What is minoxidil, the anti-balding hair growth treatment? Here’s what the science says 
Synthetic human embryos let researchers study early development while sidestepping ethical and logistical hurdles 
Dark energy is one of the biggest puzzles in science and we're now a step closer to understanding it 
Black hole, neutron star or something new? We discovered an object that defies explanation 
Could a telescope ever see the beginning of time? An astronomer explains 
How do airplanes fly? An aerospace engineer explains the physics of flight 
Six space missions to look forward to in 2024 
Alpha, beta, theta: what are brain states and brain waves? And can we control them? 
Eggs from men, sperm from women: how stem cell science may change how we reproduce 
Why is the universe ripping itself apart? A new study of exploding stars shows dark energy may be more complicated than we thought 
Spacesuits need a major upgrade for the next phase of exploration 
Customizing mRNA is easy, and that's what makes it the next frontier for personalized medicine − a molecular biologist explains 
Why some people don't trust science – and how to change their minds 
The world of science and academia has always been a fierce battleground for intellectuals, regardless of the outward appearance of serenity and dignity presented. In the case of the gene-editing tool CRISPR, scientists are practically tripping over themselves to prove or disprove something or other with regards to the method. In a recent case, scientists are butting heads as to whether or not the use of the tool is causing unexpected mutations.
The challenge to the use of CRISPR willy-nilly was made by Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) researchers and published their finding last May. In a press release, one of the study’s authors Stephen Tsang noted how the use of the gene-editing tool can cause hundreds of unintended mutations within just one subject.
“We feel it’s critical that the scientific community consider the potential hazards of all off-target mutations caused by CRISPR, including single nucleotide mutations and mutations in non-coding regions of the genome,” Tsang had said.
However, in a recent rebuttal, Harvard University and MIT researchers came together to look into the matter and discovered that the previously released study had some problems with the data. The scientists said as much in a new paper that they published, which indicates that the mutations might have already been present in the subjects before CRISPR was used on them.
The central figures in this brawl are the lab mice that were tested and subjected to genetic manipulations. The CUMC researchers tested the mice and found that their genomes showed changes that were not part of the intended edits.
However, the researchers that were part of the Harvard/MIT team-up notes how one of the mice exhibited no mutations, which indicates the observed accidental mutations were not caused by CRISPR. As a result, the team is urging the CUMC scientists to review their data and make the necessary alterations to their statements in order to prevent lasting damage to the use of CRISPR.
