The possibility of using the popular genome-editing tool CRISPR to treat a number of diseases in humans is becoming a reality. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) are DNA sequences in prokaryotes (unicellular organisms). CRISPR is one laboratory method of altering the DNA and can be used as a tool for gene therapy, whereas standard gene therapy is a complete domain of treating genetic disorders by using a number of techniques of genetic manipulation. CRISPR tools were first identified in E. coli in 1987 by a Japanese scientist, Yoshizumi Ishino, and his team. 

In 2012, George Church, Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and Feng Zhang discovered that by designing guide RNA to target a specific region in the genome, “the CRISPR system” can be used as a “cut-and-paste” tool to modify genomes. As a DNA-editing tool, CRISPR can remove or introduce new genes as well as inactivate or activate genes. George Church and his team also predicted that in the near future, the CRISPR tool may also be used to cure genetic disorders in humans such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. A team of researchers from Boston used CRISPR technology to treat sickle cell patients by editing a strand of DNA in the host body. With the use of this tool, they were able to disable fetal hemoglobin.– a big step towards gene therapy for sickle cell diseases. Scientists have also cured cystic fibrosis by replacing the defective gene with the wild-type gene using the CRISPR system. 

The development of cancer therapy using gene editing has become one of the latest focuses of CRISPR technology. By editing cells to remove genes that can allow cells to be inactivated by cancer cells, adding genes that allow immune cells to better target cancers, researchers provide a way to harness the body’s own defense mechanisms to better treat various cancers. In 2016, Chinese researchers treated the first cancer patient with CRISPR therapy. With the technology, researchers extracted the blood of the patient, disabled the gene that codes for a protein that keeps the immune system in check, and hence shielded cancer cells in the process. The scientists then reinjected the cells and cured the patient.

The medical technology of CRISPR gained further popularity in 2019 when more results appeared from testing the tool in people, and then more studies were launched. Researchers decided that they will look ahead to more applications of CRISPR genome editing that could lay the foundation for treating a couple of diseases ranging from blood disorders to hereditary blindness. 

  Many scientists believe CRISPR is a much easier tool for locating and cutting DNA at a specific spot, so interest in the new research is very high. Patients of Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) are good candidates for this treatment. LCA is caused by a gene mutation that keeps the body from making a protein required to convert light rays into signals to the brain, which enable vision. These patients are often born with low vision and this can even deteriorate within a few years. Scientists can’t treat it with standard gene therapy because it is too big to fit inside the disabled viruses that are used to ferry it into cells. In 2020, researchers aimed to edit or delete the mutation in LCA patients by making two cuts on either side of DNA that would reconnect and allow the gene to work as it should. They scheduled several LCA patients for an hour-long surgery to treat the visual impairment. 

Last week, researchers revealed the first evidence that the tool appears to be working and improving vision for patients with the condition of LCA. Carlene Knight was one of those patients and her vision was so bad that she couldn’t even do her job in the call center where she worked using her cane. “I was bumping into the cubicles and really scaring people that were sitting at them,” says Knight, who was born with the rare genetic eye disease. Knight was one of seven patients who volunteered to let doctors modify their DNA by injecting gene-editing tool CRISPR directly into cells that are still in their bodies. Her life completely changed as a result of volunteering for a landmark medical experiment. Her vision has improved enough for her to make out doorways, see objects, sunsets, and colors. The therapy was successful for everyone in the trial and the treatment proved far from curing the patients, and the changes they experienced are significant to have a positive impact on their daily lives.”It’s a really amazing technology and very powerful,” says Dr. Mark Pennesi, professor of ophthalmology at the Casey Eye Institute at the Oregon Health & Science University. He presented the results at an International Symposium on Retinal Degeneration in Nashville, Tennessee. Pennesi cautioned that more patients need to be treated and followed longer to confirm if the approach is safe and to determine just how much it can help visually impaired patients. But the current results are so promising that the researchers have given a green light to move on to the next group of patients. CRISPR genome editing has proved to be a remarkable method to restore vision to the people. It is the kind of advancement which is motivating researchers to come up with new ways to treat hereditary diseases. CRISPR genome editing has revolutionized biological research. The treatment is still in the early phase, but many scientists indicate that CRISPR mediated therapeutic innovation absolutely holds immense promise.

The humble origins of the internet bridged a much-needed gap in networking and communications. It established a means for collaboration and interaction between individuals and computers independent of location. This simple tool revolutionised not only how we access and consume data, but it has also had major influences on our social behaviour through the development of social media sites.

One of the most used social media sites is Facebook, through which the evolution of ever more engaging and interactive social media apps such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok have come into inception. Whilst there are many benefits of social media, such as sharing ideas, connecting with family abroad and promoting business, there are concerns about its long-term effects on human psychology. Recent research reveals the potential risks social media carries in facilitating the development of addictive behaviours, especially among the young. Companies need to do more to address these concerns and find solutions to tackle these growing issues, but are they doing enough?   

Last month The Wall Street Journal published leaked reports of Facebook’s internal research into the mental health impact of Instagram on teens. Reports unsurprisingly revealed that Instagram has been negatively impacting the youth’s mental health, particularly that of young teenage girls. Instagram is the second most popular social media app after Facebook in the US and increasingly attracts the attention of the younger population. However, Facebook denies The Wall Street Journal’s interpretation of its internal research and labels it as “not accurate” and limited. Facebook’s UX research team have felt that they are downplaying the reports as well as undermining their employee’s ability to do their job properly.

The detrimental effect social media is having on young minds is not novel as recent research has reported similar conclusions. An article from The Wall Street Journal tells the story of a young Anastasia Vlasova’s development of an eating disorder, influenced through making unhealthy comparisons with herself and the images promoted to her of toned bodies, unrealistic beauty standards and lifestyles. A further study entitled ‘The impact of social media use on appearance self-esteem from childhood to adolescence’ was published this year. It discovered that social media users who view content more – as opposed to posting their pictures online – are more likely to experience low self-esteem. This directly compares to users who post more pictures of themselves and thus are recipients of positive feedback in the form of ‘likes’ which enhances their self-esteem. However, neither ends of the spectrum have a positive effect on the long-term mental health of teens and young adults. Although posting images of oneself may enhance the user’s self-esteem and confidence through likes, the direct association between the two can also act as a double-edged sword whereby it can trigger the brain’s reward system and develop addictive behaviours.

Another major concern for the youth is the regulation of social media content. Content viewed is the outcome of machine learning algorithms which form the underlying framework of how social media app’s function. These algorithms are programmed to collect data on user activity and identify their search patterns to tailor a more personalised experience towards them and ultimately increase user engagement. Increased engagement with certain types of content can also cause users to become entrapped into ‘social media bubbles’ where they are exposed to more polarized content which may either be harmful or beneficial. It has been established that the adolescent brain tends to be more vulnerable to developing addictions, therefore additional protection is needed on apps like Instagram where nearly “ two-thirds of its users are aged between 18-29” and 72% of users in the US are 13–17-year-olds. These concerns have additionally been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has seen a rise in social media usage worldwide. 

Companies have done little to nothing to address these major causes for concern. Recent efforts were underway by Instagram to develop an “Instagram Kids”, a service for children aged 13 years old and younger – but recent reports tell us that they are pausing development of that feature and placing emphasis on parental supervision. In a recent interview with 60 Minutes Frances Haugen – the Facebook whistle-blower who leaked the reports to The Wall Street Journal suggested Facebook was aware of the negative mental health effects on teens but continuously chose to prioritise the optimization of their financial interests. 

Tackling these issues requires collective and collaborative effort and should not rely solely on parental supervision. Facebook needs to put morality over profits. If profits are an issue, they should invest in the development of new money-making models that protect vulnerable people. Governments also need to do more by implementing legislation which protects the interests of the public and safeguards the mental health of vulnerable people and children from ill effects of social media. Schools can also play a key role in spreading awareness about these issues and promoting students to adopt a healthy balance between social media usage and recreational activities.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the widespread use of the malaria vaccine recently. This drug was administered in three African countries, Ghana, Malawi, and Kenya and it showed positive results in all of them.

The malaria vaccine aims to kill the disease which aims at children under the age of five. Additionally, a lot of work was done by African scientists to develop the vaccine. According to Dr. Akpaka Kalu, a WHO Regional Advisor for Tropical and Vector-borne Disease, “the datasets that were generated in these studies and field trials were by African scientists,” adding “we hope that the same technology used for Covid vaccines will be used to manufacture malaria vaccines and other vaccines in the future.”

The RTS, S/AS01 (RTS, S) malaria vaccine is recommended to be used in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions with high P.falciparum malaria transmission by WHO. The WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that “this is a historic moment. The long-awaited malaria vaccine for children is a breakthrough for science, child health and malaria control,” and “using this vaccine on top of existing tools to prevent malaria could save tens of thousands of young lives each year” This vaccine was proven effective six years ago but was recently approved by WHO to be administered all over the African continent.

Malaria is a disease that mostly affects children and infants. This is a prevalent disease in Africa that affects more than 260,000 children under five, annually. Since it is caused by mosquitoes, drugs to kill the parasite, insecticide to kill mosquitoes, and bed-nets have all reduced the rate of the infection. However, Africa still has a pretty high rate of infections.

Clinical trials have proved that this vaccine offers 39% protection to infants and children under five. Sadly, the effects of the vaccine fade over time. This is why Dr. Doyin Odubanjo, a public health expert stated that “the vaccine is effective enough in reducing the cases of severe malaria though it is not generally highly effective and its effect wanes quickly as too,” adding “this means that we must not abandon the other tools.”

According to Dr. Pedro Alonso, “we’ve been looking for a malaria vaccine for over 100 years now, it will save lives and prevent disease in African children.” So, finding a vaccine that will help combat this infection is a historical achievement. The WHO needs to ensure the vaccine reaches all parts of Africa while other preventive methods are still in action. If done effectively, malaria may no longer be a concern in the near future. 

The Chinese government’s announcement of new restrictions on video games for children under 18 has sparked a debate between Australian parents and experts on whether Australia should implement similar regulations.

The Chinese government’s restrictions on video games limit children to play only three hours a week on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, between 8 and 9pm. 

This comes after the World Health Organisation classified gaming addiction as a disease. 67% of Australians of all ages are affected by this addiction. 

However, Hugh Davis, expert in mobile gaming from Melbourne’s RMIT University says that parents should lead as role models. He proposes that they should reflect on their screentime habits from tv to the laptop and mobile phone devices to ensure they are setting healthy standards for their kids and themselves.

Kim Lee, a child psychiatrist who specialises in gaming addition, says such a restriction may relieve parents as they will no longer have to be the gaming police in their family.  

Dr Lee further says that the Chinese government has simply tried to tame the beast that is video games over the years with restrictions and curfews on children’s gaming habits.

According to Dr Lee, “I’m seeing more children with physical complications and side effects from video games.”

He believes Australia has a gaming problem and is urging the Australian government to act. 

“When I’m working with families on video game addiction, I’m seeing children who are refusing to go to school, they might be developing depression or anxiety, they might be violent towards their parents, spending thousands and thousands of dollars on their parents credit cards” he said. 

An estimate of 4-10% of Australians have allegedly problematic gaming behaviour. A Department of Health report by the Australian government found that 4% of all teenagers have a gaming addiction, which is an estimate of 78,000 Australian teenagers. 

Professor of Communication and Media at Bond University, Jeff Brand who has been researching gaming in Australia for the past 16 years believe a bar on gaming would be disastrous. As Australia continuously creates more educational games. He says, limiting games to only three hours a week or only to weekends would cut educational games first.

According to Professor Jeff, “Science tells us that one to two hours a day of engaging in media activity is healthy because it helps us have conversations with others in society.”

The statistics for Australia compare to the 30% of Chinese children in 2018 suffering from a gaming disorder. Considering these statistics, can restrictions be the next step for Australia?

The Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns may likely change those figures as the primary mode of children communicating with their friends in lockdown is through such gaming platforms. The conflicting views of Australian parents begs the question, is Australia really already in need of such gaming restrictions?