Humans are rather inquisitive and cerebral; even as children, we seem to have a natural inclination to use the scientific method as a means of seeking answers to questions about the universe, our world, our environment, and our bodies. In an incredible display of our adaptability, we have also turned to science as a tool to solve problems in a way that other species haven’t been able to. This includes the advancement of medical technology as a means to treat and cure diseases that may otherwise wipe out large populations of other species. We have come a long way from the smallpox vaccine in 1796, the discovery of X-Ray imaging in 1895, the first successful organ transplant in 1954 to, finally, the discovery of a revolutionary technology that could edit our genetic code in 2012, called CRISPR. But new technology, especially one that can make as much of an impact on our environment and the future of humanity as we know it, must be treated with caution, respect, and awareness.
CRISPR, which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Palindromic Repeats, was discovered through the collaborative effort of biochemist Jennifer Doudna and microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier. According to Doudna, “The CRISPR technology allows scientists to make changes to the DNA in cells that could allow us to cure genetic disease.” (Doudna) After identifying the specific location of genetic code for specific diseases or mutations, CRISPR technology can be used as a pair of scissors capable of making a double-stranded break in the DNA helix, integrating a new piece of DNA at the site of the cut, and then triggering cells to repair these mutations. (Doudna) This could revolutionize modern medicine, circumventing the need for years of medical care to manage hereditary diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Huntington’s Disease. With as much of a role as our genotype plays in determining our phenotypes, this technology could even be eventually used to make people taller, more muscular, and subjectively more attractive based on whatever the media-influenced general public determines ideal in optimizing sexual selection at the time. The applications for such a technology can be limitless. But, as we all know, new technology is not without its flaws and generally requires plenty of adequate research and testing before it can be commercialized and used on human subjects.
To begin ethically using this technology in humans, we must first understand the risks involved. While scientists have learned so much about the major role of DNA in all living beings, we still have not perfected the art of altering genes, including in animals and plants. Two major issues include the efficiency of the technology itself and the relatively limited scope we have on our entire genome including how each genotype might interact with another and what features or traits may be affected with one small alteration. As journalist Jason Hawthorne pointed out in an article he wrote, “One drawback of this approach is a propensity to occasionally make cuts at unintended sites in the DNA.” (Hawthorne) In recent years, many scientists have attempted to use CRISPR technology on animals in various ways, including the editing of genes to produce meatier rabbits and pigs, heat-tolerant cows, and darker colored sheep. In each of these cases, issues arose. The rabbits developed enlarged tongues, the pigs grew an extra vertebra, one out of the two cloned cows died, and only one out of the four sheep carried to term. (Rana and Craymer) Major scientific discoveries generally go through a lot of trial and error. In the years following the discovery of X-Ray imagery in 1895 by Wilhelm Roentgen, many people suffered burns and other injuries as a result of radiation. (Sansare et al) It wasn’t until a few decades later that protections like patient shielding were put in place. Repeated research and testing would be required to determine what may have caused the CRISPR-related issues and whether or not it would be responsible to utilize these methods commercially without causing direct harm to the live subjects but also, to determine what kind of ripple effect it may cause.
To determine its extended effects, we would need to take a more holistic approach to see how these small alterations could impact other elements of our environment and, subsequently, future generations. A good example of such an unintended effect of human intervention on other species is the introduction of the Harlequin lady beetle to other parts of the world including North America in 1916, originally for pest control. Eventually, through admixture and adaptation, this resulted in a population explosion of a fast-spreading invasive strain of lady beetles that by the 2000s, caused home infestations, decimated fruit crops, and contaminated wine. (Alveshere 18) How would CRISPR technology impact health insurers, those in the medical field, and politics in general? In addition, knowing how much people place a great emphasis on the superficial, how much gene-editing is too much? Could terrorists and governments use this to create super soldiers? How would those who believe in Intelligent Design react? Will we have groups of people who refuse to utilize the technology to alter their genetic makeup start communities apart from the rest of the world as the Amish did? How will this impact future generations and the evolution of our species? This type of holism would, in my opinion, require the involvement of a panel of scientists that include not only molecular biologists and biochemists but also, anthropologists, environmentalists, ecologists, and so on.
In 2019, an advisory committee for the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that it “ should create a global registry of studies that involved editing the human genome, [and that] research funders and publishers should require scientists to participate in it.” (Reardon 2019) We should also think about whether or not this could prevent opportunists from moving their research or practice to countries with less regulation to capitalize on people’s desires to not only achieve optimal health but also, physical attractiveness. Ultimately, who will be responsible for doling out punishments for those who refuse to comply? In the case of He Jiankui, the scientist who first utilized risky gene editing in twin babies to make them less susceptible to contracting HIV - a disease they weren’t even at high risk of contracting, the Chinese government intervened and sentenced him to prison time and a fine of 500,000 yuan. (Cyranoski) Would other governments be as ethically conscious? Are there scientists who are now doing their own research in secret after realizing the risk of imprisonment for what they genuinely believe is a necessary step in the ultimate pursuit of knowledge?
Like any scientific discovery, research on CRISPR technology should certainly be allowed to continue. The potential benefits certainly can’t be ignored. As science journalist and author Emily Anthes wrote in her book Frankenstein’s Cat on the topic of a similar controversial topic that addresses the way humans are using science to metaphorically “play God” through cloning, “The time for first resorts has come and gone, and safeguarding species is an all-hands-on-deck enterprise.” (99) This can be applied to CRISPR as well. However, the research should be done responsibly congruent with ethical regulation based on clear guidelines. The creation of a global registry would be the first step in this, as well as a panel of scientists in various fields who can weigh in on the immediate as well as potential indirect effects of its implementation in various areas, followed by the passing of laws agreed on by a multi-national panel of leaders that can ensure it is not abused. Looking back at our human history that includes the horrors of colonization, imperialism, genocide, religious warfare, capitalism, and corporate crimes at the risk to human lives or the environment, we haven’t always had the best track record as a species. Eventually, some people will find a way to exploit this technology either for wealth, image, status, or success. If this could eventually lead to longer lives, there would certainly be people with disposable wealth willing to pay any price for immortality. Of course, we may be years away from this becoming a real issue. At least, I certainly hope so.
Works Cited
Alveshere, Andrea J., Ph.D. “Forces of Evolution.” Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology, American Anthropological Association, CC BY-NC 4.0 International, 2019.
Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein’s Cat: Cuddling Up to Biotech’s Brave New Beasts. Reprint, Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014.
Cyranoski, David. “What CRISPR-Baby Prison Sentences Mean for Research.” Nature, 3 Jan. 2020, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00001-y?error=cookies_not_supported&code=14e8a9dc-af5f-4cdf-b2c1-b54b15896ad0.
Doudna, Jennifer. “How CRISPR Lets Us Edit Our DNA | Jennifer Doudna.” YouTube. TEDTalk, 12 Nov. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdBAHexVYzc.
Hawthorne, Jason. “Is Gene Editing Already Leaving CRISPR Therapeutics Behind?” The Motley Fool, 21 Nov. 2020, www.fool.com/investing/2020/11/21/is-gene-editing-already-leaving-crispr-therapeutic.
Rana, Preetika, and Lucy Craymer. “Big Tongues and Extra Vertebrae: The Unintended Consequences of Animal Gene Editing.” WSJ, 14 Dec. 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/deformities-alarm-scientists-racing-to-rewrite-animal-dna-11544808779.
Reardon, Sara. “World Health Organization Panel Weighs in on CRISPR-Babies Debate.” Nature, 19 Mar. 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00942-z.
Sansare, K., et al. “Early Victims of X-Rays: A Tribute and Current Perception.” Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, vol. 40, no. 2, 2011, pp. 123–25. Crossref, doi:10.1259/dmfr/73488299.
