By THEODORE STABILE
Staff Writer
CRISPR (Clustered interspaced short palindromic repeats) is currently the most versatile, precise and affordable form of genetic engineering tech.
At its core, CRISPR uses proteins, most prominently the RNA enzyme Cas9, to cut into a cell’s genome (the set of chromosomes) and add or remove genes.
CRISPR essentially treats DNA as a computer program and filters out the game-breaking bugs with the Cas9 GameGenie™. CRISPR can be used to alter the genome of any organism.
Genetic engineering is not limited to humans of course. Several plants and animals, even the food we eat have been subject to genetic testing and modifying, such as GMOs. Hybrid plants, dog breeds and several other artificial nuances in nature that we have grown quite fond of only exist due to advances in gene editing.
Without these genetic tests banana seeds would be tenfold in size, and corn, the king of the food industry, would be barely edible and a fraction of its modern size.
The educational YouTube channel Kurzgesagt released a superb and easily digestible animated video on CRISPR and its many ramifications. One of its points was that discussion is critical when it comes to gene editing, as shunning and shaming gene research will only drive it into the wrong hands.
CRISPR still has limitations, but will revolutionize the primordial fabric of our children and beyond. Right now however, it’s thrust China back into the genetically controversial spotlight.
I am not surprised but violently cautious and a tinge exuberant that China has become the first nation to test CRISPR on a living human. Earlier last week Oncologists at the Suchuan University in China have begun the experiment of injecting CRISPR-modified cells into a patient afflicted with lung cancer.
It is theorized that CRISPR’s abilities as a “DNA coder” could cure genetic and heritable diseases such as cystic fibrosis and down syndrome, and down the line could even cure cancer.
China has decided leap across the line early.
What is causing commotion is the idea that Chinese gene editing will not stop with just curing diseases, but will progress into subtle selective breeding by changing traits that determine intelligence and physical appearance and ensuring they are the genes that get passed onto future generations; a technical form of semi-natural selection for some, a thinly veiled involuntary eugenics program to others.
However, if the future generations of Chinese citizens are genetically keener than their predecessors, perhaps they can ironically deliver a fatal blow to the status quo of the Communist Party.
The Chinese Communist Party has proposed an investment of $41 billion into Scientific and Technological research and development for the next five years, a section of that research going strictly into genetic research. In 2013, two percent of China’s GDP, $190 billion all told, was invested in scientific experimentation.
In regards to where we should ethically stand, Deng Rui, a medical ethicist from Shanxi Medical University, gave his opinion.
“Ethics are a question of culture,” said Rui, “and that is about tradition, especially where it touches on human life.”
This implicates that the moral line in the sand may be drawn a lot later in the East than in the West. Human rights are a precious component of civilization; however, China in particular has a penchant of getting into scalding hot water when it comes to violations in that regard.
Biotech expert Jamie Metzl claims that the Chinese government recognizes that genetics will be important for competition and medicine. With that competition there will be ethical challenges. Metzl emphasized the need of ethical standards and tackling the fear of moving forward aggressively with gene editing, as engineering and genome adjustment can divert our evolutionary course.
He asserts the importance of finding balance between health and hazards.
“The tools that can be used to create healthier longer lives can also be trade to create bioweapons,” said Metzl.
There is a cultural difference between the Eastern and Western world, specifically the schism in favorability of gene editing.
In China regular citizens tend to be much more unified in favor of genetic engineering, as it would produce healthier, happier children, whereas in America and
Europe there is a contested debate about the ethical implications of gene editing.
The American public is split between worried and enthusiastic about gene editing, with a slight leaning towards worried, according to Pew research.
A stark difference between America and China is that the latter commits stupendously more federal funding to genetic research, and western democracies are more prone to be more populists and sensitive to public opinion.
American scientists such as Edwards Lanphier and Fyodor Urnov among others warn against the potential diseases and genetic malfunctions or oversights gene editing can unintentionally cause due to our technological limitations. It stems down to an age old question: “Does Man have the right to play God?”
China’s controversial relationship with aggressive gene editing was brought to light earlier this year when a team of scientists led by Zilong Qiu at the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences created over a dozen monkeys with a genetic error found in some human children that cause autism and mental retardation.
The monkeys displayed characteristics prevalent in children with autism, and now their creators claim they will try to cure them to better understand treatment.
The extra layer of animal welfare morality comes from the fact that unlike typical animal testing, these animals were deliberately predisposed to the genetic error.
This is also not China’s first tango with CRISPR technology.
In 2015 Chinese scientists obtained 86 “abnormal” human embryos and used the Cas-9 gene editing tool to modify genetic codes in their DNA that caused the unique blood disorder thalassemia.
The experiment was met with criticism on the grounds that CRISPR was limited and underdeveloped at the time. A year later CRISPR has graciously found its footing and become a scientific household name, but seems to still be long on the journey of becoming a foolproof designer baby maker.
China persisted with CRISPR and for the second time experimented with human embryos to create HIV-resistance via gene mutations in the CCR5 protein.
The discussion of gene editing, especially with CRISPR, plays with our imaginations with thoughts of how far we can go, and tows our ethical authority with thoughts of how far we should go. There is also concern that if and when the Western world achieves a global consensus and set of guidelines with CRISPR that the Eastern world, and especially China, will not agree to embrace the same standards with open, sterilized arms.
With the Communist party’s aggressive investment into gene editing and with the onset of CRISPR, China holds a substantial lead in the field of genetic engineering. To hold China accountable to proper standards of genome editing, unlike the GMO-riddled eggplant, we need to have a spine.
Authoritarian governments are not prone to compromise or mutual interest. If we are to ensure that the “malevolent superhuman uprising” sci-fi trope doesn’t grow any malignant, viable roots we must set the ethical standard of gene editing with such powerful, heated commitment and energy that the line in the sand turns to glass.
