Crispr gene-editing technology has demonstrated its revolutionary potential in recent years: It has been used to treat rare diseases, to adapt crops to withstand the extremes of climate change, or even to change the color of a spider’s web. But the greatest hope is that this technology will help find a cure for a global disease, such as diabetes. A new study points in that direction.

For the first time, researchers succeeded in implanting Crispr-edited pancreatic cells in a man with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease where the immune system attacks insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. Without insulin, the body is then unable to regulate blood sugar. If steps aren’t taken to manage glucose levels by other means (typically, by injecting insulin), this can lead to damage to the nerves and organs—particularly the heart, kidneys, and eyes. Roughly 9.5 million people worldwide have type 1 diabetes.

In this experiment, edited cells produced insulin for months after being implanted, without the need for the recipient to take any immunosuppressive drugs to stop their body attacking the cells. The Crispr technology allowed the researchers to endow the genetically modified cells with camouflage to evade detection.

The study, published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine, details the step-by-step procedure. First, pancreatic islet cells were taken from a deceased donor without diabetes, and then altered with the gene-editing technique Crispr-Cas12b to allow them to evade the immune response of the diabetes patient. Cells altered like this are said to be “hypoimmune,” explains Sonja Schrepfer, a professor at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in California and the scientific cofounder of Sana Biotechnology, the company that developed this treatment.

The edited cells were then implanted into the forearm muscle of the patient, and after 12 weeks, no signs of rejection were detected. (A subsequent report from Sana Biotechnology notes that the implanted cells were still evading the patient’s immune system after six months.)

Tests run as part of the study recorded that the cells were functional: The implanted cells secreted insulin in response to glucose levels, representing a key step toward controlling diabetes without the need for insulin injections. Four adverse events were recorded during follow-ups with the patient, but none of them were serious or directly linked to the modified cells.

The researchers’ ultimate goal is to apply immune-camouflaging gene edits to stem cells—which have the ability to reproduce and differentiate themselves into other cell types inside the body—and then to direct their development into insulin-secreting islet cells. “The advantage of engineering hypoimmune stem cells is that when these stem cells proliferate and create new cells, the new cells are also hypoimmune,” Schrepfer explained in a Cedars-Sinai Q+A earlier this year.

Traditionally, transplanting foreign cells into a patient has required suppressing the patient’s immune system to avoid them being rejected. This carries significant risks: infections, toxicity, and long-term complications. “Seeing patients die from rejection or severe complications from immunosuppression was frustrating to me, and I decided to focus my career on developing strategies to overcome immune rejection without immunosuppressive drugs,” Schrepfer told Cedars-Sinai.

Although the research marks a milestone in the search for treatments of type 1 diabetes, it’s important to note that the study involved one one participant, who received a low dose of cells for a short period—not enough for the patient to no longer need to control their blood sugar with injected insulin. An editorial by the journal Nature also says that some independent research groups have failed in their efforts to confirm that Sana’s method provides edited cells with the ability to evade the immune system.

Sana will be looking to conduct more clinical trials starting next year. Without overlooking the criticisms and limitations of the current study, the possibility of transplanting cells modified to be invisible to the immune system opens up a very promising horizon in regenerative medicine.

This story originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

Children under 15 in France should be banned entirely from using social media, and those aged between 15 and 18 should face a nighttime “digital curfew,” a French parliamentary committee urged on Thursday.

The recommendations were put forward in a report by the committee’s lawmakers after months of testimony from families, social media executives, and from influencers.

President Emmanuel Macron’s office has already indicated it wants to see a ban for children and young adolescents, after Australia last year started drafting its own landmark law with a prohibition for those under 16.

The committee had been set up in March, initially to examine TikTok and its psychological effects on minors after a 2024 lawsuit against the platform by seven families accusing the platform of exposing their children to content pushing them towards suicide.

Its lead report writer, Laure Miller, said the addictive design of TikTok and its algorithm “has been copied by other social media.”

TikTok has stressed that the safety of young users of its app is its “top priority.”

Geraldine, the mother of an 18-year-old woman who committed suicide, told AFP that, after her daughter’s death last year, she had discovered videos of self-harm her daughter had published and looked at on TikTok.

“TikTok didn’t kill our little girl, because she wasn’t well in any case,” said Geraldine, 52, who declined to be identified by her last name.

But she accused TikTok of falling short in its online moderation, and plunging her daughter deeper into her dark impulses.

TikTok testimony

Executives for TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDace, told the parliamentary committee that the app used AI-enhanced moderation that last year caught 98% of content infringing its terms of service in France.

But for the lawmakers, those efforts were deemed insufficient, and TikTok’s rules were “very easy to circumvent.”

It also found that harmful content continued to proliferate on the app, and TikTok’s algorithm was effective in drawing young users into loops reinforcing such content.

The committee’s report suggested that the ban on children under 15 using social media could be broadened to everyone under 18 if, within the next three years, the platforms did not respect European laws.

Its recommendation for a “digital curfew” for users aged 15 to 18 was for social media to be made unavailable to them between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am.

© 2025 AFP

“You could be next,” influencer and unofficial Trump adviser Laura Loomer posted on X. “The Left are terrorists.”

Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who popularized the demonization of critical race theory, suggested in a post on X that the “radical left” was responsible for the shooting, and urged the US government “to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.”

Republican representative Derrick Van Orden from Wisconsin also blamed the shooting on “leftwing political violence” and warned on X that “whoever does not condemn this is part of the problem. The gloves are off.”

On the floor of the House, after Democrats and Republicans observed a “moment of prayer,” led by House speaker Mike Johnson, for Charlie Kirk and his family, representative Lauren Boebert called for a spoken prayer. Some Democrats said no, and referenced the school shooting in Colorado that also occurred Wednesday. Shouting broke out, and Republican representative Anna Paulina Luna yelled across the aisle, “Y’all caused this.” One Democrat, according to The New York Times, responded, “Pass some gun laws!”

On X, Luna continued to blame the left: “EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS. You were too busy doping up kids, cutting off their genitals, inciting racial violence by supporting orgs that exploit minorities, protecting criminals, and stirring hate. YOU ARE THE HATE you claim to fight. Your words caused this. Your hate caused this.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also posted about Kirk’s death, calling on people to “rise up and end this.”

Blake Masters, a twice-failed US congressional candidate once backed by Palantir cofounder Peter Thiel and endorsed by Trump, called for RICO investigations into nongovernmental organizations as a result of the shooting.

“Left-wing violence is out of control, and it’s not random,” Masters posted on X. “Either we destroy the NGO/donor patronage network that enables and foments it, or it will destroy us.”

Masters was quoting a post from right-wing podcaster and conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, who blamed the shooting on the left. “Congressional hearings now,” Cernovich posted on X. “Every billionaire funding far left wing extremism. Soros, Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman. Massive RICO investigations now.”

Chaya Raichik, who operates the anti-LGBTQ account Libs of TikTok, simply wrote: “THIS IS WAR.”

On fringe platforms like Trump’s own Truth Social and The Donald, the rabidly pro-Trump message board that was responsible for some of the planning of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, numerous users echoed Jones’ comments about war.

“War is coming,” one user of The Donald wrote on a thread dedicated to Kirk’s shooting. “War is here,” another responded.

Another user of The Donald wrote in the same thread: “Civil War is coming … this will give the left the blowback they’ve been begging white people for so they can play the victim and justify white genocide.”