If you saw the 1997 movie, Gattaca starring Ethan Hawke and Jude Law, you’d get a glimpse of what society could look like if we could alter genes to create “perfect” humans. Well, life isn’t all that perfect even when society is full of perfect people, as the movie clearly shows.
Two decades ago the notion of editing genes was science fiction. Today, it’s starting to happen. Earlier this month, some American scientists announced that they had successfully corrected a genetic defect in human embryos by editing their genes.
To do this, a team of scientists led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon Health & Science University used a cutting-edge gene editing tool known as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) which allowed them to fix a disease-carrying mutation that causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition that can lead to heart failure.
CRISPR is a combination of chemical sequences that can make very precise changes to DNA. To do this, the scientists will inject donor sperm and CRISPR into a human egg at the same time. CRISPR then literally slices the target defect from the DNA. There are other ways to edit genes but they are generally imprecise and time-consuming. Earlier attempts to edit DNA in human embryos had resulted in mutations elsewhere in the embryos’ DNA. CRISPR, in contrast, is both accurate and efficient which is why the scientific community is all excited about it.
The Oregon scientists’ achievement was truly ground-breaking because it was the first time this gene-editing tool has been tested on clinical-quality human embryos. Earlier attempts at altering DNA using CRISPR had used embryos with such severe genetic defects that they were not viable to be developed into babies in the first place.
In contrast, Mitalipov and his team had used viable embryos created from the sperm of volunteer men who had the genetic mutation they wanted to fix. Had these repaired embryos been allowed to develop and eventually implanted into volunteer women’s uteruses, they would have resulted in babies born without the heart-disease genetic mutation.
Although none of the embryos was allowed to develop beyond an early stage, this breakthrough gives hope that many other diseases could be edited out through the use of CRISPR technology and that in the not-too-distant future we could rid society of many of the diseases that afflict humankind, such as cancer, ALS, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Of course not all diseases are genetic in nature. Vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever are transmitted by mosquitoes, ticks and various other insects. They too could be potentially eliminated by engineering genetically-altered mosquitoes, ticks and so on that can’t transmit the parasites that cause such diseases.
CRISPR can also be used to create designer crops. Although some people are against genetically-modified food, gene editing can be used to create new varieties of plants that are pest resistant, drought resistant and contain more nutrients. This can be a major weapon to fight the war against malnutrition, which still afflicts many children in third world countries.
So far, so good right? It’s hard to argue against the medical and agricultural benefits of gene editing. But like all other technology, it can also be a double-edged sword. Any technology can be abused or simply used for less-than-noble purposes.
In a fix
One of the big ethical questions that genetic experts are debating over is whether gene editing should be restricted to somatic editing or whether germline editing should also be allowed (and if it’s the latter, what’s the limit to it?).
Somatic editing refers to changing the genes in affected somatic cells only. Such changes can’t be passed on to future generations. In contrast, germline editing results in changes in the genome, which means the changes are hereditable and can be passed on to future generations.
A beneficial change like the kind that the Oregon scientists achieved would result in a baby that no longer has such a mutation in its genes. Its future offspring would not have such a mutation either.
Here’s where the double-edged sword comes into play. If mistakes are made that results in some unforeseen new diseases, these too would be hereditable and passed along to future generations.
But even if the science of it can be perfected to the point that mistakes can be eliminated, and we can safely and accurately edit and fix any genes we want, there’s the philosophical question of what type of traits should we be allowed to fix?
No one would seriously argue against fixing debilitating ailments but what about things like short-sightedness? It’s not really a disease but it’s something that would be nice to correct. Perhaps that should be allowed. But if we go down that road, how about correcting for height or obesity or looks or IQ? Should parents be allowed to edit the genes of their babies so that they have the best genetic advantages that technology can offer?
This slippery slope can easily lead to kiasu parents opting for designer babies that are perfect in looks and intelligence. Just look at the proliferation of books and enrichment programmes designed to make children the best that they can be. If parents could dispense with enrichment classes and simply custom order ideal genetic traits for their kids, is there any doubt there would be some — or perhaps many — who would do just that?
While it’s probably decades before creating designer kids is technically feasible, the progress that scientists have had with CRISPR indicates that it’s just a matter of time before science fiction like Gattaca becomes reality.
Perfect imperfections
The late great film critic Roger Ebert summed up this situation best in his review of Gattaca where he pondered upon this very question:
“When parents can order ‘perfect’ babies, will they? Would you take your chances on a throw of the genetic dice, or order up the make and model you wanted? How many people are prepared to buy a car at random from the universe of all available cars? That’s how many, I suspect, would opt to have natural children. Everybody will live longer, look better and be healthier in the Gattacan world. But will it be as much fun?”
He’s got a good point there. Life as we know it is far from perfect but it’s the imperfections in the world around us that gives us the variety that makes life so interesting. Watch Gattaca and you will know exactly what I mean.
Still, it seems like it’s inevitable that designer babies will become a reality, and quite possibly in our lifetime. The core technology to do it is already here. You might be surprised to know that basic CRISPR kits are actually available online at affordable prices, allowing anyone to edit bacteria genes if they are so inclined to try. (You can go to www.the-odin.com/diy-crispr-kit and buy a set for US$159/RM680).
Oregon’s Mitalipov is cognisant of the criticism of scientists trying to play God and he maintains that gene editing should be used for medical purposes only. “I don’t think I’m playing God,” he told National Public Radio in an interview. “We have the intelligence to understand diseases, eliminate suffering. And that’s what I think is the right thing to do.”
It’s the right thing to do. The fact that a certain technology can be a double-edged sword should not be a reason to reject it. The ability to edit genes has the potential to cure many genetic illnesses and allow people to live longer, healthier lives. There’s practically no area of medical science that it will not enhance. And it could lead to the elimination of world hunger as crops become more nutritious and bountiful. It’s a technology that must be embraced.