The creation of the CRISPR/cas9 biotechnology is the most significant development in the field of genetic engineering in recent memory. Unlike previous gene editing tools, CRISPR/cas9 allows scientists to directly target pieces of the genome and edit them with “molecular scissors”, removing or replacing strands of undesirable DNA with unprecedented accuracy. It can even change the DNA in human sex cells and early stage embryos, causing permanent and irreversible changes to the germline.
The CRISPR/cas9 process is an already existing mechanism in biology and is part of the bacterial immune system. CRISPR acts as a kind of vaccination hard drive for the bacterium, storing short strands of DNA from viruses that have previously attacked the cell. This DNA is converted to RNA which then binds to a cas9 protein. Using the RNA as a search code, the protein cuts the DNA of attacking viruses at specific points that match with the guide RNA, in this case rendering the selected virus benign enough to be destroyed by the cell. It is this process that forms the basis of the gene editing technology.
The initial medical applications of the technology seem obvious. Blood diseases like haemophilia and sickle cell anaemia will more than likely be the first disorders that are tackled due to the fact that the faulty cells can be taken out of the body, modified, and replaced. Genes linked to big killers like cancer and heart disease will most likely be the next targets.
Beyond important but fairly standard medical use, the existence of a technology that can alter human DNA presents us with profound social and philosophical questions. For example, it is probable that, in time, CRISPR will be used for cosmetic purposes. Tweaking genes that regulate muscle development, eye colour, and hair growth will likely become the norm. What bodies will regulate the technology? What private institutions, if any, will benefit from its usage? What will be the broader psychological effects of this pursuit of biological perfection? Considering how rapidly the science is advancing, these questions need to be answered sooner rather than later.
If we assume that new technology maps onto existing institutional and social structures, then we should expect massive discrepancies in access to CRISPR therapies. 82% of the wealth created in 2017 went to the top 1%. Half the worlds population – roughly 3.8 billion people – own as much wealth as the richest 42. Looking at these statistics it is hard to believe that the benefits of CRISPR will be distributed anywhere near equally.
We can also expect huge difference in the way countries decide to regulate the technology. If made internationally available, we should expect the launch of a of genetic tourism industry, a state of affairs in which the wealthiest members of society travel to countries with the laxest regulation in order to boost genes that may – if the genes that regulate intelligence, productivity, longevity, etc. are isolated and modified – increase their wealth to an even greater degree. We may also see an underground, unregulated market of gene editing grow underneath the legitimate institutions if the channels of access to the benefits of CRISPR are collectively considered to be too restrictive. These potential consequences, although currently science-fiction, may become science-fact within decades.
Due to the simplicity of the mechanism – it contains just two key molecules – and that it is, in theory, a “one and done” style therapy, CRISPR has the potential to advance well ahead of any restrictive legislation. Its simplicity should not be understated. Jennifer Doudna – who is one of the creators of the technology and Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at UC Berkley – described using previous gene editing tools as “having to rewire your computer each time you want to run new software”. Conversely, she described CRISPR/cas9 as like “software for the genome”. It is worth noting that she has, in the past few years, called for a “worldwide moratorium” on genetic editing.
It is likely that the final consequences of this technology will outstrip even the most fanciful science-fiction inspired predictions. This is because, despite our best efforts, human beings have a fairly poor record when it comes to predicting the various outcomes of new innovations. Who knew, that when the automobile was invented in the latter half of the nineteenth century, that it would become one of the primary contributors to the transformation of our atmosphere and subsequently cause irreversible changes to the ecological makeup of our planet? This case study alone should demonstrate that it is vital that we proceed with caution.
willhoste 