The Promise and Perils of Genetic Engineering
We’ve entered an age where the distinction between science fiction and reality has faded. With CRISPR making headlines back in 2015, this sentiment was proven true in the field of genetics, leaving many questioning the applications of this potentially omnipotent tool. The CRISPR-Cas9 system was developed from a defense mechanism found in bacteria which utilized CRISPR to identify foreign particles (often viral DNA), and then cut them up with the Cas9 complex. Scientists took this naturally occurring system and targeted it to sequences of DNA that they wanted to alter. CRISPR would localize the system to the targeted region of DNA, allowing Cas9 to make precise incisions to remove the intended sequence. With the addition of a strand of donor DNA, the system would take advantage of natural DNA repair mechanisms to insert a desired sequence into the DNA. The efficacy of CRISPR propelled it to the forefront of science, paving the way for the future of genetic engineering.
This spotlight, however, came with a shadow of uncertainty. Concerns were raised, not only given the moral implications of providing the world with a means to pick and choose traits of future generations, but also in regards to the safety of such a tool. To understand and determine the validity of these concerns, it is imperative to step back and look at genetic engineering as a whole. The first techniques of genetic engineering came in the form of selective breeding. While we may not think of selective breeding as genetic engineering, humans have been manipulating the genes of plants and animals to acquire desired traits for thousands of years. Selective breeding was essential to population growth and allowed humanity to develop into the advanced societies we have today. The majority of people wouldn’t question the use of selective breeding, neither on moral grounds nor in regards to safety, so the question becomes: where should the line on genetic engineering be drawn?
Many people fear Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) due to rumored risks like cancer despite studies saying otherwise. The caution with CRISPR, however, seems to be on a much deeper level. Even Dr. Jennifer Doudna, who won the Nobel Prize for her work with CRISPR, found herself thinking of Hitler and the tragedies that could occur if CRISPR fell into the wrong hands. In fact, eugenicists believe that through CRISPR and other genetic tools, they can “improve the genetic quality” of humans. This belief embraces racist, ableist, and discriminatory ideals in this new age of genetics, and their vocal support makes it vital to take them into consideration when discussing CRISPR.
While these fears are relevant, it is also important to see the upside of such biological tools. The application of CRISPR into agriculture could allow for pest and climate-resistant crops that also have increased nutritional value. CRISPR would also greatly impact the medical field, specifically with hereditary diseases that currently lack treatments. According to Dr. Doudna, there are a number of things we can do as a society to prevent malign usage of CRISPR. First, we must make CRISPR a last-use case and restrain ourselves when alternatives are present. Second, treatments involving CRISPR must be available for all, not just the wealthy. Lastly, we must keep debating and discussing these topics, making sure everyone can voice their opinion on the matter. Although there is a risk associated with utilizing such powerful tools, we must trust humanity to make the right decisions.