Gene Editing – The Good, The Bad, And The Dangerous
By Steve Schiller
Should scientists be able to edit genes? We should be able to improve human life, right? How is it done? What are the dangers? Let’s find out.
All life on Earth can now potentially be “edited” on the most basic genetic level, improving or corrupting it, but forever altering it.
Gene editing had for decades been a time-consuming, expensive, and not altogether successful endeavor. The invention of the CRISPR-Cas-9 in 2012 tool changed all of that. CRISPR is a gene editing tool that identifies a mutated section of DNA that’s causing a disease, uses the equivalent of a pair of tiny scissors to extract the offending section, then modifies or replaces it with a strand that is functioning normally.
This technique has been used to stop specific cancer cells from multiplying, protect plants from insects and fungus, and reverse mutations that cause blindness. The potential to save lives and improve humanity as a whole seems unlimited.
There are, however, some scientists that are pushing the limit. One geneticist says he is planning to bring back the woolly mammoth by extracting genes from frozen mammoth corpses and injecting them into the embryos of elephants. Another group is introducing malaria-resistant cells into mosquitoes in an effort to eradicate the disease. It seems a noble effort, but scientists admit that existing mosquito species may become extinct. They are also monitoring what could happen to bats that rely on mosquitoes for food, should the mosquito line die out.
The real limit was pushed recently when Chinese scientists began applying gene editing to human embryos. This goes against both the UN’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and the US National Institutes of Health in terms of legality and ethics. The impetus behind the research, of course, is to nip genetic diseases in the bud before they become a problem.
Human nature being what it is, the admirable desire to eliminate diseases in embryos will inevitably lead to something potentially darker in nature: designing babies. Should parents have the right to choose whether their babies will have wrinkles or blue eyes or be athletic? It’s a question most people aren’t asking, though they should be. Jennifer Doudna, one of the co-inventors of the CRISPR system says, “We haven't had the time, as a community, to discuss the ethics and safety and, frankly, whether there is any real clinical benefit versus other ways of dealing with it.”
The danger most scientists fear – and in fact few refuse to speak about – is the potential of transitioning from well-meaning science into gene editing weaponization. Recently, the UN discovered that the former apartheid government in South Africa attempted to develop a genetic vaccine that would specifically target the country’s black population for sterilization and subsequently “kill off” the entire race. Thankfully, the genetic technology at the time was not advanced enough to accomplish this plan. Today it would be.
Scientists have pointed out that any human being that is gene edited during their embryonic stage would then transfer the genes to their offspring upon becoming an adult. If you combine what the Chinese are attempting with what South Africa wanted to do a few decades ago, you can visualize a nightmare scenario akin to Nazi-like eugenics.
The U.S. government saw the possibility of genetic weaponization as early as 2000. In the US Neo-Conservative Project for a New American Century’s (PNAC) 2000 report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the government stated: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Scientists, corporations, governments, and even civilians need to recognize both the benefits as well as the threats of this new technology. A moratorium should be called to discuss the ethics, moral questions, and dangers with genetic editing.
Gene editing is going to happen one way or another – it already is happening. Left unchecked, I fear our very genetic makeup could be in danger.
All life on Earth can now potentially be “edited” on the most basic genetic level, improving or corrupting it, but forever altering it.
Gene editing had for decades been a time-consuming, expensive, and not altogether successful endeavor. The invention of the CRISPR-Cas-9 in 2012 tool changed all of that. CRISPR is a gene editing tool that identifies a mutated section of DNA that’s causing a disease, uses the equivalent of a pair of tiny scissors to extract the offending section, then modifies or replaces it with a strand that is functioning normally.
This technique has been used to stop specific cancer cells from multiplying, protect plants from insects and fungus, and reverse mutations that cause blindness. The potential to save lives and improve humanity as a whole seems unlimited.
There are, however, some scientists that are pushing the limit. One geneticist says he is planning to bring back the woolly mammoth by extracting genes from frozen mammoth corpses and injecting them into the embryos of elephants. Another group is introducing malaria-resistant cells into mosquitoes in an effort to eradicate the disease. It seems a noble effort, but scientists admit that existing mosquito species may become extinct. They are also monitoring what could happen to bats that rely on mosquitoes for food, should the mosquito line die out.
The real limit was pushed recently when Chinese scientists began applying gene editing to human embryos. This goes against both the UN’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and the US National Institutes of Health in terms of legality and ethics. The impetus behind the research, of course, is to nip genetic diseases in the bud before they become a problem.
Human nature being what it is, the admirable desire to eliminate diseases in embryos will inevitably lead to something potentially darker in nature: designing babies. Should parents have the right to choose whether their babies will have wrinkles or blue eyes or be athletic? It’s a question most people aren’t asking, though they should be. Jennifer Doudna, one of the co-inventors of the CRISPR system says, “We haven't had the time, as a community, to discuss the ethics and safety and, frankly, whether there is any real clinical benefit versus other ways of dealing with it.”
The danger most scientists fear – and in fact few refuse to speak about – is the potential of transitioning from well-meaning science into gene editing weaponization. Recently, the UN discovered that the former apartheid government in South Africa attempted to develop a genetic vaccine that would specifically target the country’s black population for sterilization and subsequently “kill off” the entire race. Thankfully, the genetic technology at the time was not advanced enough to accomplish this plan. Today it would be.
Scientists have pointed out that any human being that is gene edited during their embryonic stage would then transfer the genes to their offspring upon becoming an adult. If you combine what the Chinese are attempting with what South Africa wanted to do a few decades ago, you can visualize a nightmare scenario akin to Nazi-like eugenics.
The U.S. government saw the possibility of genetic weaponization as early as 2000. In the US Neo-Conservative Project for a New American Century’s (PNAC) 2000 report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the government stated: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Scientists, corporations, governments, and even civilians need to recognize both the benefits as well as the threats of this new technology. A moratorium should be called to discuss the ethics, moral questions, and dangers with genetic editing.
Gene editing is going to happen one way or another – it already is happening. Left unchecked, I fear our very genetic makeup could be in danger.
posted by Michael Plemmons @ November 12, 2015
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home