model, Leaps stands for fostering access to cutting-edge technologies by collaborating with biotech start-ups. We have created or invested in more than 30 companies to date. In many cases, we provided not only capital, but access to Bayer resources, expertise and IP.

Each of the ventures in the Leaps portfolio is focused on new technologies that have been identified to best address the challenges. Gene editing, cell therapy, germplasm for vertical farming are only some of the technologies that Leaps has created companies around.

Sustainable organ replacement

One example for gene editings huge promise is in organ replacement. Worldwide, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million people are on organ transplant waiting lists. Only three in 1,000 people die in a way that their organs can be donated.

Kidney failure is one of the main drivers of organ transplant need, with nearly half a million Americans currently on dialysis. What if this diagnosis meant scheduling a prompt transplant operation, with low risks of organ rejection, and skipping dialysis entirely?

Technologies being developed by the Leaps company eGenesis like growing broadly compatible human organs using genetically modified pigs could end the global organ shortage, ensuring that patients everywhere have almost immediate access to life-saving transplants.

The environmental impact of agriculture

Modern agriculture is essential to feed the growing population of around 10 billion by 2050. On the flipside, agriculture is resource intensive, accounting for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of global freshwater withdrawals.

What if we could grow crops with significantly reduced farming inputs at reasonable costs? If the Leaps company JoynBio is successful in engineering the soil microbiome so that plants like corn could fixate nitrogen from the air, we could dramatically reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizer and the 3% of global greenhouse gases it generates today.

Around a century ago, the Haber-Bosch process revolutionized farming by allowing people to mass-produce nitrogen fertilizer. In our time, Leaps is working on the next revolution.

Two billion people in the world currently suffer from malnutrition and according to some estimates, we need 60% more food to feed the global population by 2050. Yet the agricultural sector is ill-equipped to meet this demand: 700 million of its workers currently live in poverty, and it is already responsible for 70% of the worlds water consumption and 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

New technologies could help our food systems become more sustainable and efficient, but unfortunately the agricultural sector has fallen behind other sectors in terms of technology adoption.

Launched in 2018, the Forums Innovation with a Purpose Platform is a large-scale partnership that facilitates the adoption of new technologies and other innovations to transform the way we produce, distribute and consume our food.

With research, increasing investments in new agriculture technologies and the integration of local and regional initiatives aimed at enhancing food security, the platform is working with over 50 partner institutions and 1,000 leaders around the world to leverage emerging technologies to make our food systems more sustainable, inclusive and efficient.

Learn more about Innovation with a Purpose's impact and contact us to see how you can get involved.

The societal value of innovation

Leaps by Bayer is our way of thinking big. I believe what we have learned can help restart a discussion about the value of new technologies in reaching the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and transforming to a decarbonized economy. In my view, three points can help us harness these technological promises:

1. An honest discussion about risk-taking: "Who dares, wins" is an old saying, but its also the mindset we need. Im well aware that, especially in Europe, we are dealing with scepticism towards technological solutions. As societal acceptance is key, we should all engage in discussions about the value of innovation. This must include an honest exchange about cultural differences, the right regulatory framework and ways to ensure the responsible use of new technologies.

2. Companies and investors need to align their business models: In recent years, the binding force of the planetary boundaries has become scientifically obvious and the markets are reacting accordingly. At Bayer, we have aligned our business strategy with the SDGs. As a company and Leaps is a wonderful expression of that we thrive for what we believe is the ultimate goal of how to run a business: sustainable solutions and financial returns at the same time.

3. Nobody can do it alone: Our Leaps approach proves this rather general point. Its also a lesson that will remain from 2020. Dealing with the global health crisis and the scientific race to stop COVID-19 has encouraged unprecedented collaboration. Lets use this momentum for the greater good.

Read the original here:
Innovation in health and agriculture. We need to think bigger - World Economic Forum

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Innovation in health and agriculture. We need to think bigger – World Economic Forum

CRISPR Market to Witness Exponential Growth by 2020-2027 | Leading Players Thermo Fisher Scientific, Editas Medicine, Caribou Biosciences, CRISPR…

Fort Collins, Colorado The report on the CRISPR Market provides an in-depth assessment of the CRISPR market including technological advancements, market drivers, challenges, current and emerging trends, opportunities, threats, risks, strategic developments, product advancements, and other key features. The report covers market size estimation, share, growth rate, global position, and regional analysis of the market. The report also covers forecast estimations for investments in the CRISPR industry from 2020 to 2027.

The report is furnished with the latest market dynamics and economic scenario in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has brought about drastic changes in the economy of the world and has affected several key segments and growth opportunities. The report provides an in-depth impact analysis of the pandemic on the market to better understand the latest changes in the market and gain a futuristic outlook on a post-COVID-19 scenario.

Global CRISPR Market Size Study by Application(Genome Editing, Genetic Engineering, Gene Library, CRISPR Plasmid, Human Stem cells, Genetically Modified Organism, Cell Line Engineering), by End-User (Biotechnology Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Academic Institutes, Research & Development Institutes) and Regional Forecast 2017-2025.

Get a sample of the report @ https://reportsglobe.com/download-sample/?rid=5977

The report provides an in-depth analysis of the key developments and innovations of the market, such as research and development advancements, product launches, mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, partnerships, government deals, and collaborations. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the regional growth of each market player.

Additionally, the report provides details about the revenue estimation, financial standings, capacity, import/export, supply and demand ratio, production and consumption trends, CAGR, market share, market growth dynamics, and market segmentation analysis.

The report covers extensive analysis of the key market players in the market, along with their business overview, expansion plans, and strategies. The key players studied in the report include:

Furthermore, the report utilizes advanced analytical tools such as SWOT analysis and Porters Five Forces Analysis to analyze key industry players and their market scope. The report also provides feasibility analysis and investment return analysis. It also provides strategic recommendations to formulate investment strategies and provides insights for new entrants.

Request a discount on the report @ https://reportsglobe.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=5977

The report is designed with an aim to assist the reader in taking beneficial data and making fruitful decisions to accelerate their businesses. The report provides an examination of the economic scenario, along with benefits, limitations, supply, production, demands, and development rate of the market.

By Applications:

By End User:

Request customization of the report @https://reportsglobe.com/need-customization/?rid=5977

Regional Analysis of the Market:

For a better understanding of the global CRISPR market dynamics, a regional analysis of the market across key geographical areas is offered in the report. The market is spread acrossNorth America, Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Middle East & Africa.Each region is analyzed on the basis of the market scenario in the major countries of the regions to provide a deeper understanding of the market.

Benefits of the Global CRISPR Report:

To learn more about the report, visit @ https://reportsglobe.com/product/global-crispr-market/

Thank you for reading our report. To learn more about report details or for customization information, please contact us. Our team will ensure that the report is customized according to your requirements.

How Reports Globe is different than other Market Research Providers

The inception of Reports Globe has been backed by providing clients with a holistic view of market conditions and future possibilities/opportunities to reap maximum profits out of their businesses and assist in decision making. Our team of in-house analysts and consultants works tirelessly to understand your needs and suggest the best possible solutions to fulfill your research requirements.

Our team at Reports Globe follows a rigorous process of data validation, which allows us to publish reports from publishers with minimum or no deviations. Reports Globe collects, segregates, and publishes more than 500 reports annually that cater to products and services across numerous domains.

Contact us:

Mr. Mark Willams

Account Manager

US: +1-970-672-0390

Email:[emailprotected]

Web:reportsglobe.com

See the original post:
CRISPR Market to Witness Exponential Growth by 2020-2027 | Leading Players Thermo Fisher Scientific, Editas Medicine, Caribou Biosciences, CRISPR...

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on CRISPR Market to Witness Exponential Growth by 2020-2027 | Leading Players Thermo Fisher Scientific, Editas Medicine, Caribou Biosciences, CRISPR…

Covid-19: What you need to know today – Hindustan Times

How seriously does one take Dr Li-Meng Yan? And how seriously does one take the paper Unusual Features of the Sars-CoV2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of its Probable Synthetic Route, published by her and co-authors, under the aegis of the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation, New York, on September 14? As the title suggests, the paper claims the coronavirus was man-made, in a laboratory.

The paper was uploaded on open-source research repository Zenodo, run by CERN, and was reported by Hindustan Times on Wednesday (bit.ly/33uFyy4). It wasnt as widely reported as Dr Yans comments in Loose Women, a segment of a TV show hosted by a UK TV channel, on which she pretty much said the same thing, albeit without any of the scientific arguments -- unsubstantiated ones -- presented in the paper.

Heres what that paper claimed:

One, ZC45, a bat virus, or a closely related variant or mutant, bears a striking similarity with Sars-CoV2, as shown by genome sequencing, with a 94%-100% similarity of key viral proteins.

The spike protein of Sars-CoV2 is essentially a trimer (essentially three parts) each of which has an S1 and S2 part with a furin cleavage site at the boundary between the two. Other research has already established that the human cellular enzyme furin cleaves, or breaks, the S1 and S2 unit at the cleavage site, and that the S1 unit then attaches to the ACE receptor, another protein found on the surface of most human cells. This binding then facilitates the entry of the viral protein into human cells. The virus ability to bind with the receptor, and the presence of the cleavage site that responds to a cannon human enzyme, are the reasons Covid-19 is as infective as it is.

Click here for complete coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic

Both the furin cleavage site, and the binding ability of the spike protein with the ACE2 receptor arent natural, the paper argued.

In their preface to this scientific hypothesis, the authors also claim that the process of creating such a virus in a laboratory could take only six months. They ask for further research and investigation into the origin of the virus. Even if their hypothesis is subsequently proven erroneous, this is a recommendation that no can argue with the origin of the virus needs to be investigated, not so much to assign blame (although there will be some that too), but to prepare for the next virus and the next pandemic.

Dr Yan, currently in the US, where she fled to in late April, is a virologist who used to work at the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, and who has for long claimed that China knew of the virus and the fact that human-to-human transmission of the infection was happening, long before it let on. Her claims on the virus being man-made are more recent.

Interestingly, a March paper in Nature titled The Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov2, authored by Kristian G Andersen of Californias Scripps Research Institute, argued, again picking on the same two distinctive features of Sars-CoV2, that the virus was natural. The viral protein showed a high affinity to bind with the receptor, they said, but this interaction wasnt ideal or optimal. In plain English this meant that if anyone had set out to engineer the virus, they would have picked the ideal binding relation, not just another optimal one. The paper also said that there were other coronaviruses that had similar cleavage sites and that this wasnt unique to Sars-CoV2.

However, the two papers differ in one significant aspect. The one published in Nature said the genetic data irrefutably show that Sars-CoV2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone. Dr Yans said (again, without substantiation that) a genomic sequence analysis reveals that ZC45, or a closely related bat coronavirus, should be the backbone used for the creation of Sars-CoV2.

Also read|Over 5,000 Indians died in West, East Asian countries amid Covid-19 pandemic: Govt informs Parliament

Dr Yans claims are also being seen through a political lens, with scientists in the US pointing out that the two non-profits that published the paper were linked to Steve Bannon, former Trump adviser and former executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News, casting aspersions on the studys findings.

Clearly, only further research and investigation can shed light on the origin of the virus which has thus far infected 29,927,685 and killed 942,564 around the world. India ended Wednesday with 5,115,846 cases and 83,230 deaths.

But as Vivek Wadhwa, a columnist for this paper, a top technology thinker, and distinguished fellow at Harvard Law Schools Labor and Worklife Program, said in a recent article in Foreign Policy: If genetic engineering wasnt behind this pandemic, it could very well unleash the next one. Thats because, genetic engineering with all its potential for good and bad has become democratised, Wadhwa wrote.

Thanks to a technological revolution in genetic engineering, all the tools needed to create a virus have become so cheap, simple, and readily available that any rogue scientist or college-age biohacker can use them.

The rest is here:
Covid-19: What you need to know today - Hindustan Times

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Covid-19: What you need to know today – Hindustan Times

Are we mapping a path to CRISPR babies? | TheHill – The Hill

In November 2018, at a gene-editing summit hosted by scientific societies from the U.S., the U.K., and Hong Kong, a Chinese researcherannouncedthat he had created the worlds first genetically modified babies.He Jiankuifully expected to be celebrated for a scientific breakthrough; hementionedthe Nobel Prize. Instead, he was almost universally condemned.

Key figures associated with theU.S. National AcademiesandU.K. Royal Societyjoined in thecriticismbut did not reject heritable genome editing. Instead, they objected to the Chinese researchers timing. It was too soon, they said. It hadnt been done as they thought it should have been. But according to the researcher now being called a rogue, it was theNational Academies 2017 reportthat had given him the green light for his experiments.

In the aftermath of this headline-grabbing debacle, the scientific societies decided on a do-over. They declared it time to define a rigorous, responsible translational pathway toward clinical use of heritable genome editing. Theyset upa carefully selectedinternational commissionwith themandateto map the scientific details ofhowdesigner-baby technology could be brought to the fertility clinic.

This mandate was flawed from the start. The idea that now is the time to set aside the deeply controversial question ofwhetherheritable genome editing should be done at all so that a small group of experts can settle the nitty-gritty details ofhowit should take place is entirely backward. It flies in the face of the widely shared acknowledgment that scientists alone cannot make this decision; that we must have wide-ranging and inclusive public discussions aimed at buildingbroad societal consensus. It undermines policies in some70 countriesaround the world that prohibit heritable genome editing. And its a slap in the face to the manyscientists,biotech executives,human rights and social justice advocates, and others who support a moratorium or ban on altering the human germline.

The commissions 225-pagereport, released on Sept. 3, does have some strong points. It is more cautious than the previous report, recommending that heritable genome editing should initially be allowed only in the exceedingly rare cases where embryo screening for severe genetic conditions would not be an option. And it paints a vivid picture of the significant technical hurdles facing those eager to pursue heritable human genome editing: shortfalls in the editing tools, in the technologies necessary to test safety and efficacy, even in our understanding of the genetics underlying most heritable diseases.

These findings ought tolay to restthe unfounded assumption that engineering the genomes of human embryos will soon be safe and effective. But even the most cautious considerations of technical safety cant stand-in for the fundamental point that the decision about whether to allow heritable genome editing should be driven by our values, not settled by the science.

The commission claims they are not endorsing heritable genome editing, merely constructing maps of the technological path in case a country should wish to use them. At best, this puts the cart before the horse and sends both horse and cart down a one-way road.

Heritable genome editing cant be separated from its real-world consequences. There are already clear signs that legalizingit would lead to reproductive tourism, jurisdiction shopping, andmission creep. As an example, the U.K.sapprovalof so-called mitochondrial donation for a small number of women with certain mitochondrial DNA diseases wasquickly followedby fertility clinics inUkraine,Spain, and Greeceoffering this high-risk technique, with no evidence of effectiveness, for general and age-related infertility.

A similar trajectory is all too easy to foresee if heritable genome editing is approved, even for limited circumstances. Especially where fertility services are offered on a for-profit basis, its unlikely that any boundaries would hold. We could soon see fertility clinics marketing genetically upgraded embryos, tempting parents-to-be with ads about giving their child the best start in life. From there, a normalized system of market-based eugenics could emerge, exacerbating already existing discrimination, inequality, and conflict.

Amid our multiple ongoing crises, it would be easy to overlook another report on still speculative biotechnology. But this one represents a profoundly consequential step, one that tries to settle in advance the coming decision about whether to engineer genes and traits passed on to future children and generations. Its another attempt to focus discussion on the science, while minimizingthe complex social realities in which scientific and technological developments unfold.

KatieHassonis program director on genetic justice andMarcyDarnovskyis executive director of theCenter for Genetics and Society,a non-profit organization based in Berkeley, California that works to encourage responsible uses and effective governance of human genetic and assisted reproductive technologies.

Excerpt from:
Are we mapping a path to CRISPR babies? | TheHill - The Hill

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Are we mapping a path to CRISPR babies? | TheHill – The Hill

Commission charts narrow path for editing human embryos – Science Magazine

He Jiankui shocked the world when he described the implantation of edited embryos that led to the birth of twin girls, Lulu and Nana.

By Jon CohenSep. 3, 2020 , 10:00 AM

No recent biomedical experiment has caused more consternation than He Jiankuis creation of the first gene-edited babies, in 2018, which was widely seen as dangerous, unethical, and prematureand which led to his incarceration by China. Now, an international committee has concluded that gene-editing methods, despite substantial improvements, are still far from mature enough to safely introduce heritable DNA modifications into human embryos.

But they might be one day, in rare circumstances, adds the panel, calling for the formation of a global scientific body that would review proposals for what it calls heritable human genome editing (HHGE) and try to influence whether countries decide to allow its use. The group, which today released one of the mostin-depth reportson the topic yet, spells out in great detail genetic situations that HHGE could address and the strict oversight that clinicians in the future must meet before again creating humans with modified DNA that they can pass on to offspring.

For more than 1 year,the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editingreviewed the scientific literature on CRISPR and other ways to modify DNA, held public meetings and webinars, and consulted scientists, physicians, ethicists, and patient groups. The 18 members of the commissionwho come from 10 countries and, as the report notes, include experts in science, medicine, genetics, ethics, psychology, regulation, and lawagreed with earlier groups that concluded no one should follow in Hes footsteps anytime soon. CRISPRthe genome editor He used, and refined versions of itthey concluded, still cannot efficiently and reliably make precise changes without causing undesired changes in human embryos.

The report stresses that it focuses on initial clinical use of HHGE, and says the field needs to be closely monitored and frequently reevaluated. There are a lot of gaps in our knowledge and further research is needed, Kay Davies, a geneticist at the University of Oxford who co-chaired the commission, said at a briefing today.

Organized by the U.K.s Royal Society and the science and medicine branches of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the commission aimed to describe a responsible clinical translational pathway that could move genome editing from the lab to assisted-reproduction interventions for human diseases. The report largely steers clear of the complex social and ethical implications of creating gene-edited babies. But it does delve into the governance of the issue, notably calling for creating an International Scientific Advisory Panel to assess proposed uses of HHGE, provide regular updates about related technologies, and review clinical outcomes if an edited embryo implanted into a mother is born. It also recommends the creation of an international mechanism by which a clinician or researcher could report plans for or uses of HHGE that they find concerningin essence, a hotline for whistleblowers.

The commissions foray into such issues has perturbed some. The report strays beyond its scientific remit, Sarah Norcross, director of the Progress Educational Trust, a charity focused on helping people with infertility or genetic conditions, said in a statement released by the U.K. Science Media Centre. The World Health Organization (WHO) is still deliberating on the governance of genome editing, and should not feel constrained by this report's governance recommendations if it sees fit to deviate from them.

The genome editing commission categorized potential uses of HHGE, creating a six-level hierarchy that ranges from the most to least compelling rationales to take the risk. The use of HHGE that is easiest to justify, they said, would be helping those rare couples who, even with in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screening of embryos, have little or no chance of having a baby that does not inherit a genetic conditionfor example, Huntington disease, cystic fibrosis, beta thalassemiathat will cause severe morbidity or premature death. The report stresses that these situations are few and far between. People have two copies of most genes, one inherited from the mother and the other from the father. For a so-called recessive disorder such as cystic fibrosis, there are maybe one or two couples in the United States who both are homozygous for this mutationmeaning in their inherited pair of the geneand would produce an affected child. In dominant disorders, like Huntington, a child needs to inherit only one mutated gene to develop the disease, so one homozygous parent, also a rarity, inevitably would pass on the disease to all embryos.

If HHGE is allowed, the panel said, any embryo edit should only specifically change one DNA sequence into a specific desired sequence that is common in the relevant population. This means the simplest, most frequently used form of CRISPR, which can cripple genes but does not fix them, should not ever be used in embryos; in Hes controversial experiment, for example, he attempted to knock out a gene and make the childrens cells resistant to HIV infection.

I welcome the commissions report, which continues to add depth to the ongoing global conversation about the science of germline editing, says Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who is part of a committee organized by WHO that is examining how to best govern this controversial arena.

Harvard University chemist David Liu, who has pioneered improved genome editing technologies that borrow from CRISPRs toolkit, describes the report as thoughtful, balanced, and well-bounded. But he still has misgivings about whether HHGE should ever be allowed. I continue to struggle to imagine plausible situations in which clinical germline editing provides a path forward to address an unmet medical need that cannot be provided by other options, Liu says. He and others stress that preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which IVF clinics routinely use, could avoid the need for most human embryo editing. In all but the rarest circumstances, it would allow couples to select and then implant embryos that did not have the disease-causing mutations borne by parents.

There are some couples, however, who have a high likelihood of PGT failing to give them an unaffected child, and this is the one exception to the second-tiered category in the report. The third category of HHGE uses is for genetic diseases that have less serious effects and may also be corrected or treated, like deafness, for which there are now cochlear implants.

In the wake of Hes 2018 revelation, Denis Rebrikov, a DNA sequencing specialist at the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, has pursued a project to correct a deafness mutation in couples who each have the aberrant gene. Rebrikov, who is not yet satisfied he can safely edit a human embryo and so has not sought Russias approval to move forward, says the cases for which the commission would allow HHGE are so rare that the panels endorsement is meaningless. In this formulation, it is a ban on editing the genome of the embryo in principle, Rebrikov says.

Norcross echoes that criticism, calling the reports criteria for human embryo editing far too narrow.

Diseases caused by several genes represent the fourth category of HHGE uses. The fifth, and most taboo in the eyes of the panel, would involve genetic enhancements of children, making make them resistant to HIV, better at sports, taller, smarter, or even able to withstand radiation exposures encountered during extended spaceflight.

A key danger of editing human embryos is that unintended off-target DNA changes will occur and not be detected before embryo implantation. The panel explores in detail a possible solution: editing the stem cells that produce human sperm or eggs before using those gametes for IVF. This would have significant safety implications since the issues of on-target editing fidelity and avoidance of off-target events could be largely settled before any gamete is considered for use in the creation of an embryo, the report notes.

Fyodor Urnov, a CRISPR researcher at the University of California, Berkley, says the report confirms the widespread consensus that, at best, theres only a niche justification for editing human embryos. The careful guidelines laid out in this report show that the list of problems that could be addressed by such editing is, in fact, quite small, Urnov says. It is an open secret in the gene-editing community that human reproductive editing is a solution in search of a problem.

Read the original:
Commission charts narrow path for editing human embryos - Science Magazine

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Commission charts narrow path for editing human embryos – Science Magazine

Sanford Health is first in nation to dose patient with promising novel therapeutic candidate for COVID-19, SAB-185 – PRNewswire

SIOUX FALLS, S.D., Sept. 2, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Sanford Health, the largest provider of rural healthcare in the country, today announced it has initiated a Phase 1b trial of SAB-185, a first-of-its-kindhuman polyclonal antibodytherapeutic candidate developed by SAB Biotherapeutics (SAB), that would be used to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at an early stage of the disease. The trial will enroll a total of 21 adult patients across several clinical sites. Sanford Health is the first site in the country to open the study to patients.

"Today's milestone underscores our relentless commitment to advancing the science of medicine to ensure our patients benefit from new discoveries as quickly as possible," said David A. Pearce, PhD, president of innovation and research at Sanford Health. "Working with SAB Biotherapeutics on this clinical trial gives us an opportunity to deliver on our promise to patients."

"We are eager to participate in this clinical trial to investigate the safety of SAB-185, a human polyclonal antibody therapeutic candidate for COVID-19," said Dr. Susan Hoover, principal investigator and an infectious disease physician at Sanford Health. "Our goal is to advance the science around COVID-19 so physicians can be better prepared to treat this novel coronavirus in the future, especially for our populations most at-risk."

SAB's novel platform, which leverages genetically engineered cattle to produce fully human antibodies, enables scalable and reliable production of specifically targeted, high potency neutralizing antibody products. This approach has expedited the rapid development of this novel immunotherapy for COVID-19, deploying the same natural immune response to fight the disease as recovered patients, but with a much higher concentration of antibodies.

"SAB is pleased to advance SAB-185, one of the leading novel therapeutics for COVID-19, into human trials and leverage the rapid response capabilities of our first-of-its-kind technology during this pandemic, when its needed most," said Eddie Sullivan, founder, president and CEO of SAB Biotherapeutics.

SAB is a Sioux Falls-based biopharmaceutical company advancing a new class of immunotherapies leveraging fully human polyclonal antibodies.Sanford Health is committed to taking research from the bench and bringing promising new treatments to our patients' bedside.New medical discoveries come out of hard work, innovation and research. SAB and Sanford Health are committed to developing and delivering novel solutions to overcome this global pandemic and improve people's lives.

About Sanford HealthSanford Health, one of the largest health systems inthe United States, is dedicated to the integrated delivery of health care, genomic medicine, senior care and services, global clinics, research and affordable insurance. Headquartered inSioux Falls, South Dakota, the organization includes 46 hospitals, 1,400 physicians and more than 200 Good Samaritan Society senior care locations in 26 states and 10 countries. Learn more about Sanford Health's transformative work to improve the human condition atsanfordhealth.orgorSanford Health News.

About SAB BiotherapeuticsSAB Biotherapeutics, Inc. (SAB) is a clinical-stage, biopharmaceutical company advancing a new class of immunotherapies leveraging fully human polyclonal antibodies. Utilizing some of the most complex genetic engineering and antibody science in the world, SAB has developed the only platform that can rapidly produce natural, highly-targeted, high-potency, human polyclonal immunotherapies at commercial scale. The company is advancing programs in autoimmunity, infectious diseases, inflammation and oncology. SAB is rapidly progressing on a new therapeutic for COVID-19, SAB-185, fully human polyclonal antibodies targeted to SARS-CoV-2 without using human donors. For more information visitsabbiotherapeutics.comor follow @SABBantibody on Twitter.

Media Contacts:

Angela Dejene[emailprotected](218) 280-0148

Melissa Ullerich[emailprotected](605) 695-8350

SOURCE Sanford Health

http://www.sanfordhealth.org

Original post:
Sanford Health is first in nation to dose patient with promising novel therapeutic candidate for COVID-19, SAB-185 - PRNewswire

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Sanford Health is first in nation to dose patient with promising novel therapeutic candidate for COVID-19, SAB-185 – PRNewswire