Debate Primer: Gene Editing
This week, Political Union will debate whether parents in the United States should be allowed to edit their children’s genes. You might wonder why we would debate such a resolution when the ramifications are located so far off in the future - but you’d be wrong. Thanks to something called CRISPR, a genetic engineering technology that was publicly unveiled in 2012, researchers are already experimenting with altering the genes of patients with sickle-cell anemia and a rare eye condition. The first live-patient implementation of CRISPR gene editing, which “snips” selected gene sequences and replaces them with more desirable alternatives, was in 2016, on a man with lung cancer. In 2018, a Chinese researcher stirred controversy by modifying the genes of twin baby girls to prevent HIV infection, in such a way that the mutation would pass on to future generations. Meanwhile, other gene-editing technologies for conditions like inherited vision loss, a form of spinal muscular atrophy, and a form of blood cancer, have also passed through FDA approval. Human genome editing may seem futuristic, but it’s been with us for quite some time - and debates over ethics are striving to catch up.
As far as recommended reading goes, it’s first probably quite important to understand exactly what current gene editing technologies can and can’t do, and what they might be able to do in the near future if current trajectories hold. There are hundreds of explainers on CRISPR out there, and I’ve been unable to narrow my recommendation down to just one.
Instead, I’ll suggest one brief article [bullet point-style explanation, 7 minutes], a short video from TED-Ed [5 minutes], and a full-length documentary available on Netflix, whose trailer I’m linking here. I highly recommend the documentary - one of the creators of CRISPR is interviewed, and the conversation delves into the ethics disputes with more authority, I’m afraid, than we will be able to on Monday night.
Next, Innovative Genomics publishes a thorough summary each year of clinical trials currently using CRISPR; if you want the details on the cutting edge research, that’s a good place to start.
Okay, let’s move on to the actual debate. Editing of children’s genomes by their parents takes place at the embryonic stage of human development. By and large, the most common argument for why this should be illegal, at least until more research is completed, is because it’s unclear what will happen to future generations who will carry those genes as well. That argument is laid out quite well in this article in Science [6 minutes].
Some additional research has been done into the genetic modification that was done on two Chinese twin girls in 2019, where a gene called CCR5 was modified to prevent HIV infection. Speculation about potential side effects on life expectancy and brain function then led to additional research, and some of the findings are laid out here [10 minutes].
Yes, John Oliver did do a segment on CRISPR and gene editing in 2018, which was largely optimistic about the health potential of the technology for human beings. The segment discusses genetic engineering of non-human animals as well, and concludes that gene editing must be carefully stewarded into what purports to be a bright future [20 minutes].
Perhaps the most gung-ho perspective on embryonic gene editing research in humans comes from the Hinxton Group, an association of scientists across eight countries, who published a consensus statement in 2015 arguing for aggressive research into pre-natal applications of technologies like CRISPR, on the grounds that broader disease elimination would be uniquely feasible at this stage [statement 25 minutes; write-up in the first link 6 minutes].
We hope you’ll join us Monday night at 7pm for our debate!
"Micah's DNA" by micahb37 is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
