CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing and the need for scientific democracy
In 2007, CRISPR/Cas9 was identified as a defense mechanism used in bacteria and archaea, according to an article in the Journal of Bacteriology. With further developments, this new genetic engineering technology was made capable of the permanent mutation, deletion, or insertion of DNA at a precise point in a genome. This has led to many positive applications including but not limited to:
- Improving crop yields
- Malaria-resistant mosquitoes
- Gene-editing in human somatic cells
- Engineering of microbes for biofuel and drug production
In The Shapiro Lab, we study the fungal pathogen Candida albicans using CRISPR/Cas9 editing technology. C. albicans is the leading cause of fungal infections and is of particular relevance to those who suffer from conditions that suppress the immune system such as HIV/AIDS, cancer treatments and autoimmune diseases. This pathogen has the ability to form biofilms on medical equipment and resist the antifungal drugs that are currently on the market, which is of particular economic importance due to the high mortality rates and increased costs of healthcare, according to Nature Microbiology. People are suffering from this fungal pathogen, and it is being continuously characterized since it is hard to study. Genetic technologies have allowed for further investigation of this pathogen, with the hope of discovering new strategies to treat these infections.
In the case of the Shapiro lab, it is easy to see how beneficial genetic technologies can be to improve human health and scientific knowledge, without the ethical questions that exist for embryonic research and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products. Both of these cases tend to overshadow significant work that is being conducted with CRISPR/Cas9 technology to provide a better future for humanity. However, giving scientists the platform to dismiss the public as “uneducated” also allows a bypass for no questioning of the science that is taking place. Scientific communication to the public is a current issue, especially with the fast-paced scientific developments that exist today. I think that the public fear of scientific advancement and dismissal of public opinion from scientists comes from an overall lack of communication. One of the main ethical issues with this lack of communication is that the focus of research is determined by scientists, who are not democratically elected to their positions as researchers.
These ethical decisions that scientists make without public input can have serious implications for public trust, as exhibited by He Jiankui, who edited human embryos in the largest and only ethical breach known with CRISPR/Cas9 technology.
He edited human embryos using CRISPR/Cas9 technology to mutate the CCR5 gene in two twin girls; this edit rendered inactive the CCR5 chemokine co-receptor, to which the macrophage-tropic strain of HIV binds. Put simply, He introduced a mutation using CRISPR, so the children would not be susceptible to HIV. Eight couples were selected for the trials, with each of the men being HIV positive and the women HIV negative, according to an article in Nature.
This was the first known human embryo modification ever; the procedure violated internationally accepted ethical principles. Additionally, because CRISPR/Cas9 was applied in germline cells, it will be maintained across generations. There are now social, political, and ethical issues that need to be addressed, such as the consent process for these trials, the potential medical side effects of CRISPR/Cas9 editing, and the implications for future research using CRISPR/Cas9 on humans.
With this new application, I think the societal response will go one of two ways in the next few years. Either we will accept this application as a new advancement that can pave new ways in the medical field, or there will be enough outcry that embryonic gene editing could stop altogether, at least for a few years.
I think it’s also important to consider the social context of this modification. If this had taken place in Western society, after FDA approval, would the public reaction be different? Is the reaction now similar to the public outcry when genetic recombination was initially taking place? It’s hard to know how this advancement will be looked upon in the next few years.
As a student using these technologies and studying the implications of gene-editing, I think the only way to move forward is to bring democracy into science. To answer the question of whether we should be scared of new genetic technologies, I don’t think we should be scared of the science itself but the non-democratic way in which science often moves forward. Gene editing technology is here, whether or not we are ready to ethically moderate it. It is in humanity’s best interest to make sure democracy and ethics is brought into the equation.
Rebecca Stevens-Green is an undergraduate student completing an independent study with Dr. Rebecca Shapiro, assistant professor in molecular and cellular biology at the University of Guelph, whose research focuses on fungal genetics and CRISPR technologies, and Dr. Tara Abraham, U of G associate professor, whose research focuses on the history of medicine and science.