Should patients—not the FDA— have final say on risky gene therapy treatments?

gene therapy

Working with mice, researchers have used gene therapy to restore sight to the blind, reprogram the body’s own T cells to attack cancerous tumors, prevent the formation of amyloid plaques in Alzheimer’s brains, and more. But the US Food and Drug Administration and many other international regulatory bodies have been slow to approve human trials due to the high risks associated with tinkering with a patient’s DNA.

Liz Parrish thinks that the FDA and the medical establishment have it backward. Parrish is the founder and CEO of BioViva, a Seattle-based company that is pushing for open access to potentially life-saving gene therapy technology now, not later. The real risk, Parrish argues, is that more than a hundred thousand people die each day, and millions more suffer, while we wait for regulatory agencies to approve drugs that can save lives.

BioViva isn’t a research institute and Parrish isn’t a scientist. Instead, the company positions itself as a “translational engine,” a private company bringing together international researchers and physicians to speed the delivery of experimental therapies.

The only way to truly know if these therapies work in human bodies — as opposed to mice or human cells in the lab — is to give patients the right to decide if the risk is worth it. And the more people who choose to undergo these therapies, the more data BioViva can collect and publish about their true risk and efficacy.

Read full, original post: Who Should Decide If Gene Therapy Is Too Risky, Patients or the FDA?

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

As Europe sees record coronavirus cases and deaths, Slovakia is testing its entire adult population. WSJ's Drew Hinshaw explains how ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend