Importance of CRISPR Surpasses Pluto Ballot Stuffing Effort
Making the cut: CRISPR genome-editing technology shows its power, Science
“[CRISPR] was conceived after a yogurt company in 2007 identified an unexpected defense mechanism that its bacteria use to fight off viruses. A birth announcement came in 2012, followed by crucial first steps in 2013 and a massive growth spurt last year. Now, it has matured into a molecular marvel, and much of the worldnot just biologistsis taking notice of the genome-editing method CRISPR, Science’s 2015 Breakthrough of the Year.”
“For the second year in a row, the public weighed in through the Internet, voting for its top discovery while the Breakthrough team was hammering out its choices. High on the list, the results mirrored Science staffers’ own deliberations. CRISPR surged to an early lead, as high-profile meetings and magazine articles focused public attention on the genome-editing technique. Pluto, a media darling in July when the New Horizons probe swooped past it en route to points beyond, was a distant second. But the dwarf planet rallied, as New Horizons scientists blitzed Twitter with get-out-the-vote tweets. When the final returns were in, Pluto finished comfortably ahead of CRISPR in the popular vote.”
Keith’s note: NASA used its 13.5 million followers on Twitter @NASA in a last minute effort to stuff the ballot box so as to give the impression that the nation thought that Pluto was the most important breakthrough of the year. Luckily this was just a poll – a skewed one at that. The editors of Science clearly saw through this and named CRISPR as this year’s breakthrough.
Dear NASA: Some Things Are More Important Than You, earlier post
“CRISPR was leading Pluto in the Science magazine poll until NASA decided to skew the results by using its 13.5 million follower Twitter account to tell people to vote for Pluto. Just because NASA can use its social media presence to make a loud impact does not necessarily mean that it should automatically do so – without exercising some strategic thought to decide if it is truly the best use of that power. NASA should focus on explaining the whole #JourneyToMars thing, spreading planetary climate change information, education, advanced technology, etc. and let the biomedical “breakthroughs” have their day in the sun. New Horizons will never save a single human life. CRISPR will.”
Agreed 100% with you here, Keith. No offense to the Pluto Team, but CRISPR absolutely dwarfs scientific research involving Pluto in terms of importance.
If a vote is not fair, it is not meaningful.
CRISPR will change humanity and the environment in ways not even predictable. It is difficult to imagine a more serious issue facing us.
Pandora has opened her little box.
I think Keith points out a lot of what is wrong under the current (and for the last 7 years) Bolden NASA Administration. It shows his shallowness.
Instead of explaining what we are doing, why we are doing it, and gaining support in the process, the Bolden approach is to try and gain support through smoke, mirrors, and duplicity. They are much more into social media numbers than meaningful understanding. The program might be inspiring, but why expend any money on education to explain to anyone what is inspiring or why it ought to be inspiring.
Good call by the Science management and staff. Continuing nonexistent leadership and shallowness by Bolden and his cronies.
Perhaps you shoud explain what you think NASA should be doing, and what they should be explaining to gain support for it. Simply saying that everything is the fault of one or more individuals you do not like is not very convincing.