STAT’s story about CRISPR-edited cells often lacking a functional gene known to prevent cancer caused a bit of a stir. On Wall Street, some investors dumped shares of Editas Medicine, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Intellia (the three pure-CRISPR plays; other companies are pursuing other forms of genome-editing). Social media delivered the expected blowback, apparently because we dared to raise the possibility that it might possibly be necessary to test possibly CRISPR’d cells for possible cancer-causing changes. We’re doing an online chat about all this next week, but in case you can’t wait:

Cut to the chase: Is this the death knell for CRISPR? No. Not even close.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • The fuss over CRISPR Cas9 gene editing really is a replay of the enthusiasm over genomics in the late 1990s and eqrly 2000’s. I was investing in biotech then as now and the rationale for investing in “genomics” companies was hard to resist. It would apply to everything! It was like investing in steel and earth moving machines rather than railroads or dams picks and shovels rather than goldmines — sure to work where something more specific might fail, and on and on. Enthusiasts were true believers. Questioning the doctrine would result in accusations of scientific illiteracy and resistance to progress. But almost all of those companies failed and the few that survived consolidated essentially ito one pretty good but not so fantastic company (Illumina). Most people who invested in genomics lost tons of money. I resisted but couldn’t completely hold out . I put between 5 and 10 per cent of my portfolio into that stuff. I didn’t lose it all but I lost significantly. Editing is truly similar. One should value companies on real specific therapeutic scientific achievements. General principles always run into a wall of detail.

Comments are closed.

Sign up to receive a free weekly opinions recap from our community of experts.
Privacy Policy