Gene-Editing Companies Attack Research Revealing Unintended CRISPR Effects

A scientific article reporting unintended effects of the CRISPR gene-editing technique has riled executives of companies hoping to commercialize the technology. But they’re arguing on the wrong side of the science, reports Claire Robinson

July 4, 2017 | Source: GM Watch | by Claire Robinson

Two gene-editing companies are attacking a scientific article[1] that caused their stocks to plummet, claiming that it is filled with errors and saying it should not have been published. In letters sent to Nature Methods, representatives of Intellia Therapeutics and Editas Medicine criticized the article, which reported that the gene-editing tool CRISPR had caused unexpected mutations in the genomes[2] of mice. In a syndrome that will be familiar to GMWatch readers, the CEO of one of the companies has even demanded that the editor of the journal retract the article.

But the findings reported in the article, along with other recent research papers that also report unintended effects of CRISPR gene editing, show that the companies are arguing on the wrong side of the science.

Scientific article hurt companies’ bottom line
The letter from Intellia stated that the explanation offered by the authors of the article for the unexpected effects in the mouse genomes “requires activities that Cas9 is not known to possess”. Intellia CEO Nessan Bermingham told Technology Review: “This publication has garnered a significant level of media and public attention resulting in significant damage. Given the issues around the design and interpretation I believe it is appropriate that the Nature Methods editorial board retract this paper.”

Retraction Watch commented, “This isn’t the first time we’ve seen corporations calling for the retraction of articles that aren’t good for their bottom line.”

Unintended mutations
GMWatch reported on the offending scientific article in June. The article presented research findings that using CRISPR to generate GM mice by injection into fertilized eggs led to mutations that were unexpected, not just in quantity but also in quality. Not only was the number of mutations far greater than expected, amounting to well over a thousand, but most of the mutations resulting from the CRISPR process were of a type that had never before been reported.