From AI to Russia, Heres How Estonias President Is Planning for the Future

At 48 years old, Kersti Kaljulaid is Estonia’s youngest president ever, and its first female president. A marathon runner with degrees in genetics and an MBA, she spent a career behind the scenes—mostly as a European government auditor—before being elected by Estonia’s legislature in 2016. Two years later, she’s continuing Estonia’s push for global digital security while deflecting military and cyber threats from Russia, which occupied Estonia for 50 years until its liberation in 1991.

Known for its digital government, tax, and medical systems, Estonia is planning for the future. The country’s “e-resident” program—which allows global citizens to obtain a government-issued ID card and set up remotely-operated businesses in Estonia—has attracted 35,000 people since 2014. Now the government is discussing a proposal to grant some rights to artificially intelligent systems. The law could make it easier to regulate decision-making by autonomous systems, robots, or driverless cars.

This week, Kaljulaid visited the White House along with the leaders of Latvia and Lithuania, to meet with President Donald Trump about issues including security along the Russian border. The visit coincided with the 100th anniversary of Baltic independence after World War I, and Trump took the opportunity to reaffirm the US's commitment to protecting the Baltic States in accordance with the NATO Treaty. After attending the US-Baltic Trade Summit and laying a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery on Wednesday, Kaljulaid sat down with WIRED’s Eric Niiler for an interview at the Estonian Embassy in Washington.

EN: With various efforts over the past decade, Estonia is moving from a traditional state to a digital society in many ways. Where does that effort stand now and what do you hope to see happen during your next few years in office?

KK: Digital society is born when your people refuse to use paper. And in our country we know that our people refuse to use paper. If you arrive at such a point in your development, you have to make your digital state always secure. You need several alternatives if something goes wrong. All the time you need to worry about security; it doesn’t differ much from your paper archives.

We have already a society which is digitally disrupted. We also see that it changes how people think about technology and work and what possibilities the internet can offer for new types of careers. For example, people don’t need enterprises to work; they can sell their skills online independently.

In our case, also the government is within in the digital sphere. We recognize that there is the need to think about tax systems if people work in five different companies in five different countries at the same time. This needs to be sorted out. We cannot sort it alone, we need to sort it globally.

Estonian citizens seem to trust their government when it comes to sharing digital information. Here in the US, we trust Facebook and Amazon to a point, but with the government, it’s quite the opposite. How have you done this?

The way we have created our trust is because our people are not anonymous on the internet. It has always been secure. If you try to transact with someone online, you would not do it with an email and pay with a credit card. What we do instead is create an encrypted channel and sign a contract that is time stamped. Estonians are much more used to internet banking rather than an online credit card. You can create trust, but you have to create tools and the legal space that supports the security for these tools. The state has to promise people to keep them safe on the internet. I find it astonishing that globally businesses are on the internet. Very few states have followed them.

What about external threats? What other sort of steps might be needed to prevent Russian aggression in places like Ukraine, or the kind of cyber-attacks and hacking that have occurred in the United States during the 2016 presidential election?

With conventional aggression, since we got the sanctions in place, Russia has not made any further advances in any other region. In cyber, we must not get narrowly concentrated on Russia only. Cyber attacks rain down on us from many places. You have to make your systems secure and safe and teach your people cyber hygiene. If you are able to attribute some attacks, it's good to be open about it as the United States has been. We need to have an understanding globally about how international rules apply in the internet sphere. Right now, that is massively missing.

What do you mean, global rules?

There’s lot of academic work on this, for example the Tallinn Manual 1 and 2. For example, we don’t attack each other’s sovereignty. Could attacking some vital electronic systems be considered an attack? What are the rights of the defender in that case? What are the rights where you fall under attack from a country you can identify, but not from the government? And if this government cannot go after the attacker because it is too weak—what are your rights then?

Speaking of rights, Estonia is looking to become perhaps the first nation to grant legal rights to artificial intelligence agents, such as fully autonomous robots or vehicles. How will it affect ordinary Estonians?

The discussion centers on whether we need to create a special legal entity for autonomous systems. If you regulate for AI, you also regulate for machine learning, self-acting and autonomous systems. We want our state to be proactive to offer services to people. You need to carefully think how to make this offer safe to our people and their private data. We want AI to be safely grown in Estonia.

Was this pushed by the advent of driverless cars?

No, it's pushed by the Estonian people's demand to get more proactive state services. For example, if a couple has a child, they are entitled to universal child support. In the Estonian people’s minds, it is unnecessary to apply for this. They say, “I had my baby, just pay me." For that, this is proactive. People demand efficiency from an automated system that is making decisions. We have to regulate. Once you go digital, you are constantly pushed by your people to provide better services.

You’ve just launched a new genetic testing program for 100,000 Estonian citizens adding to the 52,000 who have already been tested. How will this information be used to improve public health? And what kind of safeguards are there to prevent possible genetic discrimination by employers, for example?

This information belongs to those people whose genome has been analyzed. This information does not belong to the Estonian Genome Bank or the government, and it's not shared with other individuals. People’s genetic data is in an anonymous form. The aim of this program is so people will know their diabetes risk, or their heart attack risk. They can share this information with their family doctor, but they are not obliged to. They can keep it to themselves, but most people will probably share it with their doctor.

Are there any other big things on the horizon in Estonia that we should be looking for?

I wouldn’t tell you if I had. The genome bank and the digital society are the projects that have flied. I am sure there are others that have not. Our people are willing to work with the government on new technologies. Now it’s a habit; every Estonian looks at it as part of our national identity. We understand that this allows us to provide better services to our people than our money would allow.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/from-ai-to-russia-heres-how-estonias-president-is-planning-for-the-future/

A Familys Race to Cure a Daughters Genetic Disease

One July afternoon last summer, Matt Wilsey distributed small plastic tubes to 60 people gathered in a Palo Alto, California, hotel. Most of them had traveled thousands of miles to be here; now, each popped the top off a barcoded tube, spat in about half a teaspoon of saliva, and closed the tube. Some massaged their cheeks to produce enough spit to fill the tubes. Others couldn’t spit, so a technician rolled individual cotton swabs along the insides of their cheeks, harvesting their skin cells—and the valuable DNA inside.

One of the donors was Asger Vigeholm, a Danish business developer who had traveled from Copenhagen to be here, in a nondescript lobby at the Palo Alto Hilton. Wilsey is not a doctor, and Vigeholm is not his patient. But they are united in a unique medical pursuit.

Wilsey’s daughter, Grace, was one of the first children ever diagnosed with NGLY1 deficiency. It’s a genetic illness defined by a huge range of physical and mental disabilities: muscle weakness, liver problems, speech deficiencies, seizures. In 2016, Vigeholm’s son, Bertram, became the first child known to die from complications of the disease. Early one morning, as Bertram, age four, slept nestled between his parents, a respiratory infection claimed his life, leaving Vigeholm and his wife, Henriette, to mourn with their first son, Viktor. He, too, has NGLY1 deficiency.

Grace and her mother, Kristen Wilsey.

BLAKE FARRINGTON

The night before the spit party, Vigeholm and Wilsey had gathered with members of 16 other families, eating pizza and drinking beer on the hotel patio as they got to know each other. All of them were related to one of the fewer than 50 children living in the world with NGLY1 deficiency. And all of them had been invited by the Wilseys—Matt and his wife Kristen, who in 2014 launched the Grace Science Foundation to study the disease.

These families had met through an online support group, but this was the first time they had all come together in real life. Over the next few days in California, every family member would contribute his or her DNA and other biological samples to scientists researching the disease. On Friday and Saturday, 15 of these scientists described their contributions to the foundation; some studied the NGLY1 gene in tiny worms or flies, while others were copying NGLY1 deficient patients’ cells to examine how they behaved in the lab. Nobody knows what makes a single genetic mutation morph into all the symptoms Grace experiences. But the families and scientists were there to find out—and maybe even find a treatment for the disease.

That search has been elusive. When scientists sequenced the first human genome in 2000, geneticist Francis Collins, a leader of the Human Genome Project that accomplished the feat, declared that it would lead to a “complete transformation in therapeutic medicine” by 2020. But the human genome turned out to be far more complex than scientists had anticipated. Most disorders, it’s now clear, are caused by a complicated mix of genetic faults and environmental factors.

And even when a disease is caused by a defect in just one gene, like NGLY1 deficiency, fixing that defect is anything but simple. Scientists have tried for 30 years to perfect gene therapy, a method for replacing defective copies of genes with corrected ones. The first attempts used modified viruses to insert corrected genes into patients’ genomes. The idea appeared elegant on paper, but the first US gene therapy to treat an inherited disease—for blindness—was approved just last year. Now scientists are testing methods such as Crispr, which offers a far more precise way to edit DNA, to replace flawed genes with error-free ones.

Certainly, the genetics revolution has made single-mutation diseases easier to identify; there are roughly 7,000, with dozens of new ones discovered each year. But if it’s hard to find a treatment for common genetic diseases, it’s all but impossible for the very rare ones. There’s no incentive for established companies to study them; the potential market is so small that a cure will never be profitable.

Which is where the Wilseys—and the rest of the NGLY1 families—come in. Like a growing number of groups affected by rare genetic diseases, they’re leapfrogging pharmaceutical companies’ incentive structures, funding and organizing their own research in search of a cure. And they’re trying many of the same approaches that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have used for decades.

At 10:30 on a recent Monday morning, Grace is in Spanish class. The delicate 8-year-old with wavy brown hair twisted back into a ponytail sits in her activity chair—a maneuverable kid-sized wheelchair. Her teacher passes out rectangular pieces of paper, instructing the students to make name tags.

Grace grabs her paper and chews it. Her aide gently takes the paper from Grace’s mouth and puts it on Grace’s desk. The aide produces a plastic baggie of giant-sized crayons shaped like cylindrical blocks; they’re easier for Grace to hold than the standard Crayolas that her public school classmates are using.

Grace’s NGLY1 deficiency keeps her from speaking.

BLAKE FARRINGTON

At her school, a therapist helps her communicate.

BLAKE FARRINGTON

The other kids have written their names and are now decorating their name tags.

“Are we allowed to draw zombies for the decorations?” one boy asks, as Grace mouths her crayons through the baggie.

Grace’s aide selects a blue crayon, puts it in Grace’s hand, and closes her hand over Grace’s. She guides Grace’s hand, drawing letters on the paper: “G-R-A-C-E.”

Grace lives with profound mental and physical disabilities. After she was born in 2009, her bewildering list of symptoms—weak muscles, difficulty eating, failure to thrive, liver damage, dry eyes, poor sleep—confounded every doctor she encountered. Grace didn’t toddle until she was three and still needs help using the toilet. She doesn’t speak and, like an infant, still grabs anything within arm’s reach and chews on it.

Her father wants to help her. The grandson of a prominent San Francisco philanthropist and a successful technology executive, Matt Wilsey graduated from Stanford, where he became friends with a fellow undergraduate who would one day be Grace’s godmother: Chelsea Clinton. Wilsey went on to work in the Clinton White House, on George W. Bush’s presidential campaign, and in the Pentagon.

But it was his return to Silicon Valley that really prepared Wilsey for the challenge of his life. He worked in business development for startups, where he built small companies into multimillion-dollar firms. He negotiated a key deal between online retailer Zazzle and Disney, and later cofounded the online payments company Cardspring, where he brokered a pivotal deal with First Data, the largest payment processor in the world. He was chief revenue officer at Cardspring when four-year-old Grace was diagnosed as one of the first patients with NGLY1 deficiency in 2013—and when he learned there was no cure.

At the time, scientists knew that the NGLY1 gene makes a protein called N-glycanase. But they had no idea how mistakes in the NGLY1 gene caused the bewildering array of symptoms seen in Grace and other kids with NGLY1 deficiency.

Wilsey’s experience solving technology problems spurred him to ask scientists, doctors, venture capitalists, and other families what he could do to help Grace. Most advised him to start a foundation—a place to collect money for research that might lead to a cure for NGLY1 deficiency.

As many as 30 percent of families who turn to genetic sequencing receive a diagnosis. But most rare diseases are new to science and medicine, and therefore largely untreatable. More than 250 small foundations are trying to fill this gap by sponsoring rare disease research. They’re funding scientists to make animals with the same genetic defects as their children so they can test potential cures. They’re getting patients’ genomes sequenced and sharing the results with hackers, crowdsourcing analysis of their data from global geeks. They’re making bespoke cancer treatments and starting for-profit businesses to work on finding cures for the diseases that affect them.

“Start a foundation for NGLY1 research, get it up and running, and then move on with your life,” a friend told Wilsey.

Wilsey heeded part of that advice but turned the rest of it on its head.

In 2014, Wilsey left Cardspring just before it was acquired by Twitter and started the Grace Science Foundation to fund research into NGLY1 deficiency. The foundation has committed $7 million to research since then, most of it raised from the Wilseys’ personal network.

Many other families with sick loved ones have started foundations, and some have succeeded. In 1991, for instance, a Texas boy named Ryan Dant was diagnosed with a fatal muscle-wasting disease called mucopolysaccharidosis type 1. His parents raised money to support an academic researcher who was working on a cure for MPS1; a company agreed to develop the drug, which became the first approved treatment for the disease in 2003.

But unlike Dant, Grace had a completely new disease. Nobody was researching it. So Wilsey began cold-calling dozens of scientists, hoping to convince them to take a look at NGLY1 deficiency; if they agreed to meet, Wilsey read up on how their research might help his daughter. Eventually he recruited more than 100 leading scientists, including Nobel Prize-winning biologist Shinya Yamanaka and Carolyn Bertozzi, to figure out what was so important about N-glycanase. He knew that science was unpredictable and so distributed Grace Science’s funding through about 30 grants worth an average of $135,000 apiece.

Two years later, one line of his massively parallel attack paid off.

Matt Wilsey, Grace’s father.

BLAKE FARRINGTON

Bertozzi, a world-leading chemist, studies enzymes that add and remove sugars from other proteins, fine-tuning their activity. N-glycanase does just that, ripping sugars off from other proteins. Our cells are not packed with the white, sweet stuff that you add to your coffee. But the tiny building blocks of molecules similar to table sugar can also attach themselves to proteins inside cells, acting like labels that tell the cell what to do with these proteins.

Scientists thought that N-glycanase’s main role was to help recycle defective proteins, but many other enzymes are also involved in this process. Nobody understood why the loss of N-glycanase had such drastic impacts on NGLY1 kids.

In 2016, Bertozzi had an idea. She thought N-glycanase might be more than just a bit player in the cell’s waste management system, so she decided to check whether it interacts with another protein that turns on the proteasomethe recycling machine within each of our cells.

This protein is nicknamed Nerf, after its abbreviation, Nrf1. But fresh-made Nerf comes with a sugar attached to its end, and as long as that sugar sticks, Nerf doesn’t work. Some other protein has to chop the sugar off to turn on Nerf and activate the cellular recycling service.

Think of Nerf’s sugar like the pin in a grenade: You have to remove the pin—or in this case, the sugar—to explode the grenade and break down faulty proteins.

But nobody knew what protein was pulling the pin out of Nerf. Bertozzi wondered if N-glycanase might be doing that job.

To find out, she first tested cells from mice and humans with and without working copies of the NGLY1 gene. The cells without NGLY1 weren’t able to remove Nerf’s sugar, but those with the enzyme did so easily. If Bertozzi added N-glycanase enzymes to cells without NGLY1, the cells began chopping off Nerf’s sugar just as they were supposed to: solid evidence, she thought, that N-glycanase and Nerf work together. N-glycanase pulls the pin (the sugar) out of the grenade (the Nerf protein) to trigger the explosion (boom).

The finding opened new doors for NGLY1 disease research. It gave scientists the first real clue about how NGLY1 deficiency affects patients’ bodies: by profoundly disabling their ability to degrade cellular junk via the proteasome.

As it turns out, the proteasome is also involved in a whole host of other diseases, such as cancer and brain disorders, that are far more common than NGLY1 deficiency. Wilsey immediately grasped the business implications: He had taken a moon shot, but he’d discovered something that could get him to Mars. Pharmaceutical companies had declined to work on NGLY1 deficiency because they couldn’t make money from a drug for such a rare disease. But Bertozzi had now linked NGLY1 deficiency to cancer and maladies such as Parkinson’s disease, through the proteasome—and cancer drugs are among the most profitable medicines.

Suddenly, Wilsey realized that he could invent a new business model for rare diseases. Work on rare diseases, he could argue, could also enable therapies for more common—and therefore profitable—conditions.

In early 2017, Wilsey put together a slide deck—the same kind he’d used to convince investors to fund his tech startups. Only this time, he wanted to start a biotechnology company focused on curing diseases linked to NGLY1. Others had done this before, such as John Crowley, who started a small biotechnology company that developed the first treatment for Pompe disease, which two of his children have. But few have been able to link their rare diseases to broader medical interests in the way that Wilsey hoped to.

He decided to build a company that makes treatments for both rare and common diseases involving NGLY1. Curing NGLY1 disease would be to this company as search is to Google—the big problem it was trying to solve, its reason for existence. Treating cancer would be like Google’s targeted advertising—the revenue stream that would help the company get there.

But his idea had its skeptics, Wilsey’s friends among them.

One, a biotechnology investor named Kush Parmar, told Wilsey about some major obstacles to developing a treatment for NGLY1 deficiency. Wilsey was thinking of using approaches such as gene therapy to deliver corrected NGLY1 genes into kids, or enzyme replacement therapy, to infuse kids with the N-glycanase enzyme they couldn’t make on their own.

But NGLY1 deficiency seems particularly damaging to cells in the brain and central nervous system, Parmar pointed out—places that are notoriously inaccessible to drugs. It’s hard to cure a disease if you can’t deliver the treatment to the right place.

Other friends warned Wilsey that most biotech startups fail. And even if his did succeed as a company, it might not achieve the goals that he wanted it to. Ken Drazan, president of the cancer diagnostics company Grail, is on the board of directors of Wilsey’s foundation. Drazan warned Wilsey that his company might be pulled away from NGLY1 deficiency. “If you take people’s capital, then you have to be open to wherever that product development takes you,” Drazan said.

But Wilsey did have some things going for him. Biotechnology companies have become interested of late in studying rare diseases—ones like the type of blindness for which the gene therapy was approved last year. If these treatments represent true cures, they can command a very high price.

Still, the newly approved gene therapy for blindness may be used in 6,000 people, 100 times more than could be helped by an NGLY1 deficiency cure. Wilsey asked dozens of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies if they would work on NGLY1 deficiency. Only one, Takeda, Japan’s largest drug company, agreed to conduct substantial early-stage research on the illness. Others turned him down flat.

If no one else was going to develop a drug to treat NGLY1 deficiency, Wilsey, decided, he might as well try. “We have one shot at this,” he says. “Especially if your science is good enough, why not go for it?”

“Matt was showing classic entrepreneurial tendencies,” says Dan Levy, the vice president for small business at Facebook, who has known Wilsey since they rushed the same Stanford fraternity in the 1990s. “You have to suspend a little bit of disbelief, because everything is stacked against you.”

At 11 am, Grace sits in a classroom with a speech therapist. Though Grace doesn’t speak, she’s learning to use her “talker,” a tablet-sized device with icons that help her communicate. Grace grabs her talker and presses the icons for “play” and “music,” then presses a button to make her talker read the words out loud.

The "talker" used for Grace’s therapy.

BLAKE FARRINGTON

“OK, play music,” her therapist says, starting up a nearby iPad.

Grace watches an Elmo video on the iPad for a few moments, her forehead crinkled in concentration, her huge brown eyes a carbon copy of her dad’s. Then Grace stops the video and searches for another song.

Suddenly, her therapist slides the iPad out of Grace’s reach.

“You want ‘Slippery Fish,’” her therapist says. “I want you to tell me that.”

Grace turns to her talker: “Play music,” she types again.

The therapist attempts one more time to help Grace say more clearly which particular song she wants. Instead, Grace selects the symbols for two new words.

“Feel mad,” Grace’s talker declares.

Grace working with a therapist in one of their therapy rooms.

BLAKE FARRINGTON

There’s no denying how frustrating it can be for Grace to rely on other people to do everything for her, and how hard her family works to meet her constant needs.

Matt and Kristen can provide the therapy, equipment, medicines, and around-the-clock supervision that Grace needs to have a stable life. But that is not enough—not for Grace, who wants "Slippery Fish," nor for her parents, who want a cure.

So last summer, Wilsey raised money to bring the Vigeholms and the other NGLY1 families to Palo Alto, where they met with Grace’s doctors and the Grace Science Foundation researchers. One Japanese scientist, Takayuki Kamei, was overjoyed to meet two of the NGLY1 deficiency patients: “I say hello to their cells every morning,” he told their parents.

And because all of these families also want a cure, each also donated blood, skin, spit, stool, and urine to the world’s first NGLY1 deficiency biobank. In four days, scientists collected more NGLY1 deficiency data than had been collected in the entire five years since the disease was discovered. These patient samples, now stored at Stanford University and at Rutgers University, have been divvied up into more than 5,000 individual samples that will be distributed to academic and company researchers who wish to work on NGLY1 deficiency.

That same month, Wilsey closed a seed round of $7 million to start Grace Science LLC. His main backer, a veteran private equity investor, prefers not to be named. Like many in Silicon Valley, he’s recently become attracted to health care by the promise of a so-called “double bottom line”: the potential to both to make money and to do good by saving lives.

Wilsey is chief executive of the company and heavily involved in its scientific strategy. He’s looking for a head scientist with experience in gene therapy and in enzyme replacement therapy, which Mark Dant and John Crowley used to treat their sick children. Gene therapy now seems poised to take off after years of false starts; candidate cures for blood and nervous system disorders are speeding through clinical trials, and companies that use Crispr have raised more than $1 billion.

Wilsey doesn’t know which of these strategies, if any, will save Grace. But he hopes his company will find an NGLY1 deficiency cure within five years. The oldest known NGLY1 deficient patient is in her 20s, but since nobody has been looking for these patients until now, it’s impossible to know how many others—like Bertram—didn’t make it that long.

“We don’t know what Grace’s lifespan is,” Wilsey says. “We’re always waiting for the other shoe to drop.”

But at 3 pm on this one November day, that doesn’t seem to matter.

School’s out, and Grace is seated atop a light chestnut horse named Ned. Five staff members lead Grace through a session of equine therapy. Holding herself upright on Ned’s back helps Grace develop better core strength and coordination.

Grace on her horse.

BLAKE FARRINGTON

Grace and Ned walk under a canopy of oak trees. Her face is serene, her usually restless legs still as Ned paces through late-afternoon sunshine. But for a little grace, there may be a cure for her yet.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/a-familys-race-to-cure-a-daughters-genetic-disease/

Think twice about buying ‘squashed-faced’ breeds, vets urge dog-lovers

British Veterinary Association launches #breedtobreathe campaign to highlight serious health issues breeds such as pugs and French bulldogs are prone to

Vets have urged dog-lovers to think twice about buying squashed-faced dogs such as pugs and French bulldogs, after many would-be owners were found to be unaware of the health problems such breeds often experience.

According to data from the Kennel Club, registrations of squashed-faced, or brachycephalic, breeds have shot up in recent years: while just 692 French bulldogs were registered in 2007, registrations reached 21,470 in 2016.

Certain DNA variations in dogs are linked to a short skull shape. The animals baby-like faces with large, round, wide-set eyes and flat noses are known to be a key factor in why owners choose such breeds: over time those traits have been bred for, and in some cases have been taken to extremes.

This selective breeding and prioritising appearance over health has left the breeds prone to skin disorders, eye ulcers and breathing difficulties among other problems.

Now the British Veterinary Association (BVA) has launched a campaign dubbed #breedtobreathe to draw attention to the issues, revealing that a new survey of 671 vets found 75% of owners were unaware of the health problems of brachycephalic breeds before they chose their squashed-faced dog. Moreover the vets said just 10% of owners could spot health problems related to such breeds, with many thinking that problems including snorting were normal for such dogs.

Brachycephalic dogs graph

The survey also revealed that 49% of vets thought advertising and social media were among the reasons behind the surge in ownership of these dogs, while 43% said celebrity ownership was one of the driving factors.

We find that our veterinary surgeons are finding increasing numbers of flat-faced dogs are coming into their practices with problems which are related to the way these animals are made, said John Fishwick, president of the BVA. One of the things that is causing this increase that we have seen over the last few years appears to be celebrity endorsements and their use in advertising.

Among those criticised by the BVA are pop star Lady Gaga, who is often photographed with her French bulldogs, and YouTube star Zoella, whose pug features in her videos. Big brands are also targeted; the organisation revealed that Heinz, Costa and Halifax have all agreed to avoid using squashed-faced dogs in future advertising.

Q&A

What sort of health problems do brachycephalic dogs have?

Breeds such as pugs, bulldogs, French bulldogs and boxers are prone to a range of health problems, many of which are related to their short skulls and other characteristic features.

Breathing problems

Brachycephalic breeds often have narrow nostrils, deformed windpipes and excess soft tissues inside their nose and throat all of which can lead to difficulties with breathing, which can also lead to heart problems. The dogs are also prone to overheating.

Dental problems

The shortened upper jaws of squashed-faced dogs means their teeth are crowded, increasing the risk of tooth decay and gum disease.

Skin disorders

The deep folds around the dogs faces, such as the characteristic wrinkles of a bulldog, also bring problems as they are prone to yeast and bacterial infections.

Eye conditions

The head shape and prominent eyes of brachycephalic breeds means the dogs are at risk of eye conditions including ulcers. Among the causes of eye ulcers is that brachycephalic dogs often cannot blink properly and have problems with tear production, while eyelashes or nasal folds can also rub the surface of their eyes.

Birth problems

Brachycephalic breeds can have difficulties giving birth naturally because of the disproportionate size of the puppies heads, meaning that caesarean sections are often necessary. According torecent researchmore than 80% of Boston terrier, bulldog and French bulldog puppies in the UK are born in this manner.

The BVA is urging people to send letters to brands asking them not to use such dogs in promotional material. The campaign also aims to raise awareness of potential health problems of squashed-face breeds, and stresses the need for vets, owners, dog-show judges, breeders, researchers and others to work together to make sure the breeds are healthy.

They are lovely breeds of dog, they are very friendly and they make good pets, said Fishwick. The problem is a lot of them are really struggling, and we really want to make sure people understand this and encourage them to think about either going for another breed or a healthier version of these breeds ones which have been bred to have a longer snout or possibly even cross breeds.

The BVA warned that without action, the number of corrective surgeries needed on such animals will soar.

Caroline Kisko, secretary of the Kennel Club urged owners to do their homework before buying a squashed-faced dog. As soon as you get a market drive then the puppy farms just say ooh well breed those now, she said.

But Dr Rowena Packer of the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) said the problem is not confined to new owners, with recent research from the RVC finding that more than 90% of pug, French bulldog and English bulldog owners said they would own another such dog in the future. It is not just going to be a flash in the pan that we see this huge surge and then it goes away, she said.

It has been suggested that vets may be unwilling to speak out for fear that owners will simply take their pets elsewhere, damaging business.

But Packer disagrees, saying: I dont think any vet went into [the job] hoping that their salary would be paid by the suffering of dogs who have been bred to effectively have problems.

Dr Crina Dragu, a London-based veterinary surgeon, noted that not all squashed-faced dogs have problems. You see the ones that have happy lives, normal lives, and you see the ones that the minute they are born they spend their entire lives as though [they are being smothered] with a pillow all day, every day, she said.

Packer said prospective owners should be aware squashed-faced dogs can be an expensive commitment: I think they need to be aware of both the emotional and financial hardship that they could be putting themselves and their dogs through for potentially five to 10 years.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jan/05/think-twice-about-buying-squashed-faced-breeds-vets-urge-dog-lovers

Excitement as trial shows Huntington’s drug could slow progress of disease

Hailed as enormously significant, results in groundbreaking trial are first time a drug has been shown to suppress effects of Huntingtons genetic mutation

A landmark trial for Huntingtons disease has announced positive results, suggesting that an experimental drug could become the first to slow the progression of the devastating genetic illness.

The results have been hailed as enormously significant because it is the first time any drug has been shown to suppress the effects of the Huntingtons mutation that causes irreversible damage to the brain. Current treatments only help with symptoms, rather than slowing the diseases progression.

Q&A

What is Huntington’s disease?

Huntingtons disease is a congenital degenerative condition caused by a single defective gene. Most patients are diagnosed in middle age, with symptoms including mood swings, irritability and depression. As the disease progresses, more serious symptoms can include involuntary jerky movements, cognitive difficulties and issues with speech and swallowing.

Currently there is no cure for Huntington’s, although drugs exist which help manage some of the symptoms. It is thought that about 12 people in 100,000 are affected by Huntington’s, and if a parent carries the faulty gene there is a 50% chance they will pass it on to their offspring.

Prof Sarah Tabrizi, director of University College Londons Huntingtons Disease Centre who led the phase 1 trial, said the results were beyond what Id ever hoped … The results of this trial are of ground-breaking importance for Huntingtons disease patients and families, she said.

The results have also caused ripples of excitement across the scientific world because the drug, which is a synthetic strand of DNA, could potentially be adapted to target other incurable brain disorders such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. The Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche has paid a $45m licence fee to take the drug forward to clinical use.

Huntingtons is an incurable degenerative disease caused by a single gene defect that is passed down through families.

The first symptoms, which typically appear in middle age, include mood swings, anger and depression. Later patients develop uncontrolled jerky movements, dementia and ultimately paralysis. Some people die within a decade of diagnosis.

Most of our patients know whats in their future, said Ed Wild, a UCL scientist and consultant neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, who administered the drug in the trial.

The mutant Huntingtons gene contains instructions for cells to make a toxic protein, called huntingtin. This code is copied by a messenger molecule and dispatched to the cells protein-making machinery. The drug, called Ionis-HTTRx, works by intercepting the messenger molecule and destroying it before the harmful protein can be made, effectively silencing the effects of the mutant gene.

How the drug works to slow the progress of Huntington’s disease

To deliver the drug to the brain, it has to be injected into the fluid around the spine using a four-inch needle.

Prof John Hardy, a neuroscientist at UCL who was not involved in the trial, said: If Id have been asked five years ago if this could work, I would have absolutely said no. The fact that it does work is really remarkable.

The trial involved 46 men and women with early stage Huntingtons disease in the UK, Germany and Canada. The patients were given four spinal injections one month apart and the drug dose was increased at each session; roughly a quarter of participants had a placebo injection.

After being given the drug, the concentration of harmful protein in the spinal cord fluid dropped significantly and in proportion with the strength of the dose. This kind of closely matched relationship normally indicates a drug is having a powerful effect.

For the first time a drug has lowered the level of the toxic disease-causing protein in the nervous system, and the drug was safe and well-tolerated, said Tabrizi. This is probably the most significant moment in the history of Huntingtons since the gene [was isolated].

The trial was too small, and not long enough, to show whether patients clinical symptoms improved, but Roche is now expected to launch a major trial aimed at testing this.

If the future trial is successful, Tabrizi believes the drug could ultimately be used in people with the Huntingtons gene before they become ill, possibly stopping symptoms ever occurring. They may just need a pulse every three to four months, she said. One day we want to prevent the disease.

The drug, developed by the California biotech firm Ionis Pharmaceuticals, is a synthetic single strand of DNA customised to latch onto the huntingtin messenger molecule.

The unexpected success raises the tantalising possibility that a similar approach might work for other degenerative brain disorders. The drugs like Lego, said Wild. You can target [any protein].

For instance, a similar synthetic strand of DNA could be made to target the messenger that produces misshapen amyloid or tau proteins in Alzheimers.

Huntingtons alone is exciting enough, said Hardy, who first proposed that amyloid proteins play a central role in Alzheimers. I dont want to overstate this too much, but if it works for one, why cant it work for a lot of them? I am very, very excited.

Prof Giovanna Mallucci, associate director of UK Dementia Research Institute at the University of Cambridge, described the work as a tremendous step forward for individuals with Huntingtons disease and their families.

Clearly, there will be much interest into whether it can be applied to the treatment of other neurodegenerative diseases, like Alzheimers, she added. However, she said that in the case of most other disorders the genetic causes are complex and less well understood, making them potentially harder to target.

About 10,000 people in the UK have the condition and about 25,000 are at risk. Most people with Huntingtons inherited the gene from a parent, but about one in five patients have no known family history of the disease.

The full results of the trial are expected to be published in a scientific journal next year.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/11/excitement-as-huntingtons-drug-shown-to-slow-progress-of-devastating-disease

Ancestrys Genetic Testing Kits Are Heading for Your Stocking This Year

This holiday season, more people than ever before are giving the gift of spit. Well, what’s in your spit, to be precise. Want to know where your ancestors once walked or whether you’re at risk for a genetic disease? There’s a spit tube kit for that. And customers are buying them in record numbers.

Between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, leading personal genomics company AncestryDNA sold about 1.5 million testing kits designed to provide insights into your ethnicity and familial connections. That’s like 2,000 gallons of saliva—enough to fill a modest above-ground swimming pool with the genetic history of every person in the city of Philadelphia.

Ancestry says it’s equipped to deal with the impending deluge, but the flood of consumer interest has its executives eyeing the long-term prospects of their stretched supply chain. It also has some policymakers and public health officials concerned about the pace with which people are blindly giving away their genetic data to these types of companies, who can turn around and sell it to third parties.

At a press conference on Sunday, Senator Chuck Schumer (D–New York) called for increased federal scrutiny of the privacy practices of consumer DNA testing companies like Ancestry and its chief rival, 23andMe. The Food and Drug Administration regulates consumer DNA tests related to health, like the 23andMe panel it approved earlier this year. So what exactly does the congressman want? For the Federal Trade Commission to force the firms to extract all their buried fine print about how they might distribute your data, and broadcast it loud and clear. “I think if most people knew that this information could be sold to third parties they would think twice,” Schumer said. “The last gift any of us want to give away this holiday season is our most personal and sensitive information.”

While there’s no evidence that these companies have let anyone’s genetic data fall into the hands of hackers—or anything half that bad—their policies do grant them free rein to host, transfer, process, analyze, distribute, and communicate your genetic information. You still technically own your DNA, but they own the rights to what’s in it—after it’s been anonymized and de-identified, of course. Both companies say the primary way they use this genetic data is to improve their products and services. But both have research partnerships that involve exchanging data for money—23andMe with drug companies like Pfizer and Genentech, Ancestry with Alphabet longevity spinout Calico.

“This isn’t a videogame, it’s people’s genetic code and it’s a very valuable commodity,” says Peter Pitts, the president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and former FDA associate commissioner. He’d like to see more transparency from Ancestry and 23andMe about how often they resell DNA data and how much they make from it. That’s the only way for people to know what it’s really worth. “To treat it like a toy and put it under the Christmas tree is incredibly irresponsible.”

But that’s exactly what millions of people are going to do. While Ancestry officials didn’t provide exact sales figures for this year’s Black Friday weekend, they did say they sold three times as many kits as the same time period in 2016, an amount they’d previously reported as 560,000. Going into the long weekend, the company had sold slightly more than 6 million tests since launching the product in 2012. 23andMe declined to give any financial details, but thanks in part to a big price cut, its health test was one of Amazon’s five best-selling items on Black Friday, behind the Amazon Echo Dot, two other Alexa add-ons, and a programmable pressure cooker.

Amazon has become an increasingly important sales channel for both Ancestry and 23andMe in the two years since they began selling in the "home tests" section of the two-click shopping platform. But it was particularly huge for Ancestry when the aforementioned pressure cooker sold out late in the day on Monday. “From that moment you could just see it take off like a hockey stick,” says Ancestry executive vice president and general manager Ken Chahine, still surprised.

But not as surprised, he says, as Amazon. “They didn’t expect us to sell that much, so they moved a bunch of inventory out of the distribution centers to cold storage, probably in the middle of nowhere, and then they had to go track it all down, and for a while nobody knew where it was,” he says. It’s since been sorted out. But if you ordered a kit and it hasn’t come yet, at least now you know why.

Both Ancestry and 23andMe have acknowledged the criticism that has come with more widespread use of their products. But the companies maintain that their customers understand the trade-offs and have the opportunity to opt out at any time. When I interviewed Ancestry’s chief scientific officer Catherine Ball at the Commonwealth Club in July, the majority questions from the audience focused on issues of privacy and third-party access. “We do not own or assert any ownership over your genetics,” she told the crowd of about 100. “We just see ourselves as stewards and only do that which our customers have consented us to do.”

On Sunday night, in response to Schumer’s remarks, Kate Black, 23andMe’s privacy officer and corporate counsel, told NBC News something similar: “We do not sell individual customer information, nor do we include any customer data in our research program without an individual’s voluntary and informed consent. 23andMe customers are in control of their data—customers can choose to consent, or not to, at any time.”

Critics like Pitts say that’s “true but not accurate,” if you dig into the fine print. Which, he fears, people will spend even less time doing if they get the tests from a friend or relative. “That comes with an implicit endorsement, so people are likely to pay even less attention to the potential risks,” he says. A genetic test won’t shoot your eye out, but it should be handled with care.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/ancestrys-genetic-testing-kits-are-heading-for-your-stocking-this-year/

The Most Promising Cancer Treatments In a Century Have ArrivedBut Not For Everyone

In 1891, a New York doctor named William B. Coley injected a mixture of beef broth and Streptococcus bacteria into the arm of a 40-year-old Italian man with an inoperable neck tumor. The patient got terribly sick—developing a fever, chills, and vomiting. But a month later, his cancer had shrunk drastically. Coley would go on to repeat the procedure in more than a thousand patients, with wildly varying degrees of success, before the US Food and Drug Administration shut him down.

Coley’s experiments were the first forays into a field of cancer research known today as immunotherapy. Since his first experiments, the oncology world has mostly moved on to radiation and chemo treatments. But for more than a century, immunotherapy—which encompasses a range of treatments designed to supercharge or reprogram a patient’s immune system to kill cancer cells—has persisted, mostly around the margins of medicine. In the last few years, though, an explosion of tantalizing clinical results have reinvigorated the field and plunged investors and pharma execs into a spending spree.

Though he didn’t have the molecular tools to understand why it worked, Coley’s forced infections put the body’s immune system into overdrive, allowing it to take out cancer cells along the way. While the FDA doesn’t have a formal definition for more modern immunotherapies, in the last few years it has approved at least eight drugs that fit the bill, unleashing a flood of money to finance new clinical trials. (Patients had better come with floods of money too—prices can now routinely top six figures.)

But while the drugs are dramatically improving the odds of survival for some patients, much of the basic science is still poorly understood. And a growing number of researchers worry that the sprint to the clinic offers cancer patients more hype than hope.

When immunotherapy works, it really works. But not for every kind of cancer, and not for every patient—not even, it turns out, for the majority of them. “The reality is immunotherapy is incredibly valuable for the people who can actually benefit from it, but there are far more people out there who don’t benefit at all,” says Vinay Prasad, an Oregon Health and Science University oncologist.

Prasad has come to be regarded as a professional cancer care critic, thanks to his bellicose Twitter style and John Arnold Foundation-backed crusade against medical practices he says are based on belief, not scientific evidence. Using national cancer statistics and FDA approval records, Prasad recently estimated the portion of all patients dying from all types of cancer in America this year who might actually benefit from immunotherapy. The results were disappointing: not even 10 percent.

Now, that’s probably a bit of an understatement. Prasad was only looking at the most widely used class of immunotherapy drugs in a field that is rapidly expanding. Called checkpoint inhibitors, they work by disrupting the immune system’s natural mechanism for reining in T cells, blood-borne sentinels that bind and kill diseased cells throughout the body. The immune cells are turned off most of the time, thanks to proteins that latch on to a handful of receptors on their surface. But scientists designed antibodies to bind to those same receptors, knocking out the regulatory protein and keeping the cells permanently switched to attack mode.

The first checkpoint inhibitors just turned T cells on. But some of the newer ones can work more selectively, using the same principle to jam a signal that tumors use to evade T cells. So far, checkpoint inhibitors have shown near-miraculous results for a few rare, previously incurable cancers like Hodgkin’s lymphoma, renal cell carcinoma, and non-small cell lung cancer. The drugs are only approved to treat those conditions, leaving about two-thirds of terminal cancer patients without an approved immunotherapy option.

But Prasad says that isn’t stopping physicians from prescribing the drugs anyway.

“Hype has encouraged rampant off-label use of checkpoint inhibitors as a last-ditch effort,” he says—even for patients with tumors that show no evidence they’ll respond to the drugs. The antibodies are available off the shelf, but at a list price near $150,000 per year, it’s an investment Prasad says doctors shouldn’t encourage lightly. Especially when there’s no reliable way of predicting who will respond and who won’t. “This thwarts one of the goals of cancer care," says Prasad. "When you run out of helpful responses, how do you help a patient navigate what it means to die well?”

Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb have dominated this first wave of immunotherapy, selling almost $9 billion worth of checkpoint inhibitors since they went on sale in 2015. Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Abbvie, and Regeneron have all since jumped in the game, spending billions on acquiring biotech startups and beefing up in-house pipelines. And 800 clinical trials involving a checkpoint inhibitor are currently underway in the US, compared with about 200 in 2015. “This is not sustainable,” Genentech VP of cancer immunology Ira Mellman told the audience at last year’s annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. With so many trials, he said, the industry was throwing every checkpoint inhibitor combination at the wall just to see what would stick.

After more than a decade stretching out the promise of checkpoint inhibitors, patients—and businesses—were ready for something new. And this year, they got it: CAR T cell therapy. The immunotherapy involves extracting a patient’s T cells and genetically rewiring them so they can more efficiently home in on tumors in the body—training a foot soldier as an assassin that can slip behind enemy lines.

In September, the FDA cleared the first CAR-T therapy—a treatment for children with advanced leukemia, developed by Novartis—which made history as the first-ever gene therapy approved for market. A month later the agency approved another live cell treatment, developed by Kite Pharma, for a form of adult lymphoma. In trials for the lymphoma drug, 50 percent of patients saw their cancer disappear completely, and stay gone.

Kite’s ascendance in particular is a stunning indicator of how much money CAR-T therapy has attracted, and how fast. The company staged a $128 million IPO in 2014—when it had only a single late-phase clinical trial to its name—and sold to Gilead Science in August for $11.9 billion. For some context, consider that when Pfizer bought cancer drugmaker Medivation for $14 billion last year—one of the biggest pharma deals of 2016—the company already had an FDA-approved blockbuster tumor-fighter on the market with $2 billion in annual sales, plus two late-stage candidates in the pipeline.

While Kite and Novartis were the only companies to actually launch products in 2017, more than 40 other pharma firms and startups are currently building pipelines. Chief rival Juno Therapeutics went public with a massive $265 million initial offering—the largest biotech IPO of 2014—before forming a $1 billion partnership with Celgene in 2015. In the last few years, at least half a dozen other companies have made similar up-front deals worth hundreds of millions.

These treatments will make up just a tiny slice of the $107 billion cancer drug market. Only about 600 people a year, for example, could benefit from Novartis’ flagship CAR-T therapy. But the company set the price for a full course of treatment at a whopping $475,000. So despite the small clientele, the potential payoff is huge—and the technology is attracting a lot of investor interest. “CAR-T venture financing is still a small piece of total venture funding in oncology, but given that these therapies are curative for a majority of patients that have received them in clinical trials, the investment would appear to be justified,” says Mandy Jackson, a managing editor for research firm Informa Pharma Intelligence.

CAR-T, with its combination of gene and cell therapies, may be the most radical anticancer treatment ever to arrive in clinics. But the bleeding edge of biology can be a dangerous place for patients.

Sometimes, the modified T cells go overboard, excreting huge quantities of molecules called cytokines that lead to severe fevers, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing. In some patients it gets even worse. Sometimes the blood-brain barrier inexplicably breaks down—and the T cells and their cytokines get inside patients’ skulls. Last year, Juno pulled the plug on its lead clinical trial after five leukemia patients died from massive brain swelling. Other patients have died in CAR-T trials at the National Cancer Institute and the University of Pennsylvania.

Scientists don’t fully understand why some CAR-T patients experience cytokine storms and neurotoxicity and others come out cured. “It’s kind of like the equivalent of getting on a Wright Brother’s airplane as opposed to walking on a 747 today,” says Wendell Lim, a biophysical chemist and director of the UC San Francisco Center for Systems and Synthetic Biology. To go from bumping along at a few hundred feet to cruise control at Mach 0.85 will mean equipping T cells with cancer-sensing receptors that are more specific than the current offerings.

Take the two FDA-approved CAR-T cell therapies, he says. They both treat blood cancers in which immune responders called B cells become malignant and spread throughout the body. Doctors reprogram patients’ T cells to seek out a B cell receptor called CD-19. When they find it, they latch on and shoot it full of toxins. Thing is, the reprogrammed T cells can’t really tell the difference between cancerous B cells and normal ones. The therapy just takes them all out. Now, you can live without B cells if you receive antibody injections to compensate—so the treatment works out fine most of the time.

But solid tumors are trickier—they’re made up of a mix of cells with different genetic profiles. Scientists have to figure out which tumor cells matter to the growth of the cancer and which ones don’t. Then they have to design T cells with antigens that can target just those ones and nothing else. An ideal signature would involve two to three antigens that your assassin T cells can use to pinpoint the target with a bullet instead of a grenade.

Last year Lim launched a startup called Cell Design Labs to try to do just that, as well as creating a molecular on-off-switch to make treatments more controlled. Only if researchers can gain this type of precise command, says Lim, will CAR-T treatments become as safe and predictable as commercial airline flight.

The field has matured considerably since Coley first shot his dying patient full of a dangerous bacteria, crossed his fingers, and hoped for the best. Sure, the guy lived, even making a miraculous full recovery. But many after him didn’t. And that “fingers crossed” approach still lingers over immunotherapy today.

All these years later, the immune system remains a fickle ally in the war on cancer. Keeping the good guys from going double-agent is going to take a lot more science. But at least the revolution will be well-financed.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/cancer-immunotherapy-has-arrived-but-not-for-everyone/

Jennifer Doudna: I have to be true to who I am as a scientist

Crispr inventor Jennifer Doudna talks about discovering the gene-editing tool, the split with her collaborator and the complex ethics of genetic manipulation

Jennifer Doudna, 53, is an American biochemist based at the University of California, Berkeley. Together with the French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, she led the discovery of the revolutionary gene-editing tool, Crispr. The technology has the potential to eradicate previously incurable diseases, but also poses ethical questions about the possible unintended consequences of overwriting the human genome.

Were you nerdy as a child? What got youhooked on science?
Yes, I was nerdy. My father was a professor of American literature in Hawaii and he loved books. One day I came home from school and he haddropped a copy of The Double Helixon the bed, by Jim Watson. Onerainy afternoon I read it and Iwasjust stunned. I was blown awaythat you could do experiments about what a molecule looks like. I was probably 12 or 13. I think that wasthebeginning ofstarting to think,Wow, that could be an amazingthing to work on.

Youve spent most of your career uncovering the structure of RNA and never set out to create a tool to copy andpaste human genes. How did you endup working on Crispr?
I think you can put scientists into two buckets. One is the type who dives very deeply into one topic for their whole career and they know it better than anybody else in the world. Then theresthe other bucket, where I wouldput myself, where its like youre at a buffet table and you see an interesting thing here and do it for a while, and that connects you to another interesting thing and you take a bit of that. Thats how I came to be working on Crispr it was a total side-project.

But when you first started your collaboration with Emmanuelle Charpentier, did you have a hunch youwere on to something special?
We met at a conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and took a walk around the old town together. She was so passionate, her excitement was very infectious. I still remember walking down this street with her and she said: Well Im really glad you want to work with us on the mysterious [Cas9 the enzyme that snips DNA at the chosen location in the editing process]. It was this kind of electrifying moment. Even then I just had this gut feeling that this was something really interesting.

How important is personal chemistry inscience collaborations?
Its essential. Working in a lab is analogous to being in a high-school play: youre rehearsing long hours, itscrowded, there are stressful things that come up. Its the same thing in science. Things never work as you think they will, experiments fail and so to have people around that really get along with each other is super important. Many collaborations dont work out, usually just because peoples interests arent aligned or people dont really like working together.

The real frenzy around your work started in 2012, when you showed that Crispr-Cas9 could be used to slice up DNA at any site [of the DNA molecule] you wanted. Did you realise this was abig deal gradually orimmediately?
It wasnt a gradual realisation, it was one of those OMG moments where you look at each other and say holy moly. This was something we hadnt thought about before, but now we could see how it worked, we could see it would be such a fantastic way to do gene editing.

After you demonstrated Crispr could edit bacterial DNA, two rival labs (Harvard and the Broad Institute) got there first in human cells. How come they beat you to it?
They were absolutely set up to do that kind of experiment. They had all the tools, the cells growing, everything was there. For us, they were hard experiments to do because its not thekind of science we do. What speaksto the ease of the system was that a lab like mine could even do it.

The Broad Institute won the latest round of an ongoing legal battle over patent rights they claim that it wasnt obvious that Crispr could be used to edit human cells too. Where do you stand?
People have asked me over and over again: Did you know it was going to work? But until you do an experiment you dont know thats science. Ive been lambasted for this in the media, but I have to be true to who I am as a scientist. We certainly had a hypothesisand it certainly seemed likea very good guess that it would.

Theres the patent dispute and you and Emmanuelle Charpentier also ended up pursuing rival projects to commercialise the technology. Are you all still friends?
If theres a sadness to me about all of this and a lot of its been wonderful and really exciting its that I wouldve loved to continue working with Emmanuelle, scientifically. For multiple reasons that wasnt desirable to her. Im not blaming her at all she had her reasons and I respect her a lot.

The media loves to drive wedges, but we are very cordial. I was just with her in Spain and she was telling me about the challenges [of building her new lab in Berlin]. I hope on her side, certainly on my side, we respect each others work and in the end were all init together.

In your book you describe a nightmare youhad involving Hitler wearing a pig mask, asking to learn more about your amazing technology. Do you still have anxiety dreams about where Crispr mightleave the human race?
I had the Hitler dream and Ive had a couple of other very scary dreams, almost like nightmares, which is quite unusual for an adult. Not so much lately, but in the first couple of years after I published my work, the field was moving so fast. I had this incredible feeling that the science was getting out way ahead of any considerations about ethics, societal implications and whether we should be worrying about random people in various parts of the world using this for nefarious purposes.

In 2015, you called for a moratorium on the clinical use of gene editing. Where do you stand on using Crispr to edit embryos these days?
It shouldnt be used clinically today, but in the future possibly. Thats a big change for me. At first, I just thought why would you ever do it? Then I started to hear from people with genetic diseases in their family this is now happening every day for me. Alot of them send me pictures of their children. There was one that Icant stop thinking about, just sent to me in the last 10 days or so. A mother who told me that her infant son was diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease, caused by a sporadic rare mutation. She sent me a picture of thislittle boy. He was this adorable little baby, he was bald, in his little carrier and so cute. I have a son and myheart just broke.

What would you do as a mother? You see your child and hes beautiful, hes perfect and you know hes going to suffer from this horrible disease and theres nothing you can do about it. Its horrible. Getting exposed to that, getting to know some of these people, its not abstract any more, its very personal. And you think, if there were away to help these people, we should do it. It would be wrong not to.

What about the spectre of designerbabies?
A lot of it will come down to whether the technology is safe and effective, are there alternatives that would be equally effective that we should consider, and what are the broader societal implications of allowing gene editing? Are people going to start saying I want a child thats 6ft 5in and has blue eyes and so on? Do we really want to go there? Would you do things that are not medically necessary but are just nice-to-haves, for some people?Its a hard question. There area lot of grey areas.

Are you worried about cuts to science funding, including to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget?
I am very concerned. Science funding is not a political football but in fact a down payment on discovery, the seed money to fund a critical step toward ending Alzheimers or curing cancer.

Researchers currently working on projects aimed at improving numerous aspects of our agriculture, environment and health may be forced to abandon their work. The outcome is that people will not receive the medical treatments they need, our struggle to feed our exploding population will deepen, and our efforts to manage climate change will collapse.

Over the long term, the very role of fundamental science as a means to better our society may come into question. History and all evidence points to the fact that when we inspire and support our scientific community we advance our way of life and thrive.

Were you disturbed when Trump tweeted, If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS? in response to a planned alt-right speaker being cancelled due to violent protests on campus?
Yes. It was a confusing tweet since the university was clearly committed to ensuring that the event would proceed safely and first amendment rights were supported. Few expected the awful actions of a few to be met with a willingness from the highest office to deprive more than 38,000 students access to an education.

Youve spoken at Davos, shared the $3m2015 Breakthrough prize, been listedamong the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. Areyou still motivated about heading intothe lab these days?
Yesterday I was getting ready to go to a fancy dinner. I was in a cocktail gown and had my makeup on and my hair done, but I wanted to talk to a postdoc in my lab about an experiment he was doing, so I texted him saying can we Skype? It was 8am in California, I was over here [in the UK] in my full evening gown, talking abouttheexperiment.Thats how nerdy I am.

A Crack in Creation: The New Power to Control Evolution by Jennifer Doudna and Sam Sternberg is published by The Bodley Head (20). To order a copy for 17 go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over 10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of 1.99

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/02/jennifer-doudna-crispr-i-have-to-be-true-to-who-i-am-as-a-scientist-interview-crack-in-creation