CRISPR Chaos

The fantasy of genetic engineering had captured the imagination of many even before the movie Jurassic park was released in 1993. In reality, modifying the genetic material or DNA has been a tricky business scientists have indulged in since decades, albeit on mostly lab grown animals. It has always been a challenge to tinker with DNA and obtain a desired effect even in less complex living beings. Around 2012, however, the latest fad in genetic engineering and a game-changer was presented to the world, called CRISPR. A law suit that followed between two eminent scientists, one from the University of California and the other from the Broad institute (both along with collaborating institutes) over the ownership of the CRISPR patent was only the beginning of a dramatic series of events. This patent dispute was termed no less than a 'war' and was closely followed by the entire biological science fraternity. Since then many CRISPR patents have been filed, no doubt foreseeing the indefinite potential of this magic tool. All the limelight this revolutionary tool received should be good for science community as a whole. Only it isn't. Or at least, it isn't all good.

CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, an expansion intelligible to probably only a sub-section of biological scientists. This fancily named tool is originally found in nature as a part of bacterial immune system to fight off viruses and was discovered in 1987. It took off as one of the most versatile and efficient gene-editing tools in history in the current decade. Scientists mimic this system to alter the information of DNA in a living model of their interest. What's more, CRISPR is highly amenable and handy than its predecessor DNA altering tools. The obvious excitement of discovering the CRISPR system was whether this meant we finally had an easy fix for human diseases, even when a variety of applications from generating improved crops to newer breeds of farm animals seemed easier and targetable using this tool, more than ever. Genetic diseases can be treated from the roots if one could switch back a 'bad' piece of DNA using tools like CRISPR. Isn't it great, considering 1 in 100 people suffer from genetic diseases? Scientists are calling this the 'CRISPR era', where gene therapy could be a palpable reality and not just stay as controlled experiments.

So what then is the pitfall? It turns out, like many things, there's a contrary and unethical possibility. Apart from fixing 'bad' DNA, some started envisioning 'better' DNA. And not just editing DNA an individual carries, but also transmit it to future generations. In a very extrapolated sense this means we could make a being entirely outside the plan of nature, like the fictitious dinosaurs. The idea of designer babies have been on the horizon much earlier than the rise of CRISPR. Only now it seems much attainable. Another movie reference here: Gattaca very futuristically had portrayed how imbalanced and out-of-control a world (more than it is now?) of cherry-picked humans would be. Naturally, CRISPR experiments in human embryos were strictly restricted to ones where the embryos were deemed nonviable. It only seemed apt, given that such early studies showed the biggest limitation of the CRISPR tool: it's ability to make unintended DNA modifications or off-targets. All hell thus broke lose when someone, for the first time, publicly disclosed the birth of human babies modified via CRISPR. Why though?

An alumnus of Stanford University first presented his 'adventure' with CRISPR editing of human twins last year, inviting severe backlash and has been labelled a 'rogue scientist'. The entire community of gene-editing researchers was scandalized and voiced out their disbelief at the callousness with which the said scientist designed the experiments and performed them. The outcome of the gene-editing according to the perpetrator was intended to create resistance to HIV in the babies. However, it has become clear that not only were the experiments scientifically flawed, with no proof of advantage provided to the babies, but there also is no way of predicting what all could have gone wrong. There was widespread outcry against the huge ethical breach and the country's scientific community was slammed for cultivating unchecked scientists, in response to which the rogue scientist was sacked. Scientists from other countries who seemed to have turned a blind-eye while the experiment was ongoing were also put through the mill. If this wasn't enough, soon after, a another scientist caused much uproar by lauding the first CRISPR-edited babies and disclosing attempts to recreate the experiment. This in effect is a reflection of all the possibilities that can happen undercover, even in dingy labs with access to the right resources.

To no ones surprise, Silicon valley giants are increasingly becoming interested in the possibilities of CRISPR. An alternate view of the appalling experiment suggests how the silicon valley may get involved in the CRISPR-enhanced-humans race. In recent times a convicted late billionaire known as a 'Scientist collector' who was involved with many big figures, including those who could alter biological systems, was said to have 'a dream of a race of his own'. Eugenics is the concept of creating the superior human race, and even the most brilliant minds in history seemed to have sported this condemnable notion. If placed in wrong and mighty hands, CRISPR has the potential to create irreversible changes to the world as we know it. Day by day, the technology is becoming more accessible and increasingly attractive with every tested and successful experiment. Ethics will definitely take backseat in the absence of strict regulations, and even then there are going to be many loose ends and reckless rule breakers.

Researchers had called for the need of CRISPR regulations even before the twin baby mishap. These voices got stronger and urgent post the editing of human embryos and the birth of the twins. As latest as August 2019, the WHO has launched a worldwide registry for human genome editing. If such measures will be enough to curb wild, exploratory and unethical CRISPR experiments is something that's to wait and see. Meanwhile the basic biology research space has gleaned greatly from the new quick-fix solution for gene-editing. The launch of a CRISPR journal speaks volumes further. It seems inevitable that the human race not be swept by the revolution of CRISPR. And there's nothing much left to do than cautiously step into the future of the CRISPR era.