This Huntington's disease trial shows how promising gene editing may be.

Huntington's disease is caused by a single mutation in someone's DNA.

A normal protein, huntingtin, becomes warped and toxic. Over time, the toxic protein builds up, killing a person's brain cells and slowly robbing them of cognitive and motor control.

It affects about 30,000 Americans, often shows up later in life, and is fatal. Because it's a genetic disease, it can be passed down through families. It's cruel, unfair, and nobody deserves it.


But what if we could just zap away that one fatal mutation?

That's exactly what a team of scientists from Emory University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences just tried — zapping that mutation right out of the DNA. And it looks like it could work.

Working with sick mice in a lab, the scientists used a gene-editing technique colloquially known as CRISPR. On June 19, 2017, the scientists reported that once injected and inside the brain cells, the CRISPR system could read the mice's DNA, find the huntingtin gene, and snip it apart. This effectively silenced the gene, cutting off the "flow" of the toxic proteins.

When the scientists checked on the mice a few weeks later, the toxic proteins had nearly disappeared from their cells. The scientists reported that the sick mice also regained some, but not all, of their motor control.

This isn't the first trial to use gene editing on Huntington's, but it does represent a new technique.

There's currently no cure for this awful disease, but this kind of research could provide a path to one in the future.

Gene editing is still pretty new; we need to learn more about whether CRISPR is completely safe, for instance, or what the long-term effects of silencing that particular gene would be.

But if we look at the history of humanity, we've conquered many horrible diseases. We've beaten back polio and smallpox and are even tackling childhood cancer. It's not far-fetched to think that, one day, we may be able to add Huntington's to the list.

Family
Photo by Hunters Race on Unsplash

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

Netflix

How much of what we do is influenced by what we see on TV? When it comes to risky behavior, Netflix isn't taking any chances.

After receiving a lot of heat, the streaming platform is finally removing a controversial scenedepicting teen suicide in season one of "13 Reasons Why. The decision comes two years after the show's release after statistics reveal an uptick in teen suicide.

"As we prepare to launch season three later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show. So on the advice of medical experts, including Dr. Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, we've decided with creator Brian Yorkey and the producers to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from season one," Netflix said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy

Words matter. And they especially matter when we are talking about the safety and well-being of children.

While the #MeToo movement has shed light on sexual assault allegations that have long been swept under the rug, it has also brought to the forefront the language we use when discussing such cases. As a writer, I appreciate the importance of using varied wording, but it's vital we try to remain as accurate as possible in how we describe things.

There can be gray area in some topics, but some phrases being published by the media regarding sexual predation are not gray and need to be nixed completely—not only because they dilute the severity of the crime, but because they are simply inaccurate by definition.

One such phrase is "non-consensual sex with a minor." First of all, non-consensual sex is "rape" no matter who is involved. Second of all, most minors legally cannot consent to sex (the age of consent in the U.S. ranges by state from 16 to 18), so sex with a minor is almost always non-consensual by definition. Call it what it is—child rape or statutory rape, depending on circumstances—not "non-consensual sex."

Keep Reading Show less
Culture