What is minoxidil, the anti-balding hair growth treatment? Here’s what the science says 
The mystery of consciousness shows there may be a limit to what science alone can achieve 
Six space missions to look forward to in 2024 
Alpha, beta, theta: what are brain states and brain waves? And can we control them? 
If life exists on Jupiter’s moon Europa, scientists might soon be able to detect it 
Could a telescope ever see the beginning of time? An astronomer explains 
Tatahouine: 'Star Wars meteorite' sheds light on the early Solar System 
Our survey of the sky is uncovering the secrets of how planets are born 
How do airplanes fly? An aerospace engineer explains the physics of flight 
The rising flood of space junk is a risk to us on Earth – and governments are on the hook 
Why some people don't trust science – and how to change their minds 
Orbital resonance − the striking gravitational dance done by planets with aligning orbits 
The brain is the most complicated object in the universe. This is the story of scientists’ quest to decode it – and read people’s minds 
Larger and more frequent solar storms will make for potential disruptions and spectacular auroras on Earth 
Archeoastronomy uses the rare times and places of previous total solar eclipses to help us measure history 
Genetic diseases: How scientists are working to make DNA repair (almost) a piece of cake 
Science is a process that is often riddled with issues that affect the results of the work being done. This is why multiple experiments need to be conducted first before making conclusions and why papers need to be peer-reviewed before being published in a journal. One reputed journal actually had to retract one of the papers it published regarding CRISPR, which may have caused irreversible damage to the field.
In 2017, researchers from Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Methods indicating that CRISPR was causing unintended mutations. Naturally, the media latched on to this idea of the potential creation of abominations. There’s also the fact that the paper essentially made treatments using the gene-editing tool questionable.
Now, the journal has had to issue a retraction, claiming that there were some issues with the findings that made the conclusion invalid for now. The paper also expressed regret at the gross oversight, but the damage has already been done.
“The original paper was peer reviewed, but we should have sought at least one additional referee with expertise in the genetics of inbred mouse strains. We regret this omission. While ensuring appropriate referee expertise is a task we have always taken seriously, and is a central part of the editorial process, we have now put in place further processes to reduce the likelihood that such an error will happen again,” the journal wrote.
As with many unfortunate cases in science, public perception is a delicate matter that needs to be considered before any moves are made. Taking the anti-vaccination movement, for example, the study that the members often cite to support their case has since been debunked many times, but the trend still persisted to the point where measles actually made a comeback.
In the case of CRISPR, the fear was always the matter of unintended consequences caused by tampering with genetics. As Futurism notes, when the 2017 study was published, these fears were confirmed in the minds of people. It didn’t help that it was covered extensively, at least, by scientific discovery standards.
Even with this retraction, it might be too late to change the public’s mind. Scientists had one chance to prove the value of CRISPR without a shadow of a doubt and that chance has likely passed.
