- Electroporation safety debate: participants shared papers showing stainless-steel electrodes corrode and release iron ions during high-voltage pulses, questioning their “inert” status; graphite or carbon electrodes were suggested as safer alternatives for cell-electroporation setups.  
- Irreversible electroporation (IRE) was highlighted as a selective ablation modality that kills targeted cells yet spares nearby vasculature, allowing organs to recover within ~2 weeks—faster than expected if blood vessels were damaged.  
- Open-hardware skepticism: a $160–170 k “BioAssemblyBot” built from an Epson robot and syringes for tissue printing was criticized as overpriced; Dean Kamen’s new Organ Building Institute and its patented syringe-robot platform were noted.  
- CRISPR economics discussion: George Church’s $1 million-per-dose estimate for post-birth CRISPR therapy was challenged; participants argued IVF-stage editing or even sperm-mediated gene transfer could be far cheaper and more effective.  
- Sperm-mediated gene transfer literature dump: multiple papers were cited showing that exogenous DNA can bind to or be taken up by sperm heads, survive in seminal fluid, and be delivered into eggs at fertilization, potentially bypassing IVF.  
- Alternative delivery schemes explored: transfecting spermatogonial stem cells ex vivo followed by selection, direct DNA injection into mouse testis or vas deferens, and serial AAV vectors to deliver CRISPR components plus therapeutic genes.  
- Nanoparticle and in-ovo transfection techniques were mentioned as emerging tools for transgenesis, including puncture-free chicken embryo methods and nanoparticle-mediated sperm transfection.  
- Biohacking regulation tension: reference to BioViva’s work and the prospect of mail-order DMD gene-editing kits illustrated the growing conflict between rapid DIY bio advances and FDA oversight.