It's hard to predict when we might die, but the hope is that it won't happen until we're fairly old.

But researchers don't want to stop there. For years, scientists have been struggling to figure out what our DNA can tell us about how and why we age. 

And scientists may be getting closer to figuring out how to work with specific genes to do things like help people live longer.

In a new partnership that will try to sort through some of this genetic information, the geneaology company Ancestry, which helps you track your family history and recently launched a personal genetics branch called AncestryDNA, will work with Google's Calico, a biotechnology company devoted to learning how to extend the human lifespan.

Calico's publicly stated mission is to figure out how to fight aging, but so far, they haven't been incredibly clear about what that means.

Their recent efforts include partnering with universities and drug companies that focus on finding cures and treatments for neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). On Tuesday, they announced they'd be teaming up with Ancestry.com, which has access to more than 1 million sets of DNA.

“The Calico science team decided, what if we used a data set like what Ancestry.com has to identify people who have a longer-than-expected lifespan in their family?” Ken Chahine, the executive vice president and general manager of DNA and health, told Business Insider.

In other words, they thought, they could use Ancestry's data to see which families tend to live longer. 

Using genetics to extend life

Past research has linked specific personality traits, like conscientiousness and extroversion, to a longer life expectancy, but the research into genetics has been a bit less specific. So far, studies have suggested that some aspects of longevity run in families: People who live decades longer than the average lifespan are possibly inheriting certain genes that give them a boost against some forms of disease, while others are predisposed to get those diseases.

But the genetic markers are just one aspect of increased lifespan, with environment and lifestyle choices also likely playing big roles.

Ancestry + DNA + Health?

AncestryDNA offers $99 DNA testing kits that give consumers a look into where their ancestors migrated from, as far back as 10 generations. The company processes the DNA you send in (via spitting in a tube) and looks for matches in its existing database. 

Ancestry has had a big month so far: Last week, the company hit 1 million DNA samples — the same milestone genetic testing company 23andMe hit last month. About 90% of people who submit DNA samples consent to sharing their data anonymously with companies such as Calico. That’s higher than 23andMe’s rate of 80%.

It's also announced the move to start AncestryHealth, a tool to track family health history. Instead of going back to check with your mom about what disease your great-great-uncle had, the company says the health tool would compile all that information for you in a way that's easy to pull up.

While good news for identifying a potential fourth cousin (assuming that person is in the Ancestry.com database), it could also be helpful for health research purposes. Academics and corporations alike are especially interested in finding out how to use what we know about our genes to develop more precise drugs. 

Genetically-informed drugs have already helped people with the genetic disorder cystic fibrosis, for example. Researchers have been able to pinpoint certain mutations that responded to the drug and adjust it accordingly.

This is the first time AncestryDNA has partnered with researchers, but Chahine said other deals are in the works. 

DON'T MISS: I sequenced my DNA at a community lab in Brooklyn — and what I learned surprised me

SEE ALSO: 23andMe CEO defends practice of sharing genetic info with pharma companies

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How scientists uncovered a completely new world inside the tunnels of the most powerful physics machine on Earth

Steven Pete can’t feel pain. Timothy Dreyer has bones several times thicker than the average human.

Both conditions were caused by a combination of genetic mutations. While both conditions have negatively impacted the men’s health at various points in their lives, researchers at pharmaceutical companies are paying through the roof to have access to their DNA, and that of others like them.

If the researchers can develop drugs that mimic the effects of the mutations, they may be able to create treatments to solve some of the most challenging disorders, according to an article published today in Bloomberg.

Take, for example, the pharmaceutical company Amgen. By looking at the effects of Dreyer’s thick-bone mutation, they reasoned, they could find a treatment for osteoporosis. People with sclerosteosis, the condition that results from high bone density, are missing a protein that inhibits how thick bones can grow. So the researchers tried hundreds of antibodies over several years to develop a drug that blocks the protein in osteoporosis patients to help their bones grow thicker, reversing the effects of the disease. They tested the drug on mice that went into space (where bones usually lose density) and it worked well--the mice that were given the drug gained bone mineral density while those who were not lost it. Now they are in the final stages of human trials that seem similarly promising.

Genentech has also used genetic information from patients who can’t feel pain to create better painkillers--a market worth $18 billion per year, Bloomberg notes. Some painkillers are addictive, have dangerous side effects, or aren’t potent enough to deal with severe pain, so finding one that stops regulating a sodium channel that Pete’s genes don’t regulate could allow Genentech to create a more perfect painkiller.

For patients like Pete and Dreyer, pharmaceutical companies aren’t creating treatments to reduce the negative effects of their mutations. From an economic perspective, this makes sense--millions of people have osteoporosis, for example, but just 100 patients have sclerosteosis, and the market is just too small. But some patients with these sorts of mutations still offer their genetic information, in exchange for a fair amount of money, and often in the hope that others can still benefit.

This article originally appeared on Popular Science

This article was written by Alexandra Ossola from Popular Science and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. 

SEE ALSO: Two Percent Of People Are Superhumans Who Don't Need More Than A Few Hours Of Sleep

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One of the world's most popular games is getting a huge addition

With a few easy tweaks, scientists can cut-and-paste DNA inside living cells, thanks to a promising new technique that could make possible everything from testing new drugs or curing genetic diseases.

And researchers just discovered a way to make the process a whole lot cheaper and easier, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Developmental Cell.

For less than $100, the new process allows scientists to make some of the key materials needed to modify an organism's entire genome, or it's complete set of DNA, the researchers said.

The advance is based on a technique that allows scientists to narrow in on a specific gene and cut-and-paste bits of DNA to change its function, known as CRISPR-Cas9. Jennifer Doudna at UC Berkeley and her colleagues first discovered this natural process that bacteria use to protect themselves against invading viruses.

But the technique is much more powerful than that — it basically gives scientists the ability to rewrite specific chunks of an organism's genetic code, including that of humans. 

Tweaking our genes

Here's how it works: When a bacterium encounters DNA from a virus, it makes a strand of RNA, a molecular cousin to DNA, that matches the sequence of the viral DNA, known as a guide RNA. The guide RNA latches onto a protein (the Cas9 part of the CRISPR-Cas9 name), and together they search for the matching virus. When they find a match, the protein, which acts like a pair of scissors, cuts up the viral DNA, destroying it. 

The same process can be used to cut-and-paste DNA into virtually any type of living cell. For example, instead of using the protein scissors to cut a virus, they can be used to cut out DNA in a human cell and replace it with DNA of the scientist's choosing.

In this way, it would be possible to swap out a defective version of a gene for a healthy one.

Humans have roughly 20,000 to 25,000 genes, which encode proteins that perform vital jobs in our cells. But our genetic blueprint has a lot of other DNA whose purpose is less obvious. The successor to the human genome project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has identified what 80% of our complete set of DNA does, but the rest remains a mystery.

In the new study, the researchers developed a method that makes it easier to create the guide molecules that home in on the DNA someone wants to tweak. The researchers hilariously named the process "CRISPR-EATING," which stands for "Everything Available Turned Into New Guides."

To demonstrate the technique, the researchers converted nearly 90% of the DNA of the common stomach bacterium E. coli (the harmless variety, not the kind that can make you sick) into 40,000 different guide molecules. Each of these molecules can be used to target any bit of DNA a researcher might want to modify.

For example, if a scientist wants to figure out what a particular gene does, all he or she has to do is cut it out and see what happens. Thousands of these guides can be injected into different cells at once, a process known as genetic screening. These screens can reveal which forms of a gene are present, and whether any of them could lead to disease.

Monitoring a growing embryo

But the researchers who developed this technology have a different use in mind. They plan to track chromosomes, the tightly coiled packages of DNA that contain the genes, in living cells as the cells are dividing. They're hoping to find out what controls the size of the nucleus, the central compartment of a cell that contains the DNA, and other components of the cell as it develops into a many-celled organism.

"This technology will allow us to paint a whole chromosome and look at it live and really follow it ... as it goes through developmental transitions, for example in an embryo," study co-author Rebecca Heald, a molecular and cell biologist at UC Berkeley, said in a statement.

This is important because it means researchers can track changes in the size and structure of chromosomes as the cells divide — and potentially detect changes that could lead to disease.

Earlier this year, Chinese scientists caused a controversy when they announced they'd used the gene editing technique to tweak the genomes of human embryos. The embryos were chosen because they weren't able to survive, but some scientists have warned about the ethics and safety of using this nascent technology in people.

One concern is the fact that the technique is still fairly innacurate, and results in a lot of accidental mutations in other parts of the genome. Of the 86 embryos the Chinese researchers attempted to modify, only 28 of them were successfully changed, and only a fraction of those contained the desired DNA. For the technique to be safe, the accuracy would have to be closer to 100%, the researchers said.

Recently, scientists developed a way to cut down on unwanted mutations by 40%, which could make the technique a lot safer for human use. But the ethical hurdles remain.

SEE ALSO: We just got a step closer to genetically engineering human babies, thanks to this powerful lab technique

NOW READ: This is the game-changing technology that's just been used to genetically modify a human embryo

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists have almost discovered how to resurrect a woolly mammoth

Losing one night of sleep may do far more damage to your body than simply making you groggy the next day.

A few years ago, scientists figured out which genes are associated with your biological clock — the thing that wakes you up in the morning and tells you when you need to get some sleep. 

These so-called "clock genes" make proteins that rise and fall throughout the day and control various bodily functions, including when we sleep and when we wake up. Our body clocks also help regulate many other things, from our body temperature to our heart rate, blood pressure, and metabolism. 

In a small study published earlier this month, researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden found out that our "clock genes," like many of our other genes, may be negatively affected by external factors in our environment, a field of research known as epigenetics. And these changes, they hypothesized, could take place over the course of just a single night of missed sleep.

While epigenetics itself is still a pretty new field, scientists are discovering that the genes that are altered in this way — known collectively as our epigenome — are affected by everything from what we eat to how stressed we are.

It's important to keep in mind that the effects the researchers observed didn't involve changes to the genes themselves, but rather in how they were expressed. Researchers liken these effects to switching genes on and off. And not sleeping — even for just a single night — appeared to switch some genes off.

To get their results, the researchers had 15 healthy men in their early 20s spend two nights in a lab. On one of the nights they got to sleep a full eight hours, but on the other night they had to stay awake, which the researchers ensured by keeping a close eye on them and not letting them get into bed.

On both mornings, the researchers collected samples of connective tissue below the skin and skeletal muscle to get a look at their genes.

In just one night of not sleeping, some genes appeared to have been hypermethylated, or essentially switched off. That could be bad news for the metabolism, since some of the genes that are affected by lack of sleep are also the genes that break down the sugar from the food we eat. If these blood-sugar-processing genes are silenced, they can't to do their job. 

Christopher Payne, a professor of human molecular genetics at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine who was not involved in the study, expressed some concerns over the limitations of the study, particularly the small sample size and the fact that they only looked at two samples of tissues and only studied four genes. But there's one positive thing the study did find, Payne said:

“The study does provide evidence that there are measurable changes to the circadian clock from just one lost night of sleep."

The researchers haven't figured out if these changes are permanent yet. Payne said from what we know about epigenetics, the changes are likely reversible, so long as they're not consistently repeated.

CHECK OUT: 25 horrible things that happen if you don't get enough sleep

SEE ALSO: 3 things you can literally learn in your sleep

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 3 keys to getting a good night's sleep

As of yet, no single factor can explain what causes people to behave in ways labeled psychopathic. But research suggests our genes may play a role.

One gene in particular is linked with an increased risk of violent or aggressive behavior, studies have found.

Known as MAOA (monoamine oxidase A), this "warrior gene" controls the production of a protein that breaks down brain-signaling chemicals like dopamine, noradrenalin, and serotonin, which all influence mood.

But the idea of a "psychopath" gene remains controversial.

A gene for psychopathy?

People with a variant of the gene, called MAOA-L, produce less of the protein that breaks down these signaling chemicals, which in turn causes them to build up. An excess of these chemicals, scientists believe, leads to impulsive behavior (such as as hypersexuality), sleep disorders, mood swings, and violent tendencies.

James Fallon, a neuroscientist at the UC Irvine School of Medicine, was studying the brains of murderers and other violent criminals who are thought to be psychopaths, when he accidentally found out he might be one.

Not only did his brain scans look suspiciously like those of the murderers, he later found out that he also possesses the MAOA-L gene that's been linked to aggression and antisocial behavior.

Psychopaths are often described as having a lack of empathy. They may understand when others are in need or in pain, but they don't feel it viscerally the way most people do. Fallon can identify with that. "I don't get the interpersonal warm and fuzzies," he told Business Insider in an interview earlier this month.

But simply having the MAOA-L gene isn't enough to make someone a psychopath. The environment someone is exposed to is likely very important too.

Fallon thinks that the reason he turned out to be a realitvely normal, nonviolent person, despite having this gene, is that he had a good upbringing. But growing up in a harsher environment could have tipped him toward a darker path. "If [the brain] sees a hostile world, the only way to survive is to be hostile," Fallon said, whereas "if it sees a normal world, it will be normal."

And some research supports this idea. One 2002 study followed a large group of male children from birth to adulthood who were abused or maltreated. The study found that boys who had a particular version of the MAOA gene grew up to be more antisocial, compared with those who had a different version of the gene.

And this kind of genetic evidence is starting to make its way into the justice system. In 2009, an Italian appeals court shortened the sentence of a convicted murderer by a year because he had the version of the MAOA gene associated with violence.

Not that simple

But experts have warned against drawing conclusions about a person's character based on this gene alone.

"We don't know how the whole genome functions and the [possible] protective effects of other genes," Giuseppe Novelli, a forensic scientist and geneticist at the University Tor Vergata in Rome, told Nature News.

What's more, the same gene could have different effects in people of different ethnicities. A 2006 study in the United States found that abused children who had high levels of the MAOA that breaks down brain signals were less likely to commit violent crimes, but only if they were white.

So while it's tempting to reduce a complex psychiatric disorder like psychopathy to a single gene, it's almost certainly not that simple.

SEE ALSO: A scientist who studies psychopaths found out he was one by accident — and it completely changed his life

CHECK OUT: Here's what a psychopath's brain looks like

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to know if you're a psychopath

There's a new wolf in the world.

A species of jackal found throughout Eurasia and East Africa was once thought to be the same, but researchers just discovered they're actually two separate species. The new canine is known as the African golden wolf.

It's the first new canine discovery in 150 years.

The golden jackal, who was thought to live in both areas, is actually a distant relative of what is now known as the African golden wolf. The resemblance is striking, which explains why scientists thought they were the same animal up until now. Their DNA differs by up to 6.7%.

The primary distinction between the two lies in the African golden wolf's wider skull and stronger teeth, according to National Geographic. Because they've both lived in the same desert environments, they've strayed little on the evolutionary path, which might be why they look so similar.

Not all the researchers are entirely convinced, but the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute thinks the case is closed.

"They have phenomenal data and they do a nice series of analyses. It's a super airtight case," bioarcheologist Greger Larson told National Geographic.

RELATED: Scientists found a creepy fanged fish in Australia that's far more common than everyone thinks

READ NEXT: Two ambitious paddlers in California went out searching for 10 great white sharks and came back with this

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists reveal the truth about shark attacks

A recent revolutionary discovery in the world of genetics revealed a tool that allows scientists to directly edit DNA in a way that's easy and cheap. This could usher in a new age of genetically edited or even engineered animals, and could eventually be used to create "designer babies."

But in the meantime, this tool, called CRISPR, is helping us do something else — something that's essential if we want to really re-write the genetic code. It's helping us understand what genes actually do, both in humans and in animals.

The big misunderstanding of the age of genetics is that people think we fully understand how genes code for traits and behavior. Once we mapped the billions of letters in the human genome and in the genomes of various other species, many assumed there would be a "genetic revolution," where our newfound knowledge of the genome would transform our understanding of life.

But really, we only know that a few specific genes are uniquely responsible for certain diseases or traits and that many more genes are broadly associated with certain characteristics, though not uniquely responsible for them. Genetic information has proved to be helpful mostly in treating cancer and rare diseases, known as diagnostic odysseys, where a rare genetic mutation is responsible for a medical condition.

CRISPR is already helping us understand much more.

'Operating in the dark'

For the most part, in both humans and other creatures, we have no idea how the many genes that are responsible for something complex like intelligence or size interact, and we often have little understanding of what role a certain gene plays or what characteristic — or set of characteristics — that gene contributes to.

"We're so much operating in the dark right now," explains Dr. Eric Green, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health, who spoke with Tech Insider earlier this summer. Green explained that while we now have the technology to sequence a genome, we don't have the knowledge to understand what it all means.

The technology has moved faster than the science. Now, technology is propelling the science forward.

The CRISPR gene-editing tool is helping researchers figure out what genes actually do. By activating or de-activating, removing or even replacing genes, scientists can see exactly how each adjustment changes things.

Obviously these aren't the sort of experiments that researchers would perform in humans, since it would be absolutely unethical to randomly start switching genes on and off. But scientists can re-create diseases in animals and see how editing a certain gene affects the health of the creature overall.

'Pick your gene'

Researchers at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard have used genetic manipulation to develop mice with lung cancer. Feng Zhang, one of the first scientists to show that CRISPR could be used in human cells, was involved with this research.

In a press release, Zhang explained that the project helps illustrate how the interaction of different genes affects the disease. "The goal in developing the mouse was to empower researchers so that they can more rapidly screen through the long list of genes that have been implicated in disease and normal biological processes," he said.

But it's not just questions about the genetic cause of disease that genetic manipulation can solve. As Amy Maxmen explains in recent Wired feature on how this technology will transform the world, gene editing tools can be used to answer a question about any gene, in any creature.

She writes:

For example, researchers once had no way to figure out why spiders have the same gene that determines the pattern of veins in the wings of flies. You could sequence the spider and see that the "wing gene" was in its genome, but all you'd know was that it certainly wasn't designing wings. Now, with less than $100, an ordinary arachnologist can snip the wing gene out of a spider embryo and see what happens when that spider matures. If it's obvious — maybe its claws fail to form — you've learned that the wing gene must have served a different purpose before insects branched off, evolutionarily, from the ancestor they shared with spiders.

Many times a gene may not seem like it has a reason to be part of the genome for a particular creature — like the wing gene in the spider example above. But by removing that gene, we can show the other characteristics it's responsible for, like claw formation. The fact that it's easy and cheap to do an experiment like that means it's easy for any curious scientist to make a genetic change and see its effects.

Researchers have realized the potential of easy genetic manipulation – and the fact that it could transform health, medicine, energy production, and far more. This year alone, researchers are expected to publish more than 1,100 papers on CRISPR, which could reveal far more about what genes mean and what we can do with that information.

As Maxmen writes: "Pick your creature, pick your gene, and you can bet someone somewhere is giving it a go."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We found out if the 5-second rule is a real thing

A recent revolutionary discovery in the world of genetics revealed a tool that allows scientists to directly edit DNA in a way that's easy and cheap. This could usher in a new age of genetically edited or even engineered animals, and could eventually be used to create "designer babies."

Read more: http://www.techinsider.io/crispr-and-gene-editing-are-showing-us-how-dna-works-2015-8#ixzz3i2aMD42o

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: More trouble for Subway's Jared Fogle...

The top 10 Republican presidential hopefuls went head to head in a debate last night in their first attempt at capturing the hearts, minds, and nominations of American voters.

Donald Trump clearly stole the show with his expected gaffes, including his misogynistic comments and refusal to pledge that he wouldn't launch a third party bid if he doesn't win the primary.

But there were many other jaw-dropping moments, including one from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. When debate moderator Chris Wallace asked how he would cajole Democrats and Independents into voting for him, as a strong advocate for banning same-sex marriage and abortion, he replied:

"A lot of people are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood, as if that's a huge game-changer. I think it's time to do something even more bold. I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception."

He went on to claim that a "DNA schedule" has proven that life begins at conception. And a quick peek at his website confirms this view: "No amount of liberal legalistic logic can refute what science has already settled and God has ordained: Life begins at conception."

As someone who's studied genetics extensively, this was the first time I'd ever heard the phrase "DNA schedule." And I'm not the only one. "I have no idea what he's talking about," Duke University geneticist Misha Angrist told Fusion, "but 'DNA schedule' has real potential as a name for a band, an app, or maybe an erectile dysfunction drug."

But pushing that weird, made-up scientific phrase aside for a moment, let's examine his comment about a person becoming a person at conception.

I reached out to doctor Robert A. Waterland, an associate professor of pediatrics and molecular & human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine for comment.

"I don't see how DNA can prove when life begins, since DNA is the continuous thread, the one thing that is passed from cell to cell and generation to generation," Waterland told Tech Insider.

He went on to say that of the many arguments against the idea that life begins at conception, the most compelling argument was put forth by Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist at Swarthmore College who wrote the quintessential textbook for undergraduate biology majors, "Developmental Biology."

Waterland said that the concept of twins, who develop from just one fertilized egg that splits into two embryos, has seriously complicated this argument that life begins at conception for decades.

"If we consider that each human being has a soul, then what happens to the soul when the early embryo cleaves into two individuals? Does each identical twin have only half a soul?" Waterland told Tech Insider.

Gilbert has written extensively about why embryos aren't people. In a statement Gilbert sent to Tech Insider, he notes that scientists haven't come to a consensus on when life begins, and that the assertion that life begins at conception is "against the bible, against science, and threatens to reduce humanity to slavery."

Gilbert states that according to the bible, a fetus does "not have the Image of God," and therefore a person who kills a fetus should not be put to death. "We attain the Image of God — personhood —at birth," Gilbert writes, citing verses from Genesis and Exodus that back up this statement.

But don't take the bible's word, this assertion is also against science, Gilbert writes:

DNA is not our soul. Most fertilized eggs do not survive to be born. The usual fate of most fertilized eggs is to die before birth. If embryos are to be considered humans, then normal human fetal demise is a far greater moral danger than abortion.

He also goes on to say that many scientists agree that human life doesn't actually begin until about 24 weeks after fertilization, when our brains start producing wave patterns specific to humans. Gilbert argues that "if we are willing to call flatlining (the loss of this pattern) death, then the emergence of this pattern is when we become humanly alive."

Clearly Huckabee, who holds a degree in religion, has no business talking about science.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Pixar's next movie shows what would have happened if dinosaurs never went extinct and it looks gorgeous

Researchers at the University of Chicago have identified many of the genes that are unique to the woolly mammoth and not shared with its closest relative — the Asian elephant. This information puts scientists even closer to resurrecting an actual woolly mammoth. But the issue of whether we should bring back a creature that hasn't roamed the earth in 10,000 years has yet to be tackled. 

Video Courtesy of The University of Chicago

Follow UChicago:On Facebook

Follow TI Video:On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

The top 10 Republican presidential hopefuls went head to head in a debate last night in their first attempt at capturing the hearts, minds, and nominations of American voters.

Donald Trump clearly stole the show with his expected gaffes, including his misogynistic comments and refusal to pledge that he wouldn't launch a third party bid if he doesn't win the primary.

But there were many other jaw-dropping moments, including one from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. When debate moderator Chris Wallace asked how he would cajole Democrats and Independents into voting for him, as a strong advocate for banning same-sex marriage and abortion, he replied:

"A lot of people are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood, as if that's a huge game-changer. I think it's time to do something even more bold. I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception."

He went on to claim that a "DNA schedule" has proven that life begins at conception. And a quick peek at his website confirms this view: "No amount of liberal legalistic logic can refute what science has already settled and God has ordained: Life begins at conception."

As someone who's studied genetics extensively, this was the first time I'd ever heard the phrase "DNA schedule." And I'm not the only one. "I have no idea what he's talking about," Duke University geneticist Misha Angrist told Fusion, "but 'DNA schedule' has real potential as a name for a band, an app, or maybe an erectile dysfunction drug."

But pushing that weird, made-up scientific phrase aside for a moment, let's examine his comment about a person becoming a person at conception.

I reached out to doctor Robert A. Waterland, an associate professor of pediatrics and molecular & human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine for comment.

"I don't see how DNA can prove when life begins, since DNA is the continuous thread, the one thing that is passed from cell to cell and generation to generation," Waterland told Tech Insider.

He went on to say that of the many arguments against the idea that life begins at conception, the most compelling argument was put forth by Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist at Swarthmore College who wrote the quintessential textbook for undergraduate biology majors, "Developmental Biology."

Waterland said that the concept of twins, who develop from just one fertilized egg that splits into two embryos, has seriously complicated this argument that life begins at conception for decades.

"If we consider that each human being has a soul, then what happens to the soul when the early embryo cleaves into two individuals? Does each identical twin have only half a soul?" Waterland told Tech Insider.

Gilbert has written extensively about why embryos aren't people. In a statement Gilbert sent to Tech Insider, he notes that scientists haven't come to a consensus on when life begins, and that the assertion that life begins at conception is "against the bible, against science, and threatens to reduce humanity to slavery."

Gilbert states that according to the bible, a fetus does "not have the Image of God," and therefore a person who kills a fetus should not be put to death. "We attain the Image of God — personhood —at birth," Gilbert writes, citing verses from Genesis and Exodus that back up this statement.

But don't take the bible's word, this assertion is also against science, Gilbert writes:

DNA is not our soul. Most fertilized eggs do not survive to be born. The usual fate of most fertilized eggs is to die before birth. If embryos are to be considered humans, then normal human fetal demise is a far greater moral danger than abortion.

He also goes on to say that many scientists agree that human life doesn't actually begin until about 24 weeks after fertilization, when our brains start producing wave patterns specific to humans. Gilbert argues that "if we are willing to call flatlining (the loss of this pattern) death, then the emergence of this pattern is when we become humanly alive."

Clearly Huckabee, who holds a degree in religion, has no business talking about science.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Pixar's next movie shows what would have happened if dinosaurs never went extinct and it looks gorgeous

There's a new way to edit genes, and companies want to use it to treat disease.

Editas Medicine, a company aimed at providing technologies that enable scientists to tweak our genes, just raised $120 million to continue studying a novel new technology that could make this far easier.

The tool is known as CRISPR-Cas9, and it could eventually allow scientists to home in on a particular, potentially faulty gene and swap it out with another, potentially healthy one.

Already, scientists have used the tool to essentially repair defective DNA in mice— curing them of genetic disorders. In April, Chinese researchers working with non-viable human embryos (those that would never end up turning into people) used it to try to tweak a gene that would normally have caused a rare blood disorder.

Editas, a startup based in Cambridge and founded in November 2013, wants to eventually use the technology to treat disease by coming up with therapies that can modify faulty disease-causing genes. For example, researchers could use the technology to replace a disease-causing mutated gene with a healthy one.

It started with $43 million when it was founded. Most recently the startup inked a deal with Juno Therapeutics, a startup focused on cell therapies for cancer back in May, worth $25 million upfront plus $22 million in research support, and up to $230 million if any treatments come up.

The main financial company in this round is a group called bng0, which Forbes reports is backed by Bill Gates and Boris Nikolic, Gates' former scientific advisor. Nikolic, who led the funding round, will join the Editas board of directors.

"They all appreciate the vast potential of this science," says Katrine Bosley, the chief executive of Editas told Forbes. "The heart of the conversation we had with everybody is how you translate this very exciting but young science into treatments, into therapies."

Editas told Forbes this latest round of funding will be enough to keep the company running for at least three years.

CHECK OUT: A revolutionary tool is helping us unlock the secrets of DNA

RELATED: Get ready for designer genes – scientists just found a cheaper, easier way to modify DNA

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Tom Hardy makes a crazy transformation playing identical twins in this new gangster movie

Genetics has advanced to the point that we can sequence a person's genome, outlining their entire genetic blueprint, for a couple thousand dollars — perhaps even less — in approximately a day (provided you already have the million-dollar machine on hand).

That's far less than than the $3 billion it cost to first sequence a human genome, and many researchers agree that we're heading towards a time where we'll all have our genomes sequenced.

"That's certainly the vision of the future," says George Annas, a bioethicist at Boston University.

But there's one big problem with that: Once we're good enough at reading a DNA sequence to really interpret all the results — rather than just glean a few hints here and there — we may not want to know the answers.

The problem is that knowing the answers doesn't mean we'll know how to solve anything. There would be a high likelihood of identifying many ticking time-bombs or risks that we would still have no way of addressing. That could mean living an entire life knowing that you are, in a way, "sick."

For now, we only know that a few specific genes are uniquely responsible for certain diseases or traits and that many more genes are broadly associated with certain characteristics, though not uniquely responsible for them. But we're rapidly learning more about how genes interact to code for different behaviors, and as we do, we gain a more precise understanding of how genes can make a person susceptible to a host of diseases.

"Nobody's got a perfect genome," says Annas. "When you start looking for stuff, you're going to find five or 10 lethal genes that could kill you if you live long enough."

If we start sequencing the genomes of infants at birth to have a head start on their healthcare, we might be able to say that that infant will be at a high risk for an untreatable cancer or Alzheimer's disease. But that doesn't mean we'll know how to help that person.

"Americans live in this culture where if you find something, you want to do something about it," says Annas. He says that if we start anticipating diseases that will occur late in life from the moment of birth, "we're going to make every child someone who is born sick."

So far, DNA sequencing has proven useful when treating patients with cancer or when trying to solve a medical mystery where doctors can't figure out what's wrong with a person. And efforts like the Precision Medicine Initiative, which will rely significantly on DNA sequencing, should reveal far more about the genetic causes of disease.

But we'll have to make a decision about how much screening we want, and whether we want to know — potentially from birth — what illnesses and conditions lie in wait, even ones that we don't know how to cure.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Meet the dark side of the new 'Star Wars' cast

Our genomes hold a fantastic amount of information about ourselves. In theory, they explain much about our health, physical characteristics, and even personality traits. And it's easier than ever to access our own genetic information, with sequencing technology rapidly becoming cheaper and better.

Yet despite all that, most people don't get their own DNA sequenced — in part because it's still hard for the average person to get any practical knowledge from the information in their genomes. We still don't know how to interpret a lot of our genetic information.

Unless a person is curious about their ancestry or is a patient suffering from cancer or an unknown disease, there's not much to be found, especially without the help of a trained geneticist. And unless more people allow companies and research institutions to start looking at their genetic information, it'll be hard to improve that situation and get any closer to the promise of the human genome.

A new company called Helix, launched August 18 with $100 million in investments by partners including Illumina — one of the world-leaders in genome-sequencing — wants to change all that.

Helix wants to be the hub that connects people (through their genomes) to companies that can offer some useful information based on that genetic material. It's like an app store for your DNA.

Here's how this works

There's a common belief that we are now — finally, or probably — at the point where genetic information is about to become a lot more valuable. There are major research initiatives that support this information. The Precision Medicine Initiative plans on looking at genomic data for a million people, and that's just the start. As more and more researchers and big data analysis systems start to pick through people's genomes, a wealth of new information about those genetic codes should become available.

Because of that, there should be more and more companies that will soon be able to help interpret this information.

"Genomics is reaching an inflection point in cost, volumes, and knowledge, creating a significant opportunity to unlock information that is currently not widely accessible to individuals," Illumina CEO Jay Flatley said in a press release.

Helix's plan is to be the connection point that stores your genomic data and connects you to a company that can analyze that data.

As MIT Technology Review's Antonio Regalado explains it, you might use one Helix app to check and see if you have a gene that makes you particularly suited for certain sports — something that sport specialists have started to test for around the world. If this was your first time using a Helix "app," you would send in something like a spit sample first.

Helix would then sequence your genetic information, and according to what Flatley told Regalado, they'd do more than the basic genetic sequence that you get with some other services (though not the entire full genome sequence). This would give them what's potentially a huge amount of health data.

You'd then pay that sports genetics company whatever their fee was, and they'd give you the report based on your genetic information. Helix would then store your genetic data.

The next time a Helix app appealed to you — the first two official partners are the Mayo Clinic, also an investor in the company, and Laboratory Corporation of America, a diagnostics company that also does blood tests — you could pay the company that runs that app, and they could then access your genomic information and send you their analysis of your DNA.

What it means

Provided users give their permission, companies may also be able to analyze (potentially anonymized) genomic data to further their research as well. Eventually, that kind of data could lead to to even more useful information from each individual's DNA.

Creating one hub for genetic services could be what prompts people to start looking to see how genetic information could transform their day-to-day life. And if Helix can handle the lab side, the genome sequencing, the data storage, and the considerable privacy concerns most potential users will have, they can then just make that genomic information available to partners. This could make it easy for anyone with an idea for a genome-analyzing service to tap into the system, making it possible for many companies and scientists who don't have the capacity to develop such a complex end-to-end system to participate and contribute their sliver of genomic expertise.

At the start, it's unlikely you could get any health information from your DNA sequence. But if Helix — or Helix and a coordinating app — get FDA approval to provide health information based on genes, that could change.

Before Helix's announcement, we spoke with George Annas, bioethicist and author of "Genomic Messages," about where genetics is going next and when it's going to start mattering to the average person.

"It's probably the creation of new websites and things your smartphones can do" that will connect you with your genomic data, he said, rather presciently. The Helix platform seems to be the first step in this new direction.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This 'Mission Impossible' behind-the-scenes footage of a 53-year-old Tom Cruise hanging off a plane is terrifying

Back in April, researchers from Sun Yat-sen University in China published a paper showing how they edited the genome of a human embryo, to try to block a gene that causes a rare blood disease.

The ability to edit human genes and, consequently, actually engineer a human being from birth, is something we've always thought of as Gattaca-style science fiction.

But this development, published in the journal Cell & Protein, shows that while many challenges remain before this becomes routine (the researchers encountered serious problems while working with non-viable embryos), genetically modified humans may be far closer than many like to think. And when it does happen, and we have much more control over our DNA, we could transform human evolution.

The fascinating technology behind this right now is called CRISPR.

Jennifer Doudna, a Berkeley biologist who was one of the first to discover how CRISPR could be used, was so concerned about this technology being used on humans that in January she called on scientists to pause research before it's irreversible. But with research like the April study, and others already being carried out, it may be too late.

As she told Tech Insider in an interview, scientists understand exactly how game-changing the ability to rewrite DNA with CRISPR is. "This just gives scientists the capability to do something that is incredibly powerful," Doudna said. "Great things can be done with the power of technology — and there are things you would not want done."

But even though scientists have been talking about the implications of our now much more advanced ways of editing DNA for a while now, it's not clear that the general population knows yet exactly how big of a change this is going to be.

"Most of the public," Doudna told MIT Tech Review's Antonio Regalado, "does not appreciate what is coming."

As a recent Wired feature put it, DNA editing could reshape the world:

It could at last allow genetics researchers to conjure everything anyone has ever worried they would — designer babies, invasive mutants, species-specific bioweapons, and a dozen other apocalyptic sci-fi tropes. It brings with it all-new rules for the practice of research in the life sciences. But no one knows what the rules are.

Where the science is now

The key to gene editing that Doudna helped discover three years ago is CRISPR-Cas9, a technology from the natural world that she and Emmanuelle Charpentier harnessed and that is now already in wide use. It's basically a tool that allows biologists to "search-and-replace" components of DNA, meaning they can rewrite specific segments of genetic code.

Don't want the code that's related to a particular disease? This will allow us to rewrite it.

That can't be done with perfect accuracy yet: CRISPR currently successfully deletes target code 40% of the time and switches it out correctly about 20% of the time. It can make other unwanted changes too, meaning that now, it's largely unreliable and inconsistent. But researchers expect these rates to improve, and in some cases, it may already be more accurate than we think.

The Sun Yat-sen University team had a much higher error rate than would be acceptable for actual medical use.

But Harvard geneticist George Church, one of the pioneers in CRISPR research, told Tech Insider in an email that there are already versions of the gene-editing technology that are far more accurate and are much less likely to make any unwanted off-target changes.

CRISPR has already been used in livestock like cows and pigs and even in monkeys, which showed last year for the first time that targeted genetic editing could be done successfully in primates. Livestock have been engineered to be healthier and in ways that could prevent cruel procedures (some of this research employs another recently harnessed gene-editing tool known as TALENS). In the monkeys, researchers modified genes that regulate metabolism, immune cell development, and stem cells.

That being said, the human embryo tests performed on those non-viable embryos were hit and miss. According to a Nature News article on their research:

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material.

Many of the embryos also had genetic insertions in unwanted places, the Nature News article said.

The video below explains how CRISPR works:

Researchers are developing ways to use CRISPR to treat genetic conditions like sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and are also experimenting with genetic changes that could eliminate viruses like HIV. Even though viruses aren't genetic diseases, certain gene edits have been shown to prevent the virus from spreading to new cells and to "destroy inactive HIV residing in the human genome by altering critical viral genes," according to a look at genome surgery in MIT Technology Review.

Doudna tells us that with disorders where "we've known for a long time that there's a particular point mutation that leads to these particular cases," we now may able to fix that mutation, especially if it's in something like blood, where we could remove blood cells from a patient temporarily, implant a fix, and then circulate those cells back into their system.

Experts even think these types of changes could eventually help treat complex conditions with genetic components like schizophrenia and autism, according to MIT Technology Review— though we still need to understand those conditions better before anything like that could work. For now, that's one of the main hurdles with applying this technology: There's still so much we don't know about the secrets buried in our DNA code, and we can't fix something if we don't know exactly how it's broken. There's currently only a limited set of problems we're prepared to tinker with.

The Sun Yat-sen University study aimed to insert the correct version of the gene that codes for defective blood cells in beta-thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disease.

Designer babies

Growing an edited embryo into a full fledged adult human wouldn't just remove a health problem — or, in the potentially-dystopian future model, create a single augmented human.

It would leave lasting changes that are passed on for generations, something that many scientists say is desirable in the case of awful health problems, but much more questionable in the case of enhancements.

"It makes you ask if humans should be exercising that kind of power," Doudna told Regalado, of MIT Technology Review. "If germ line editing is conducted in humans, that is changing human evolution."

Of course, some would say that that's the point, that humanity needs to be improved and that we should hasten the process. Regalado quotes bioethicist John Harris, who says "the human genome is not perfect," and "it's ethically imperative to positively support this technology."

These "kinds of choices [to make edits to the human genome] will become inevitable," bioethicist James Hughes previously told Tech Insider. "And we'll adapt to them relatively well."

Right now, "everyone agrees that we shouldn't engineer a baby,"George Annas, a bioethicist at Boston University, told Tech Insider.

The question is: For how long will that be the case?

In the April study, the researchers used embryos that weren't viable and would never be able to grow to term. The problems they stumbled upon in their testing also indicates it's going to be a while before these worries come to pass.

But after accuracy questions are solved — provided they really are, as scientists expect they will be — pretty much any molecular biologist will be able to work with CRISPR.

"It's a technology that is quite democratic. It's a technology that is simple enough to use, cheap enough to use, that it's available to a lot of people," Doudna said. "In the scientific world this has really been a revolution."

So how close are we?

Most researchers say that for now, genetic editing is still far too error prone to be considered practical to use in human embryos. This seems to be what the April study showed.

But progress is being made, and Nature News has reported that at least four other research groups in China are pursuing ways to edit human embryos.

Researchers told Regalado that using CRISPR right now, they probably have to edit 20 embryos to make a monkey in the way that they want. Guoping Feng, a researcher at MIT's McGovern Institute (who made the video explaining CRISPR above), thinks that making a genetically edited human — either without disease or augmented — will be possible in 10 to 20 years.

Other researchers said going around the embryo stage could be the key. Editing the DNA of stem cells using CRISPR, then growing and replicating those cell into human egg or sperm cells, could bypass some of the problems scientists have encountered in editing embryos.

Scientists "think they will soon be able" to turn a stem cell into sperm or egg, according to MIT Technology Review. Those new sperm and egg cells could be joined to create an embryo with the corrected or enhanced genes.

Even though the technology required to turn stem cells into those egg and sperm cells is still being developed, stem cell expert Jonathan Tilly at Northeastern told Regalado that his lab is already trying to edit egg cells with CRISPR. Once CRISPR can be used more stably and once the stem cell puzzle is solved — no small thing — that'll be the key, Tilly suggested, to actually growing an animal from a stem cell.

Tilly said that once this is done with animals, it'll prove that it can be done. But at that point you'd want to think long and hard before doing such a thing with humans.

"'Can you do it?' is one thing," he said, but then you ask "'Would you do it? Why would you want to do it? What is the purpose?' As scientists we want to know if it's feasible, but then we get into the bigger questions, and it's not a science question, it's a society question."

Right now, we're at a critical point, where our understanding of genetic editing is going from trying to understand it in a lab setting to actually using it in a practical sense, to reshape anything in the world — ourselves included. One thing is certain: It's going to change things. In some ways, it is already.

As Doudna told us, the ability to rewrite the genetic code is "a capability that has not been in our hands in the past."

Jennifer Welsh contributed to this report.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: REVEALED: Why 'The Master Cleanse' diet doesn't actually work

The advent of enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9 has ushered in a new age of genetic manipulation—it could help us cure diseases or resuscitate extinct species.

One of CRISPR’s big advantages is that it’s much easier to use than its predecessors. So easy, in fact, that amateur biohackers are using it in their experiments, according to a report from Nature News.

It’s natural to be nervous about this. CRISPR is a powerful tool that scientists don’t fully understand, and it can have unintended consequences even when used cautiously.

Ever since April, when a team of Chinese researchers published their findings after using CRISPR to change the genes of human embryos, the discussion has reached a fever pitch.

Experts have been discussing the issue of consent (embryos can’t consent to having their genes manipulated, and the effects could be passed down for generations), the consequences of introducing an unintended change, and the effects on the ecosystem should a genetically manipulated animal break free from the lab.

But a lot of these concerns are isolated to some of the most advanced labs in the world. Yes, CRISPR is easy to use, but it’s not that easy to get the exact results you want, even for the experts. It’s highly unlikely that an amateur biohacker with little scientific knowledge could use CRISPR to create an unstoppable virus or change the human genome. It’s just too difficult.

Plus, biohackers don’t seem to be into that in the first place. The biohackers highlighted in the Nature News piece are more interested in engineering yeast to make unique beer or vegan cheese, or changing the color of a flower.

On one message board, a biohacker with the alias plambe planned to use CRISPR to modify stress hormone receptors in plants in order to “deliver shit wherever I want when I want in the nucleus.”

Biohackers working with CRISPR still need to be careful—the U.S. Bioterrorism Protection Team has been casually monitoring biohackers over the past few years, the Nature News piece notes, likely to make sure they’re not making any biological weapons—but it’s unlikely any of them will be able to realize experts’ worst fears about CRISPR’s consequences.

Not that they’d want to, anyway.

This article originally appeared on Popular Science.

This article was written by Alexandra Ossola from Popular Science and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

RELATED: A startup that wants to make it easier to tweak our genes just got $120 million from investors including Bill Gates

SEE ALSO: Get ready for designer genes – scientists just found a cheaper, easier way to modify DNA

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how optical illusions actually work

Scientists at the University of Leicester conducted a study observing fruit flies and their waking and sleeping habits. They ultimately found that the genes of early risers and night owls was, in fact, different. Fruit flies have similar sleep habits to humans, therefore implying that humans of different chronotypes have different DNA.

Produced by Emma Fierberg

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

The technology now exists to tinker with the blueprint for life inside the cells of every living creature, including humans.

Earlier this year, Chinese scientists announced they had successfully modified the genomes of human embryos to prevent a potentially fatal blood disorder. Although the embryos were not allowed to develop into babies, the experiment was sharply criticized by many researchers, some of whom called fora temporary ban on gene editing.

But despite these concerns, British scientists now hope to do a similar experiment.

Editing genes is possible thanks to a technique known as CRISPR/Cas9, which was discovered in bacteria, but can be used to tweak the DNA of any organism. This method holds huge potential: From better understanding how embryos develop to preventing or even curing serious genetic illnesses, such as beta thalassemia, a blood disorder that can be fatal. The British group hopes to study the former. 

Kathy Niakan, a stem-cell researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, has said she aims to use the technique to understand what genes are active in the first few days after an egg is fertilized, and how these genes affect the development of the placenta, the Guardian recently reported.

"The knowledge we acquire will be very important for understanding how a healthy human embryo develops, and this will inform our understanding of the causes of miscarriage," Niakan told the Guardian.

The embryos used in the experiments would be donated by couples who had undergone fertility treatment, and would be used for research only. (Implanting them in a woman and allowing them to grow more than two weeks would be illegal.)

Cause for concern?

But bioethicists have warned that this technology may not be ready for primetime because it could cause unintended genetic effects. Some are also concerned that the technique could ultimately lead to so-called designer babies, ones that are engineered to possess desirable traits like good looks or brains. Critics argue that this could lead to the creation of a superior race of people who would look down on those without enhancements, as biologist Lee Silver argues.

Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, called the proposed research on human embryos "troubling and provocative." The controversy stems from the fact that this technology can be used for both important research and to produce genetically modified humans, Darnovsky told the Washington Post.

Scientists and policymakers will discuss many of these issues at an international summit hosted by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine in Washington, DC, in December.

NEXT UP: Get ready for designer genes – scientists just found a cheaper, easier way to modify DNA

SEE ALSO: We just got a step closer to genetically engineering human babies, thanks to this powerful lab technique

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists have almost discovered how to resurrect a woolly mammoth

The Nobel prize in chemistry has been awarded to Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich, and Aziz Sancar for their research into the mechanisms that cells use to repair DNA.

The three scientists, from Sweden, the US, and Turkey, respectively, received an equal share of the prestigious 8m Swedish kronor (£631,000) award for "mechanistic studies of DNA repair." Their research mapped and explained how the cell repairs its DNA in order to prevent errors occurring in genetic information.

Announcing the prize in Stockholm, Göran K Hansson, the secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said: 'This year's prize is about the cell's tool box for repairing DNA."

In a call to the Academy, Lindahl said of winning: "It was a surprise. I knew that over the years I have been occasionally considered but so have hundreds of other people. I feel very lucky and proud to be selected."

From the moment an egg is fertilized, it begins to divide. Two cells become four, four cells become eight. After one week a human embryo consists of 128 cells, each with its own set of genetic material. Unravel all that DNA and it would stretch for 300 meters (984 feet).

But many billions more divisions take place on the path to adulthood, until we carry enough DNA in our trillions of cells to reach 250 times to the sun and back. The most remarkable feat is how the genetic information is copied so faithfully. "From a chemical perspective, this ought to be impossible," the Nobel committee said.

"All chemical processes are prone to random errors. Additionally, your DNA is subjected on a daily basis to damaging radiation and reactive molecules. In fact, you ought to have been a chemical chaos long before you even developed into a fetus," they added.

Lindahl, Modrich and Sancar worked out how cells repair faults that inevitably creep in when DNA is copied time and time again, and mutations that arise under a barrage of environmental factors such as UV rays in sunlight.

Towards the end of the 1960s, many scientists considered DNA to be incredibly stable. But working at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Lindahl worked out that there must be thousands of potentially damaging attacks on the genome every day – an onslaught that would make human life impossible.

Working with bacterial DNA, Lindahl began the search for enzymes that repair faulty genetic mateial. He focused on a weakness in the way the DNA letters, G, T, C and A, pair up. Normally, C (cytosine) pairs only with G (guanine), but C can lose an amino group which makes it pair up with A ( adenine) instead. If the mis-pairing stands, it creates a mutation the next time it is copied. Lindahl realised that cells must have a way to protect themselves from such a fate, and published details of the enzyme responsible in 1974.

Lindahl moved to the UK in the 1980s and became director of what is now Cancer Research UK's Clare Hall Laboratory, a place known for its scientific creativity. There he worked out, step by step, the DNA repair processes in humans.

But DNA can also be disrupted by environmental factors, such as UV radiation. How organisms survived these mutations piqued the interest of Sancar who noticed that bacteria exposed to deadly doses of UV could repair themselves if lit up with blue light. At the University of Texas in Dallas, he discovered an enzyme called photolyase that repairs UV-damaged DNA.

At Yale University, Sancar went on to identify enzymes that spot UV damage and then cut the DNA to remove the faulty genetic code. Later, at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, he mapped the equivalent repair process in humans.

In an interview with the Academy, Sancar told how he heard the news in a phone call. "My wife took it and woke me up. I wasn't expecting it at all. I am very surprised. I tried my best to be coherent, I was sleeping, it was a pleasant experience," he said.

"I am of course honored to get this recognition for all the work I've done over the years but I'm also proud for my family and for my native country and for my adopted country. Especially for Turkey, it's quite important," he said.

Modrich was set on his path to Nobel fame when a biology teacher told him in 1963: "You should learn about this DNA stuff." It was the year after James Watson and Francis Crick won the Nobel prize for elucidating the structure of DNA. Modrich spent more than a decade mapping out enzymes involved in what is called DNA mismatch repair – another way that DNA can be mangled through faulty pairings of Gs, Cs, Ts, and As. Mismatch repair turned out to be a major process for protecting DNA. Of the thousand errors that occur when the human genome is copied, all but one are corrected by mismatch repair.

Together, the repair mechanisms discovered by Lindahl, Sancar and Modrich fix thousands of DNA faults caused by UV rays, cigarette smoke and other toxic substances. They are constantly at work to repair copying errors as cells divide. Without these repair mechanisms, the genomes would be riddled with errors, and cancer would be rife.

"Their systematic work has made a decisive contribution to the understanding of how the living cell functions, as well as providing knowledge about the molecular causes of several hereditary diseases and about mechanisms behind both cancer development and aging," the committee said.

Sir Martyn Poliakoff, vice-president of the Royal Society said: "Understanding the ways in which DNA repairs itself is fundamental to our understanding of inherited genetic disorders and of diseases like cancer.

"I am delighted to hear that Dr Lindahl has been awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry and offer the Royal Society's congratulations to him, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar on this very great achievement."

Last year's chemistry prize went to Stefan Hell of Germany and Americans Eric Betzig and William Moerner for finding ways to make microscopes more powerful than previously thought possible.

Only four women have won a chemistry Nobel, including Marie Curie (who also won the physics prize) and Ada Yonath, who was the last female winner in 2009. One person, Frederick Sanger, has won the award twice.

The Nobel in medicine or physiology was awarded on Monday to Tu Youyou, William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura for advances that led to treatments for diseases caused by parasites, including malaria. On Tuesday, Takaaki Kajita and Arthur McDonald won the physics prize for their work on subatomic particles called neutrinos.

The winners of the literature and peace prizes are to be announced later this week. The economics prize will be announced on Monday 12 October.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk.

SEE ALSO: Two Americans, one German win chemistry Nobel Prize for groundbreaking work on microscopes

CHECK OUT: It's incredible that cancer isn't more common

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Turns out early risers and night owls have different DNA

In the past few years, getting genetically tested has become as easy as sending in some spit in a tube.

That information can be used for everything from finding out where your family came from to figuring out if you're predisposed to certain diseases.

Companies like AncestryDNA and 23andMe have been partnering with drug companies to try and figure out what role genetics plays in getting sick, and how it can help us get better faster.

But how much can the average consumer learn from his or her genes?

I decided to try out some tests from Kailos Genetics, a genetic-testing company based in Huntsville, Alabama, to find out. All of the tests Kailos offers are designed to help determine how you might respond to certain medications. These include antidepressants, contraceptives, breast-cancer medication, pain-management treatments, blood thinners, and stomach-acid reducers. You can also opt for an all-inclusive test that includes all of these genetic markers.

About me: I'm a 22-year-old woman who is, apart from some seasonal allergies, healthy. I ordered the contraceptives and antidepressant tests that Kailos offers, since those would be the types of medications I'd be most likely to use at this point in my life. I also have a family history of blood-clot problems, which in some cases can be worsened by oral contraceptives.

Here's how it went down:

Sending my spit to Kailos

A week after ordering the two tests, I got a big purple envelope in the mail:

The kit came with instructions, a letter explaining the test, two swabs, a collection bag, and an envelope:

I opened up the first swab and started collecting samples of my cheek tissue on the left side of my mouth. To get a good sample, I had to scrape the side of my cheek up and down with the swab for about 30 seconds.

After repeating the process with the other swab, I put both of them back in the collection bag, packed them all up in the return envelope, and shipped it off to Kailos for testing:

The results

Once Kailos' diagnostic lab got my envelope, my sample went through an enrichment process to separate the genetic material — my DNA — from the rest of the stuff on the cotton swab so they can have a better look. Then, the lab technicians looked at my DNA and used a computer to home in on the genetic regions that are relevant to the specific test they were running.

Next, they turned the results over to Kailos' in-house physicians to interpret the results. These doctors are what allow Kailos to sidestep the problem of needing a middleman — who'd most likely be my primary-care doctor — to discuss my results with me.

Instead of talking to a doctor, my results were posted online to my account on Kailos' website, which I'd created to order the test.

Thumbs-up for medication No. 1

For the first part of my results, which looked at whether I should avoid certain contraceptives, I saw two big "thumbs-up" symbols.

This meant that the test, which looked at two genes related to how my blood clots, found they were functioning normally — there was no reason they could see that I shouldn't take the medication.

Those genes were my Factor 2 and Factor 5 genes. Research has found that people with a specific mutation, or tweak, on either of these genes can be at risk of dangerous blood clots, which can stop the blood from flowing from your heart to other parts of your body.

All of this is important for someone considering using contraceptives, since the kind that are taken orally (aka many traditional birth-control pills) can be linked with an increased risk of blood clots in some people; the hormone estrogen in the pills increases certain proteins in the blood that help it stick together and clot.

Thumbs-up for medication No. 1 ... sort of

The next part of my test results focused on whether I had genetic tweaks that could make it a bad idea for me to take antidepressants. The test looked at potential indications against taking three of the most popular types: tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).

Genetics can give us clues about how good our body is at absorbing certain oral antidepressant medications. The CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genes, for example, make proteins in the liver that break down a hefty proportion of prescription drugs, including antidepressants.

The good news? I should be good to go with all three types: I don't have any mutations that would cause my body to absorb the drugs poorly.

But while my results suggested my body could handle any of these medications — should a psychiatrist or mental-health professional prescribe them to me, of course — experts say the results aren't so clear.

Carmela Thompson, a genetic counselor with Genetic Discovery SF, told Business Insider that although she thinks genetic tests are great for figuring out if a person has a hereditary condition like Huntington's disease, she wouldn't recommend using them as the sole way to determine the best solution to treating psychiatric conditions.

At least not yet.

"As far as psychiatric conditions go, we’re not there yet and we may never be there," said Thompson. That's because the conditions often have multiple factors in addition to genes at play, like environmental factors, so what's influenced by genetics isn't quite as clear.

Why Kailos didn't run into the same problem as 23andMe

Genetic testing companies, like 23andMe, have run into trouble with the FDA for not getting its approval before making their genetic-health tests, which are pretty similar to the ones Kailos offers, available.

But Kailos is already government regulated. As a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-regulated industry, Kailos' lab facilities are regularly inspected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is in charge of ensuring they're up to par.

Also, having a physician analyze the tests on Kailos' end is a key way to steer clear of the roadblocks other genetic-testing companies face. Instead of providing uninterpreted information directly to a consumer, that information is going through a trained professional who can make sure it's interpreted accurately. Troy Moore, Kailos' chief scientific officer, told Business Insider the reason they opted for more specific tests for certain medications came from their background as a clinical lab.

The verdict

While it was easy to submit my samples and see my results, I didn't find the test incredibly helpful. I'm grateful to see my results were positive, but part of me was hoping to learn something more nuanced about how my genetics interacted with medicine, like if a certain type of contraceptive would have less negative side effects or would work better for me than another, or if I shouldn't take contraceptives at all.

Along with the thumbs-up/thumbs-down rankings, Kailos also provides all the raw information for the genes each test looked at, which could help a doctor dive deeper into what the test means for me.

I could have asked a doctor to go over my results with me — typically the tests Kailos provides are coordinated with a physician, but when I saw the thumbs-up signs, I didn't think going over my results with a doctor was necessary.

Which brings up a potential concern when it comes to consumer tests overall: What if, after receiving his or her results, a patient who was on medication chose to use them to start making changes to when and how he or she takes it?

This was a concern Thompson brought up when I told her I hadn't contacted my doctor about my results. Because parts of genetic tests can get really complex, it's helpful to have people with at least a physician-level knowledge of genetics around to interpret what it all means, she said.

"It's just a tool," Thompson added.

CHECK OUT: Drug companies are reeling after the Martin Shkreli incident — and it could shake up the entire industry

NEXT: Google is on a mission to figure out how and why we age

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: NEW RESEARCH: 96% of the brains in an NFL study tested positive for disease