How Can Science Help Reverse Blindness?

From bionic eyes to gene editing, how can we use science to bring back sight?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


The human eye is an incredibly complex organ, and researchers continue to actively investigate how the eye functions and, in some cases, why it does not. An estimated 36 million people worldwide are blind, and an additional 217 million people have moderate to severe impairment of their vision. How many of these cases are avoidable? How can science help us reverse visual impairment and even blindness?

Reversing Blindness with Gene Editing


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The most common genetic condition affecting vision is known as retinitis pigmentosa. Globally, around 1.5 million children are born with retinitis pigmentosa, a condition which causes the cells on the retina to deteriorate over time. This usually starts with a loss of night vision, followed by tunnel vision, and eventually can end in blindness.

Since retinitis pigmentosa is a genetic condition, it is caused by a genetic mutation. If cells from a healthy retina can be inserted into the eye, they could dominate over the cells with the mutation to either slow or stop the retinal degeneration. However, using cells from someone else’s healthy retina runs the risk of the foreign cells not being accepted by the new host body. Fortunately, new approaches to gene editing like the CRISPR/Cas9 enzyme mean that we can snip out unwanted sections of our own genes.

In a recent study published in the journal Nature, researchers took skin cells from patients with retinitis pigmentosa and used a known technique for turning them into multipurpose cells (called pluripotent stem cells). They then removed the mutation through CRISPR gene editing. When they tested the cells 10 days later, the mutation was still gone. The next steps will be to test whether the cells can be put back into the afflicted retina with positive results.

Researchers are also looking at reprogramming the eye’s own cells to address congenital issues like retinitis pigmentosa and other degenerative diseases like age-related macular degeneration. For example, scientists from the National Eye Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.) recently found that Muller glia, cells that act as connective support between neurons in the eye—or, in other words, retinal glue—could be reprogrammed to function as photoreceptors in the eyes of mice that were born blind, specifically the rods that allow us to see in low light.

»Continue reading “How Can Science Help Reverse Blindness?” on QuickAndDirtyTips.com

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe