CRISPR-CAS9 and the Genome: Is it Ethical?
Cassandra van Drunen, Print Staff Writer
July 22, 2020
Imagine a world where you can create the ‘perfect’ genetic child with all the specific traits and characteristics you desire. That world might not be as out of reach as it may seem. Back in 2012, scientist Jennifer Doudna along with Emmanuelle Charpentier pioneered and simplified genome editing using CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat) sequences. The method created has become the easiest, affordable way to edit DNA with high levels of accuracy. This biological technology has the potential to greatly impact world health, from cancer to the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Though the scientific discovery is incredible in theory, does it hold it up in practice? Over the past few years, many have questioned the ethical and moral components of easily editing genetic information. Scientists across the globe have voiced their opinions on the matter while others have shocked the globe with the ways they’ve put the genetic tool into practice. Jennifter Dounda herself has stated, “The power to control our species’ genetic future is awesome and terrifying. Deciding how to handle it may be the biggest challenge we have ever faced.” The genetic tool can have amazing future health benefits, but regulating the tool and its use will be key moving forward in scientific research.
CRISPR technology has the ability to heal and impact the world in great ways, but some scientists have shown its dangerous potential. In late 2018, a Chinese scientist by the name of He Jiankui announced to the science community that two CRISPR-edited twins had been born. Jiankui had edited the babies’ embryonic genomes to ensure they were less likely to develop HIV from their father by disrupting a specific protein creating gene that allows HIV to access immune cells. These children were created without the national or international science communities being aware. As many in the science community have stated, the likelihood of HIV passing from father to child is rare, making this editing unnecessary, while also harmful, as there are many unknown potential health risks. When asked about her opinions on the use of the technology she had created, Dounda stated that, “[H]e created changes to the DNA that honestly had probably never been seen in the human population and never even tested in animals”. Since the news shocked the globe, Jiankui has been sentenced to three years in prison and fined the Canadian equivalent of nearly $570,000.
The creation of these twins has scientists trying to decide where the ethical and moral line is when it comes to editing the human genetic code. China’s health ministry created a ban shortly after Jiankui’s sentencing for scientific researchers to work with human reproductive technologies. This has led many Chinese scientists to have fear that they will need to pivot their studies in curing various genetic diseases regardless of their ‘more’ sound ethics. Though no other countries currently allow the use of CRISPR on embryos carried to term, the United Kingdom has become the first country to allow gene editing on embryos, albeit the embryos only last a mere few days. In additional contrast to Jiankui, the UK government as well as the Francis Crick Institute in London have formally agreed to and have more knowledge on the experiments being performed by young biologist Kathy Niakan. Instead of removing genes to protect born children from HIV, Niakan is researching ways that CRISPR can be used safely and effectively on embryos brought to term in the future. In a similar stance to many other scientists, as well as myself, Niakan stated in her 2019 research paper that “Much more work is required to solidify our knowledge of the basic biology of human development before we consider introducing genome modification into the repertoire of treatments offered to IVF patients”.
Though Jiankui’s work was a dark time in science, CRISPR technology has also been shown to have potential breakthroughs for many genetic -based ailments. One of these diseases is cancer. Major players including China and the USA have been developing clinical treatments to cure various types of cancer. Besides cancer, a large variety of other medical conditions currently under medical research to be treated using CRISPR science include muscular dystrophy, blood disorders, blindness, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington’s disease. Even more recently, various researchers, including a team at Stanford University, have been employing CRISPR to find a potential cure to the current COVID-19 epidemic. As of June 5th, the Stanford team has stated that by using CRISPR they have developed a method to inhibit 90% of all coronaviruses and could potentially use a similar technique should new pandemic-level viruses arise.
In addition to these treatments, CRISPR technology is being used in many other unique experiments including allergy-free foods. Australian researcher Tim Doran’s idea to genetically alter eggs stems from his daughter's own allergy. Within an egg, there are four potential proteins that a person can have an allergic reaction to. Doran explained that he is “essentially rewriting those regions of the gene that are recognised by the immune system and cause an allergic reaction.”
Though the clinical potential of CRISPR technologies is very vast, do the cons outweigh them? Where is the line of what aspects and in what ways scientists should be using CRISPR to edit human DNA? Bioethicist Hank Greely of Stanford University stated it best: “two things worry me [about the use of CRISPR]...One is the intentional misuse of CRISPR. The other is that people with good intentions will inadvertently cause harm”. With CRISPR technology being so new, there is so much about the long lasting effects that are unknown. Will changing the genetic makeup of individuals cause mutations or harm in the future? Will eating a new variety of genetically modified food have adverse effects on the body?
Like the science breakthroughs of the past, I believe that the CRISPR technology should be implemented into treating human health, with caution. Testing in controlled settings to monitor and watch the short and long term effects are all key components of these potential treatments and products. This isn’t to say that no lines should be drawn. Governments and Universities alike should ensure that policies are in place for any researchers who intend to use CRISPR technology so that the scenarios such as Jiankui’s twins do not occur without rigorous testing and ethical knowledge and consent. In addition, I believe that many of the scientists who spoke out against Jiankui made a fair point about what CRISPR should be used for. The biological technology should be used for medical cases where limited drugs or cures currently exist as opposed to small likelihoods of occurring. Though some individuals may be morally or religiously opposed to having CRISPR technology used on themselves, the opportunities should be made available for those who have been properly educated and willing to take part. Perhaps the most important component of CRISPR technology is the education gap between those in science research and the general public. In the age of the internet, bad and inaccurate news can travel fast, scaring the vast majority from the amazing potential behind many of the clinical trials using CRISPR. Jennifer Dounda herself stated in her novel, “We must break down the walls that have previously kept science and the public apart and that have encouraged distrust and ignorance to spread unchecked. If anything prevents human beings from rising to the current challenge, it will be these barriers.”