STAT44%

ARPA-H invests $160 million to make custom gene editing routine 33%

By Jason Mast88%

7/9/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Loss Aversion, and Negativity Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 45.4% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 271 faulty-reasoning hits from 282 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.7% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,656 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.00% of the article peer group.

ARPA-H launches $160 million effort to develop custom gene editing drugs 
Program will fund seven groups over five years in hope of Baby KJ-like successes 
Jean-Christophe VERHAEGEN / AFP via Getty Images 
General Assignment Reporter 
Jason is a general assignment reporter, with particular focus on genetic medicine and rare disease. 
Confidential tips can be sent on Signal at JasonMast.77. 
ARPA-H, the U.S.’ “moonshot” agency for health research, announced Thursday that it will spend up to $160 million to push forward custom gene editing treatments for a spate of rare diseases. 
The program, called THRIVE, will back seven different teams pursuing various groups of conditions affecting different organ systems. 
Each team has a deadline of starting clinical trials by year three of the program, although some may start much sooner. 
STAT+ Exclusive Story 
Already have an account? 
Log in 
This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers 
Unlock this article  plus daily coverage and analysis of the biotech sector  by subscribing to STAT+. 
Totals $468 per year 
for 3 months, then $399/year 
Savings start at 25%! 
$300 Annually per user 
To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+. 
biotechnology , CRISPR , gene editing , Gene therapy , HHS , rare diseases , STAT+ 
Submit a correction request Reprints 
STAT Plus: Roche ends Huntington’s gene-silencing programs 
STAT Plus: Prime wins Beam arbitration, clearing path to clinic 
Adam's Biotech Scorecard 
STAT Plus: 931 days. 
The drug approval scandal hiding in plain sight 
STAT Plus: AstraZeneca, Ionis report major trial failure with heart disease drug 
STAT Plus: The quest to save Grace  and clear the way for rare disease patients everywhere 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 12.7%STAT: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Jason Mast: 9.2%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect12.4%This article: 9.9%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion9.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Jason Mast: 6.7%STAT: 3.3%Optimism Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 6.6%STAT: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Jason Mast: 8.3%STAT: 8.5%Negativity Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 10.3%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 3.7%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.0%Jason Mast: 6.1%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 1.0%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%Jason Mast: 3.4%STAT: 3.3%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.9%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 8.3%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 4.2%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.8%Jason Mast: 8.1%STAT: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Mast: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 45.4%Jason Mast: 16.2%STAT: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…45.4%

282 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers46%attributed speech152writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageARPA-H • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageARPA-H • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT+ • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 7 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 7 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 12 words • 100.0% coverageSTAT+ • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

STAT+

100%flagged-word coverage
88 attributed words68% of attributed speech41% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +73.7 ptsWriter: 26.3%STAT+: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%STAT+: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.