Counting all viral vector therapies that have been approved, we’re sitting at 19 approved therapies versus 1 for CRISPR.
I think CRISPR ideas in a lab are just an easy way into the mainstream press, but viral vector delivery is the real future. It just didn’t get the same news cycle, for whatever reason.
> Much like other CRISPR therapies, delivery is a critical challenge, i.e., getting the large genome-cutting enzyme to all the targeted cells efficiently.
makes me think this is in vitro so far. So, years to decades away from being available for actual treatment in humans. Still good news.
CRISPR was the cause of a huge patent case and likely led to a change in US patent law because the impracticability of deciding who did something first in the laboratory.
It continues to influence research as some nations took a while to decide how they would resolve their own researchers' CRISPR claims with respect to MIT/UC Berkeley.
And yet... all the research has continued apace.
Edit: the CRISPR patent cases are continuing even today
https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/05/12/federal-appeals-court-s...
https://www.broadinstitute.org/crispr/journalists-statement-...
Over the past 1-2 decades there has been unbelievable progress at the basic technology level but most people are unimpressed because they haven't translated yet due to not individually being sufficient to cause an explosion of progress. IMO, we're starting to see it finally as so many different technologies have gotten so cheap, fast, and good.
As a result, life science researchers are more price-taking than proce-setting when it comes to their wages / salary. If money is the motivator, then the market as-is isn’t addressing this one.
If that's not what you want, you'd need something like a virus to spread it. But then you have to ask yourself: what if that virus mutates? The specialization to certain gene markers is an evolutionary disadvantage, so evolution will tend to make it lose that restriction. Ooops.
Like many things of this nature, people keep bringing it up because it sounds Very Scary and Very Dystopian - not because it's worth giving an actual fuck about.
Private pharmaceutical R&D spending in the U.S. is around $100bn per year [1]. NIH spends another $50bn a year on biomedical research [2].
That eclipses total investments into adtech per se, which generously counted shouldn’t exceed $50 to 60bn. (And that only by counting like a third to a half of Google, Amazon, et cetera R&D and capital spending as adtech.) More precisely counted, it probably doesn’t exceed $10bn.
[1] https://phrma.org/blog/phrma-member-companies-rd-investments...
[2] https://www.science.org/content/article/final-nih-budget-202...
Adtech works because there is a lot of money in it. There is a lot of money in it because people seek quick entertainment, and we have a LOT of people driving the demand.
Now compare that to cancer research. There's no short term gratification about it.
There's a wide world outside big tech, Silicon Valley, and software in general. It only tends to be a bit less visible online.
Innovative chromatin shredding technique shown to selectively destroy cancer cells carrying a mutation found in nearly half of all cancer cases
The job of a tumor suppressor protein is right in the name: stopping us from getting cancer at the cellular level. But when they’re not working properly, the cell is left with limited defenses.
In a new paper published today in the journal Nature titled “Targeting Cancer-Specific Mutations with RNA-Triggered Chromatin Shredding,“ researchers at the Innovative Genomics Institute (IGI) at UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, and Gladstone Institutes, along with collaborators at University of Utah and Utah State University, report that a creative new CRISPR-based approach can selectively destroy cells carrying a mutation in a tumor suppressor found in nearly half of all cancers and up to 70–90% of cases of some of the most difficult-to-treat cancers, including ovarian, pancreatic, and non-small cell lung cancer.
“Not only can this approach target the ‘undruggable’ cancers that we know, we can also easily and quickly adapt this to new mutations,” says IGI Founder Jennifer Doudna, a co-author on the paper. “This is an exciting development for cancer therapies, and potentially for other applications as well.”
First author Jingkun Zeng, a postdoctoral researcher in Doudna’s lab, did his Ph.D. research at the Francis Crick Institute on cancer evolution and was looking to find new ways to target the so-called “undruggable” cancer mutations and thought tumor suppressors might hold the key.
“If you look at all the cancer drugs right now, they’re mostly inhibitors. They suppress an overactive cancer gene,” says Zeng. “But for tumor suppressors, it’s the opposite. When they develop a mutation, they lose their function. They can no longer suppress tumor formation.”
The role of a specific protein called p53 as a tumor suppressor has been known since the late 1980s. Mutations in this gene help cancers grow uninhibited and are common across many cancer types. Because of this, and because it is often an early mutation that drives later mutations in the cancer-causing cascade, researchers have long considered it one of the premium targets for cancer therapy. Despite the promise, not a single p53-targeting drug has made it to the market. Not only do tumor suppressor proteins lack “druggable pockets,” the areas on the molecule where small molecule drugs can fit like a key in a lock, it’s not clear how drugging mutated p53 protein could help it do its job.
Zeng, inspired by reading a paper from the Doudna Lab on using CRISPR to shred repetitive sequences in brain tumors, thought there might be an alternative to reactivating broken tumor suppressors: finding cells with cancer-specific mutations and eliminating them entirely.
“People generally, and especially in the gene editing field, want to fix genes or knock out genes,” says Zeng. “But what I wanted to do here is completely different. I wanted to destroy abnormal cells, precisely and safely.”
This approach takes CRISPR back to its roots; in nature CRISPR systems are destroyers not fixers. They defend microbes against infections by cutting the genetic material of invading viruses to prevent damage and replication. Instead of reactivating a broken p53 protein, the research team reasoned that they could harness CRISPR’s natural ability to find cells with specific mutations and use its cutting ability to selectively destroy those cells.

Jingkun Zeng, postdoctoral researcher in the Doudna Lab at the IGI and Gladstone Institutes
The research team engineered a CRISPR system called CRISPR-Cas12a2 to look for the specific RNA transcript produced only by cells with the mutated cancer gene. In bacteria, this CRISPR acts as a suicide pill, intentionally killing a cell that has been infected by a virus to prevent its spread. In the newly engineered version, once the system detects a cancer signature within a cell, the Cas12a2 enzyme activates and initiates “chromatin shredding,” slicing up all the genetic material inside that specific cell. This widespread genetic demolition triggers cell death, destroying mutated cells while leaving healthy cells completely untouched.
“This new approach reimagines how CRISPR can be used as a precision tool to find and eliminate cancer cells across a variety of cancer types. It may open up many new previously undruggable targets for cancer therapy,” says co-author Alan Ashworth, President of the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF and co-director of the CRISPR Cures for Cancer initiative.
For this approach to be useful in real-world situations, however, it has to be precise and not cause harm to healthy cells. To test the accuracy of this method, the team introduced the CRISPR-Cas12a2 system into mammalian cell cultures containing both healthy and cancerous cells. The system successfully distinguished between the two, initiating chromatin shredding and cell death only when the specific mutant RNA was present. Cells carrying the healthy, wild-type version were left almost entirely unharmed.
“Those two cell lines, they just differed by one nucleotide change,” says Zeng. “When people treat cancer with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, that’s essentially killing all the dividing cells in the body, including healthy cells. With this technology, it’s much, much more precise.”
While the team is excited about the results with p53, Zeng thinks that the main advantage of this technology is that it is programmable, just like more traditional types of CRISPR gene editing.
“In cancer, when there’s a new mutation, we can now easily make a new guide RNA to find the new mutation and test if it’s effective. This is much faster than making a small molecule drug or antibody therapy,” says Zeng.
Zeng is now thinking about the next steps with this approach and how to overcome some of its limitations. Much like other CRISPR therapies, delivery is a critical challenge, i.e., getting the large genome-cutting enzyme to all the targeted cells efficiently. He also thinks that combination therapies may prove useful for some cancers in the future.
Read more: Targeting Cancer-Specific Mutations with RNA-Triggered Chromatin Shredding. Zeng J, et al. (2026), Nature DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10738-7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10738-7
Top image by Issah, Adobe Stock
By Andy Murdock
Andy Murdock is a science writer, evolutionary biologist, and Communications Director for the Innovative Genomics Institute. Before joining the IGI, Andy managed research communications for UC Office of the President, edited journals for Informa Life Sciences, and worked in the travel industry as Managing Editor for Airbnb and Digital Editor for Lonely Planet. Andy’s writing has appeared in Vox, BBC, Discovery, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and more. Andy has a Ph.D. in Integrative Biology from UC Berkeley, where he focused green plant phylogenetics, ancient fern lineages, and the evolution of plant genomes.