Jennifer Doudna: revision 1 to 2

Revision 1

Revision 2

categories: ["people", "genetics"]

tags: ["crispr", "gene editing", "rna", "nobel prize", "governance", "biochemistry"]

summary: "American biochemist who co-authored the 2012 paper showing CRISPR-Cas9 could be programmed to cut chosen DNA sequences, and shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry."

summary: "American biochemist who co-authored the 2012 paper showing CRISPR-Cas9 could be programmed to cut chosen DNA sequences, and shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry."

updated: "2026-07-28"

updated: "2026-10-29"

issues: ["The patent-dispute section makes checkable claims about specific rulings with no citation."]

---

{ "label": "Born", "value": "19 February 1964, Washington, D.C." },

{ "label": "Nationality", "value": "American" },

{ "label": "Education", "value": "PhD, Harvard University, 1989" },

{ "label": "Known for", "value": "Programmable CRISPR–Cas9", "link": "/wiki/crispr-cas9" },

{ "label": "Known for", "value": "Programmable CRISPR-Cas9", "link": "/wiki/crispr-cas9" },

{ "label": "Field", "value": "RNA biochemistry; structural biology" },

{ "label": "Affiliation", "value": "UC Berkeley; Innovative Genomics Institute" },

{ "label": "Award", "value": "Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2020" }

```

**Jennifer Doudna** is an American biochemist and structural biologist who, with Emmanuelle

[[emmanuelle-charpentier|Charpentier]], demonstrated in 2012 that the bacterial CRISPR–Cas9 system could be reduced to two

[[emmanuelle-charpentier|Charpentier]], demonstrated in 2012 that the bacterial CRISPR-Cas9 system

components and directed to cut any chosen DNA sequence by a single engineered guide RNA. The result

could be reduced to two components and directed to cut any chosen DNA sequence by a single

turned a bacterial immune mechanism into a general-purpose editing tool, and she shared the 2020

engineered guide RNA. The result turned a bacterial immune mechanism into a general-purpose editing

Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it. She has since become one of the field's most active voices on

tool, and she shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it. She has since become one of the

governance, particularly on the line between somatic and heritable editing.

field's most active voices on governance, particularly on the line between somatic and heritable

editing.

## Career

doctorate at Harvard in 1989 with Jack Szostak, working on self-replicating RNA. As a postdoctoral

researcher with Thomas Cech in Colorado she solved the crystal structure of a large catalytic RNA

domain, one of the first high-resolution views of RNA folding into a defined three-dimensional

enzyme.[^cate1996] That combination — RNA as an information carrier and RNA as a machine — set up

enzyme.[^cate1996] Between them, the two projects treated RNA both as an information carrier and as

everything that followed. She joined Yale in 1994 and moved to the University of California,

a machine, a combination that set up everything that followed. She joined Yale in 1994 and moved to

Berkeley, in 2002.

the University of California, Berkeley, in 2002.

Her laboratory reached CRISPR through structural work on RNA-guided processes, not through

Her laboratory came to CRISPR through structural work on RNA-guided processes rather than through

microbiology. Bacterial CRISPR arrays had been described since the late 1980s and their role in

microbiology. Bacterial CRISPR arrays had been described since the late 1980s, and their role in

adaptive immunity established by the mid-2000s; what remained was to show that the system could be

adaptive immunity was established by the mid-2000s; what remained was to show that the system could

reprogrammed. See [[crispr-cas9]] for the full mechanism.

be reprogrammed. See [[crispr-cas9]] for the full mechanism.

## The 2012 result

The paper published with Martin Jinek, Krzysztof Chylinski, Ines Fonfara, Michael Hauer and

Charpentier established three things.[^jinek2012] Cas9 is the sole protein required for

Charpentier established three things.[^jinek2012] Cas9 is the sole protein required for target

target cleavage in the type II system. It needs two RNAs — the CRISPR RNA and a trans-activating

cleavage in the type II system. It needs two RNAs, the CRISPR RNA and a trans-activating RNA, which

RNA — which can be fused into a single chimeric guide. And the target is specified by base pairing

can be fused into a single chimeric guide. And the target is specified by base pairing with that

with that guide, subject to an adjacent short motif in the DNA. Changing twenty nucleotides of the

guide, subject to an adjacent short motif in the DNA. Changing twenty nucleotides of the guide

guide changes the target.

changes the target.

> [!key] Why this was the pivot

> [!key] Why this was the turning point

> Programmable nucleases already existed. Zinc-finger proteins and TALENs could be targeted, but

> each new target required designing and building a new protein — weeks of work per site. Cas9

> each new target required designing and building a new protein, which took weeks of work per site.

> moved targeting from protein engineering to ordering an oligonucleotide.

> Cas9 moved targeting from protein engineering to ordering an oligonucleotide.

Within months, several groups reported Cas9 editing in human cells, among them teams led by Feng

Zhang and by [[george-church]]. The tool has since been elaborated into forms that avoid cutting

Zhang and by [[george-church]]. The tool has since been developed into forms that avoid cutting both

both DNA strands at all — [[base-editing]], [[prime-editing]] and [[epigenome-editing]] — partly in

DNA strands at all, namely [[base-editing]], [[prime-editing]] and [[epigenome-editing]], partly in

response to the [[crispr-off-target-effects|off-target and large-deletion problems]] that

double-strand breaks create.

Doudna's own subsequent work has centred on the structural biology of Cas enzymes, anti-CRISPR

Doudna's own later work has centred on the structural biology of Cas enzymes, on anti-CRISPR

proteins, the collateral cleavage activity of Cas12 and Cas13 that underpins CRISPR diagnostics, and

proteins, on the collateral cleavage activity of Cas12 and Cas13 that underpins CRISPR diagnostics,

delivery — which she has repeatedly identified as the field's binding constraint rather than the

and on delivery. She has repeatedly identified delivery, rather than the editing chemistry itself,

editing chemistry itself. See [[lipid-nanoparticles]] and [[aav-vectors]].

as the field's binding constraint. See [[lipid-nanoparticles]] and [[aav-vectors]].

## Institutions and companies

Doudna founded the Innovative Genomics Institute in 2014, a joint Berkeley–UCSF centre whose

Doudna founded the Innovative Genomics Institute in 2014, a joint Berkeley-UCSF centre whose

programmes include sickle cell disease, agricultural editing, and climate applications, and which

programmes include sickle cell disease, agricultural editing and climate applications, and which ran

ran a high-throughput COVID-19 testing laboratory in 2020. She has co-founded several companies,

a high-throughput COVID-19 testing laboratory in 2020. She has co-founded several companies, among

among them Caribou Biosciences, Intellia Therapeutics, Mammoth Biosciences and Scribe Therapeutics;

them Caribou Biosciences, Intellia Therapeutics, Mammoth Biosciences and Scribe Therapeutics. She

she was a founder of Editas Medicine and left it early.

was also a founder of Editas Medicine and left it early.

The intellectual-property dispute over CRISPR is unusually consequential. Berkeley and its partners

The intellectual-property dispute over CRISPR has unusually large consequences. Berkeley and its

filed first; the Broad Institute, where Feng Zhang's group demonstrated editing in eukaryotic cells,

partners filed first. The Broad Institute, where Feng Zhang's group demonstrated editing in

filed later under an accelerated route and was granted patents covering that use. US interference

eukaryotic cells, filed later under an accelerated route and was granted patents covering that use.

proceedings have repeatedly favoured the Broad on eukaryotic claims, while European decisions have

US interference proceedings have repeatedly favoured the Broad on eukaryotic claims, while European

favoured the Berkeley group; appeals have continued into the mid-2020s and the American position

decisions have favoured the Berkeley group; appeals have continued into the mid-2020s, and the

remains unsettled as of 2026. The scientific credit and the patent position have diverged, which is

American position remains unsettled as of 2026. The scientific credit and the patent position have

part of why the case is taught in technology-transfer courses.

diverged, which is part of why the case is taught in technology-transfer courses.

## Governance

Doudna convened a meeting in Napa, California, in January 2015 that produced a *Science* commentary

In January 2015 Doudna convened a meeting in Napa, California, that produced a *Science* commentary

calling for a moratorium on clinical use of heritable human genome editing while the science and

ethics were worked out.[^baltimore2015] Participants explicitly invoked the

[[asilomar-conference|1975 Asilomar meeting]] on recombinant DNA as a template, an analogy critics

[[asilomar-conference|1975 Asilomar meeting]] on recombinant DNA as a template. Critics have

have questioned on the grounds that the 1975 participants controlled the entire relevant field and

questioned the analogy on the grounds that the 1975 participants controlled the entire relevant

the 2015 ones did not. She has been involved in the international summit process since, and

field and the 2015 participants did not. She has been involved in the international summit process

condemned the [[he-jiankui-affair|He Jiankui experiment]] in 2018 as reckless and premature.

since, and in 2018 condemned the [[he-jiankui-affair|He Jiankui experiment]] as reckless and

premature.

Her position has been consistent and narrower than either extreme:

Her position has been consistent and narrower than either extreme. In her view

[[somatic-gene-therapy|somatic editing]] is ordinary medicine subject to ordinary safety review, and

[[somatic-gene-therapy|somatic editing]] is ordinary medicine subject to ordinary safety review,

[[germline-editing|heritable editing]] should not

while [[germline-editing|heritable editing]] should not proceed clinically until safety, need and

proceed clinically until safety, need and societal agreement are all established. She has written

societal agreement are all established. She has written about her own unease at having made the tool

about her own unease at having made the tool available, most directly in *A Crack in Creation*

available, most directly in *A Crack in Creation* (2017) with Samuel Sternberg.[^crack2017] She has

(2017) with Samuel Sternberg.[^crack2017] She has also been a persistent critic of the cost

also persistently criticized the cost structure of approved gene therapies, arguing that a treatment

structure of approved gene therapies, arguing that a treatment such as [[casgevy]] is of little use

such as [[casgevy]] is of little use to most sickle cell patients, who live in countries where both

to the majority of sickle cell patients, who live in countries where the price and the

the price and the transplant infrastructure are out of reach.

transplant infrastructure are both out of reach.

> [!debate] Who counts as an inventor

> Public credit for CRISPR is contested well beyond Doudna and Charpentier — Francisco Mojica,

> Public credit for CRISPR is contested well beyond Doudna and Charpentier. Francisco Mojica,

> Rodolphe Barrangou, Philippe Horvath, Virginijus Šikšnys and Feng Zhang all made claims to

> foundational contributions. The 2020 Nobel recognized two people for a discovery with a long

> foundational contributions. The 2020 Nobel recognized two people for a discovery with a long chain

> chain of contributors, a familiar structural problem with the prize.

> of contributors, a familiar structural problem with the prize.

## Reception and legacy

Doudna is among the most decorated living biochemists, and CRISPR is now the default laboratory

technique for altering a genome in essentially any organism. The clinical translation has been

technique for altering a genome in essentially any organism. Clinical translation has been slower

slower than the 2012 excitement implied: as of 2026 a small number of CRISPR-based medicines are

than the 2012 excitement implied. As of 2026 a small number of CRISPR-based medicines are approved

approved or in late-stage trials, most of them ex vivo cell therapies or liver-targeted in vivo

or in late-stage trials, most of them ex vivo cell therapies or liver-targeted in vivo treatments,

treatments, and the delivery problem she flagged early remains the reason the list is short.

and the delivery problem she flagged early remains the reason the list is short.

Her governance work is harder to evaluate. The moratorium she called for held in the sense that no

Her governance work is harder to evaluate. The moratorium she called for has held in the sense that

credible second germline case has been publicly confirmed since 2018, but it held through

no credible second germline case has been publicly confirmed since 2018. It has held, however,

professional norms, national law and reputational cost rather than through any enforceable

through professional norms, national law and reputational cost rather than through any enforceable

international instrument; see [[governance-of-genome-editing]]. Whether that arrangement survives

the arrival of cheaper editing and stronger commercial incentives around

cheaper editing and stronger commercial incentives around

[[polygenic-embryo-screening|embryo selection]] is an open question, and one she has said the

[[polygenic-embryo-screening|embryo selection]] is an open question, and she has said the scientific

scientific community is not organized to answer alone.

community is not organized to answer it alone.

## See also