Just a few years ago, a study bearing the prestigious signature of Columbia University’s Medical Center revealed that the highly publicized (and Nobel Prize-winning) genetic cut-and-paste method called CRISPR/Cas9 is essentially blind! And that it causes a large number of rogue mutations in any DNA it touches.
The “tests” on which the innovation was based, and mainly its effectiveness and safety, had been conducted on small DNA segments, under laboratory conditions. The subsequent check was usually done using complex algorithms, to predict where else (in those small segments) a problem might arise… If nothing was found, then “all good”.
However, the Columbia researchers examined the entire DNA that had been targeted by the supposedly precise cutting and pasting. They examined two different cases (mice, the well-known laboratory animals), and discovered that over 1,500 nucleotide mutations (: the basic unit of DNA and RNA) and over 100 “deletions” and “re-insertions” had occurred throughout the DNA strand—all off-target!!!
What happens in those cases where a genetic intervention (invisible to the naked eye…) promises so much from a commercial perspective – but turns out to be junk? First, any study that proves serious “side effects” gets buried as deeply as possible. This is easy: the study might remain in some university library, but it won’t see the light of day. Second, you retaliate by saying “we did not observe any problems in our experimental animals” – meaning that they continued to eat and defecate for a few hours or days, and if they died later, it was after the experiment had ended. Third, you claim “well, what can we do; every new technology might have some side effects… but we don’t consider them serious.” And fourth, you openly advertise your genetic intervention as a cure-all, from hair loss to various cancers, in order to gain a large (supportive) audience.
Why should modern pioneers be deprived of the power of propaganda? And this became a science…