Kafer: The scary, promising and not too distant future of gene editing technology – The Denver Post

We are rapidly approaching the day when scientists will have the technology to alter the genome of embryos to cure genetic diseases such as Huntingtons disease, sickle cell anemia, and cystic fibrosis before they take their painful toll. For good or ill, Chinese researcher He Jiankui has shown that it is possible to safely make simple edits to a babys genome in vitro.

A friend of mine has cystic fibrosis. Shes spent more time in the hospital than anyone I know. But her health battles, agonizing as they are, have also made her deeply empathetic, kind, artistic, and persevering. Would I spare her a life of pain by making a genetic correction at conception knowing that it might take from her some of what makes her special? Yes. Am making a judgment call that health is of greater value than depth of character? Also yes.

Perhaps Im wrong.

But the ability to make multiple, complex edits to enhance a childs DNA rather than to cure a disease is the next scientific frontier. Scientists will be able to edit a babys genetics to make her smarter, more athletic, prettier, whatever her parents value most.

Most people would agree it is better to be healthy than sick. Is being taller better than being short? Will 10 IQ points make someone happier? Which physical characteristics are most beautiful? Should we make these choices for someone else? What happens to those who arent upgraded?

The creation of a class of improved humans through genetic modification isnt much different than similar efforts attempted through eugenics in the last century. It will most certainly widen the gulf between the haves and have-nots. Only those who afford in vitro fertilization with genetic enhancement treatment would have access.

While genetic engineering has great potential to solve significant health, environmental, and agricultural challenges, it also has the potential for harm. Can the harms be mitigated? Time will tell. In the meanwhile, we have an obligation to examine the potential benefits and unintended consequences.

If you read one book this summer, make it Walter Isaacsons The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race. You dont have to know anything about genetic modification to dive.

Isaacson paints a vivid picture of the process of scientific discovery, the people who discovered CRISPR and harnessed it for gene modification, and the potential costs and benefits of this revolutionary biotechnology. By the end of the book, youll wish you could meet Jennifer Doudna, the scientist who, along with Emmanuelle Charpentier won the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry and the other scientists responsible for this discovery.

Beginning in the 1990s, scientists began to note an oddity in bacterial DNA. All DNA is made up of four different molecules called nucleotides: adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. Think of them as an alphabet of four letters A, T, G, and C. From the smallest bacteria to the largest whale, the DNA of all living organisms and viruses contain anywhere from thousands to billions of base pairs of these same four nucleotides. They spell out, like a recipe book, how to make and maintain every living thing.

Scientists noticed that bacterial DNA contained segments of repeated letters which they called CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). In between these repeated clusters are segments of DNA that match the DNA of the viruses that attack bacteria. Were not the only creatures to catch a virus; bacteria get infected by viruses, too. One would think that a tiny, one-celled bacterium would be defenseless against a virus but its not. Because of these special DNA sequences, bacteria can locate and slice up viral DNA that has invaded the cell.

Having made this discovery, scientists asked themselves: if bacteria can use this bio-mechanism to alter viral DNA, can we use it to alter DNA?

Turns out we can and CRISPR is faster and in many cases better than existing biotechnology used for this purpose. Scientists can snip out segments in the DNA of living cells. The process of adding DNA, however, requires additional steps.

The most promising use of CRISPR biotechnology, in my opinion, is in agriculture where there are fewer ethical concerns and extraordinary potential benefits for human health and the environment. By 2050, the world population will be 9 billion and genetic modification will provide the key to ensuring there is enough food to go around. Scientists are using CRISPR biotechnology to increase food production, to make plants and animals naturally resistant to disease (thereby decreasing pesticides and antibiotics), and to bolster plant resistance to adverse environmental factors such as hotter temperatures, drought, and flooding which are likely to increase due to global warming.

While those benefits certainly outweigh the potential for harm, some questions remain: Should we bring back extinct animals and plants? How will they impact other animals and plants?

These questions, however, are easier to answer than the heavier questions regarding editing the human genome, which must be addressed if the scientific community is going to reach an international consensus on limits.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Visit link:
Kafer: The scary, promising and not too distant future of gene editing technology - The Denver Post