The CRISPR Conundrum: Finding a Balance Between Science and Ethics
in the Molecular Age

1865. Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, published his findings on a new type of science. He had carefully cross-pollinated pea plants and observed what grew. This work would go on to become the cornerstone of the field of genetics.

2013. Genetic science is experiencing a boom equivalent to the Space Race of the 1950s. A new technology called CRISPR is taking the world by storm. Thanks to the pivotal work done by Mendel all those years ago, scientists know how to find and manipulate genes. CRISPR makes it almost easy.

CRISPR is a revolutionary tool that is changing the face of genetic research and treatment. Scientists learned to weaponize a simple mechanism that already exists in most living things. This means that cures to diseases like HIV, Type 1 Diabetes and Hemophilia are almost within reach.

“Before it was introduced it wasn’t easy to modify cells,” said Amanda Norvell, Professor of Developmental Cell Biology at The College of New Jersey during an interview in her on-campus lab.

Some claim humans are “playing God” and “cheating evolution” with this new, powerful technology. The world needs to find its ethical footing in this new, molecular age and decide how far this power should reach.

As lines are crossed and choices are made, debates surrounding CRISPR are reaching a fever pitch. The delicate balance between progress and ethical responsibility is essential to the continued success of the scientific community.

Although it may sound like the newest fad social network or high-speed computer processor, CRISPR is an acronym that stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, a phrase that means little to non-biologists.

Originally discovered in bacteria, CRISPR is a system inside all living things. It consists of repeating DNA patterns that are broken up by other, seemingly random patterns

These random stretches were later found to be sequences of virus DNA from infections that the cell had taken up arms against in the past.
In the vast network of DNA that makes up the human genome, repeating patterns are rare. Researchers had a feeling this system was something special, something never seen before. They were right.

Essentially, in nature, CRISPR is a cell’s CIA. It is a database that stores the DNA makeup of defeated viral invaders so they can be easily destroyed if they come back for another round.

The protein that works with the CRISPR molecules uses the DNA snapshot as a “wanted poster” and goes on an expedition to find the “criminal” or offending section of virus DNA. It then snips it out, rendering the virus useless.

The reason for CRISPR’s recent move to buzzword status comes from its reinvention as a scientific tool in 2012. Most of the fundamental work in this reinvention came from Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

“It was really quite amazing how quickly it was possible to harness this technology once it was clear how it operated,” said Dr. Doudna during a talk at Harvard University.

Researchers can now program CRISPR and make the “wanted poster” any DNA sequence they see fit, such as a faulty chromosome or disease-causing gene.

Then, they introduce the desired DNA sequence into the approximate location of the recently vacated opening. The cell’s immune system sees the perfectly good DNA laying about next to the break. It places the DNA in the slot as part of its regular tidying up duties.

“It makes site-specific breaks, and you can then edit or inactivate a gene,” Said Dr. Norvell. “Then our own cell’s machinery tries to fix the break.”

The official CRISPR Therapeutics website describes this method as “disrupt”, “delete”, and “insert.”

With this method, theoretically, CRISPR could be used to cure any genetic abnormality.

This could mean an end to diseases or conditions like genetic blindness, diabetes, herpes, Cystic Fibrosis, and HIV, to name a few.
When compared to other, now obsolete, gene-editing methods, CRISPR is cheap, quick and effective.

“There would be some grad students where their entire thesis would be the setup,” said Dr. Norvell when discussing older methods used to edit genes. “The technique isn’t the experiment anymore.”

CRISPR also seems to work as intended in every type of living thing from the very simple to extremely complex. Although it is not completely infallible, it is accurate and often effective in doing exactly what it was meant to.

“The accuracy is much better than other mechanisms. People used to think other methods would be it but this seems to be really good, it actually might be it,” said Dr. Norvell.

However, great discoveries are never without controversy. A lot of the controversy and ethical discussions surrounding CRISPR come from a very specific kind of edit.

When discussing gene editing, there are two categories of procedure. The first kind is somatic editing which starts and stops with one person and only affects their cells. However, germline editing in germ cells like sperm and egg cells or the cells of a developing fetus is a whole other story.

“If you edit in the germ cells, every cell in the offspring will have the edit in it,” explains Dr. Norvell. “That individual has the ability to pass on the trait.”

When a germline edit is performed, the change would be passed to the patient’s children and potentially their grandchildren. As these children have children of their own the edit would make its way into the human gene pool. There is no way to know the effects of this change.

Although it can be argued that editing out defects is a positive thing, there is no consensus on that.

For example, some people consider genetic deafness a disease, while many members of the deaf community do not. They view their condition as a difference in perception, not a problem that needs to be fixed.

However, if given the option to give their baby a genetic immunity to deafness, most parents would choose to edit out the ill-functioning gene.

This applies to many different conditions like Down’s Syndrome and Dwarfism. People who have these conditions may not think of themselves as ill, just different.

Given enough time and treatment, these conditions would be eradicated, meaning a loss in human variation and uniqueness, a characteristic that is widely celebrated.

However, this claim of eradication may never come true. Genetic testing to gauge the chance a baby will have a condition is now a standard part of the prenatal process in the US.

“Since we now live in an age of molecular medicine, we have mechanisms to let people know if they’re a carrier or not,” explains Dr. Norvell.

Despite these tests, the diseases are not even close to being eradicated. “These disease alleles still exist with testing, so it might be a long time until there is a measurable impact on the gene pool [with CRISPR editing]” said Dr. Norvell.
People are concerned about CRISPR editing for disease opening a door to a world where wealthy parents can pay doctors to edit their child and make sure it has blue eyes, or an IQ of 150, or grows to be over six feet tall.

People who are concerned about this world of “designer babies” also believe that this practice will become so common among the upper class, who can afford the edits, that people whose parents are unable to afford such genetic treatment would be at a disadvantage starting from birth.

Although theoretically CRISPR could be used to edit and select simple traits like eye color, dimples, and freckles, many traits that people fear the selection of, like height, athletic ability, and intelligence are unrealistic. These traits are multi-faceted and do not stem from one single gene. Environmental factors also heavily influence traits like intelligence and ability and aren’t completely genetic in nature.

If “designer babies” ever became reality, it would not mean that parents could ensure their child would grow up to be a genius who is near-guaranteed to get into the NBA. However, edits concerning one gene traits like hair color are not out of the picture.
People need to examine the balance between scientific achievement and ethical concerns, a feat that is easier said than done. As this discussion continues, CRISPR will continue to be a hot-button issue to keep an eye on.

Much of this debate could be settled by up-and-coming scientists and youth who cannot ignore this issue. Many are in favor of using CRISPR to cure disease. “If disorders can be determined in an embryo and have a negative effect on their life I think CRISPR could and should be utilized to remove that coding for that disorder,” said Mr. Grala. “It would improve the quality of life for the embryo or could even save their life.”

In an in-person survey, 88.8% percent of the twenty-five freshman students surveyed agreed that doctors should be able to use gene editing in embryos when a life-threatening condition is present. These students all came from different backgrounds and majors.
They were also against cosmetic editing or “designer babies”. An overwhelming 96% percent said that scientists should not be able to edit genes for cosmetic purposes.

Although genetic science developed because of a monk playing with pea plants, it has grown to become a science with incredible potential for power. Many up-and-coming scientists and young adults today believe in the validity of this technology to combat disease. However, the world must come together and decide where to draw the line. It may have already been crossed.