genetic modification

In this wide-ranging radio conversation, Mark Hahn and I discuss the spectrum of genetic modification, including the use of CRISPR technology to enhance the resistance of bird flocks, such as chickens and turkeys, against diseases like Avian Influenza.
In this radio discussion with John Batchelor, we delve into the genetic engineering of food using molecular techniques. I share insights into the current discourse surrounding genetic modification techniques and related concepts like "sustainable intensification" and "agroecology."
Exa-cel, a new CRISPR-based treatment, modifies the genes of the patient's stem cells to induce them to produce fetal hemoglobin.
The British broadcaster has become part of a cynical anti-science collaboration.
Microbiomes are the collective and highly personal assortment of microorganisms that live in, on, and around us. If genetically modified effectively, these "black boxes" may help us cure cancer, understand how we can adapt to rising temperatures, play a role in mental health, and improve nutrition in children.
For two decades, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which advises the Pope on scientific issues, has made wise observations about the importance of molecular techniques for genetic modification and the most appropriate approaches to regulating them. It's a cardinal sin that most of the world has ignored them.
Russia's decades-old propaganda machine is vast and vicious. Its goal is to damage the health and prosperity of the country's adversaries, especially the United States.
King Charles III's longstanding opposition to genetic engineering is misguided and unconstructive. Genetic modification has long made products better, safer, and cheaper.
The ignorance surrounding what agricultural practices are truly "sustainable," even among people and institutions that should know better, is astonishing. The contributions of genetic engineering will be essential.
Twenty years ago, Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug wrote about agricultural biotechnology – its promise, importance, over-regulation, and the mindless opposition to it from activists. His words ring true today.
Part 1 of this two-part series described the “Stanford University paradox” – the uncritical embrace of politically correct concepts that contradict its reputation as a cutting-edge, science-grounded institution. I described the contrast between the university’s outstanding research and its dubious view of “sustainability,” which includes a commitment to organic farming practices. I elaborate on the latter here, in Part 2.
Orphan crops, private equity and the closure of Hahnemann Hospital, a for-profit medical school?, and how to understand the contradictions of science.