Welcome to the Future
2.3 million years ago, our discovery of cooking led us to evolve a brain that’s thirty percent larger and evolve into the Homo habilis, “handy man.” Thirty years ago, a team at the Osaka University found apparently nonsensical genetic segments in E. coli and concluded that “the biological significance of these sequences is not known.” Nine years ago, scientists realized that using those irregularities, we can cheaply and easily edit our own DNA, and began to create technology that may help shift human history tectonically.
The short of it is that in 2002, researchers discovered that bacteria have what can be said to be their equivalent of the human immune system. Rather than crudely attack any foreign invaders, bacteria develop a database of previous offenders, which they are later better-equipped to fight. CRISPR, short for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” is this database—anomalous DNA originating from viruses that scientists found between normal bacterial DNA.
Say a virus attacks a culture of bacteria. The majority die, but those who survive are genetically changed, splicing the enemy viral DNA into their own. The survivors are attacked again by the same virus. Near these new CRISPR genes, enzymes called Cas take the CRISPR information from the earlier battle, and if they find the new viral material that matches the gallery, they chop it in half like foot soldiers and prevent it from replicating and further infecting the system. The survivor bacteria and their descendants are resistant to further attack. It’s a genetic vaccination passed on to their progeny.
But defense is what is consequential for bacteria. What’s important for us, of course, is that we’ve discovered nature’s own little tool for modification of the genome, a tool that we’ve begun to harness for our own purposes.
In 2012, a team led by Jennifer Doudna picked up Streptococcus pyogenes—the bacteria that causes strep throat—and using its CRISPR system, created a tool called CRISPR-Cas9 to allow them to find, target, and remove any gene they wanted. By simply taking a stand of RNA (a messenger of DNA information) and giving it a gene’s address, they were able to guide two Cas9 enzymes to snip out undesirable DNA. Then, the new gene is installed and gracefully sewn in. It’s been compared to a genetic word processor, allowing one to cut out single letters with ease, and takes an hour for a graduate student to master. This isn’t the first time we’ve done genetic engineering, but this is the first time it’s been so simple and cheap.
It’s also the first time that it might affect the human gene pool permanently. We already modify genes in regular tissues to fight disease through gene therapy, but CRISPR can edit the egg and sperm so that any modifications are passed on to the offspring. In principle, if these changes are extensive enough, they could change what it means to be human.
This is exciting—for everyone. The rate of adoption of this technology among both academics and the private sector has been extraordinary. The agriculture industry is using it to make hardier crops. There are researchers thinking to use it to eliminate malarial mosquitoes. Mice have been cured of genetic disorders. A team at Harvard, with the help of CRISPR, modified pig embryos last year to make them grow human organs. In every animal and every cell type that has been tried, CRISPR has worked.
Now, researchers can pick at specific genes in humans and find with certainty which genes cause disease and change them. There is work from on issues from schizophrenia to blindness. The HIV virus has been removed from human cells. Doudna has received e-mails from women asking if CRISPR can keep them from passing on their breast cancer mutation to their children.
But the most controversial use of CRISPR so far occurred last April, when a Chinese team led by Junjiu Huang modified an unviable human embryo to change the gene responsible for a life-threatening blood disorder. The procedure had a number of errors, especially cutting the genome in unintended areas. But in principle, it worked, and it made the eerie tenor of ethics impossible to mute. There’s no putting this back in the box.
There are basic dangers of human error: a cohort of animals studied for mutation might escape to the wild and spread undesirable traits to natural populations. It’s unlikely that CRISPR will ever be a hundred percent accurate given all the moving parts, and might cause serious harm to the patient (or client, as it were.) But there is a more fundamental decision we have to make about what it means to be deficient.
Evolution is all about diversity. It’s said that it’s not the strongest species that survives, but the one most adaptable to change. If we begin shrinking our gene pool, we might be depriving ourselves of precious variety whose value we aren’t yet aware of. Sickle-cell anemia killed 176,000 in 2014, but over 45 million people have the sickle-cell trait that fosters the disease, because sickle-cells protect against malaria. A formidable movement argues that autism isn’t a disorder at all, and is just another way of being, normal and worthwhile in its own right. Most people with bipolar disorder say that if they were offered a button to press to be rid of it, they wouldn’t press it, because the condition’s contributions to their character and creativity are too great. It has been found that the gene variant for ADHD leaves people in hunter-gatherer societies more nourished, since novelty-seeking gives them an edge. If we had this technology a hundred years ago, it’s hard to imagine that we wouldn’t be removing homosexuality, which most of us reading this probably consider at worst benign, and at best a check on population growth, the origin of Sapphic love poetry, and a cherished part of the identities of our friends and family members.
In other words, what we consider undesirable is a cultural decision, laden with values that we might later find reason to condemn. A few weeks ago, I met a researcher who does analysis to give clients insight on the future that is valuable to their industries. I tried my best to be sophisticated and steer clear of Kurzweilian glassy-eyed futurism as I spoke with him, but he was all the same firm in warning me about the inevitability of myopia. He didn’t want to comment on anything more remote than how we’ll recycle our coffee cups in the next decade. We have no idea what challenges we’re going to be facing beyond that or what human resources we’ll need to overcome them. We can’t.
And, of course, there are questions of inequality. CRISPR is cheap. But so is water, and that never stopped thirst among the poorest of us. There’s already a basic biological inequality between the rich and the poor: the former are taller, healthier, and generally better prepared to succeed, simply by virtue of being nourished better. When we start changing ourselves en masse at the genetic level, and who has access to that power is decided through wealth, there is a very striking reason to worry.
Currently, there’s a voluntary moratorium in the United States on embryonic research like what was undertaken by Huang’s team, and it’s strictly regulated in Europe. Last December, a joint statement by leading researchers from the United States, United Kingdom, and China urged scientists to wait to perform genetic modification that will result in passing on the changes to children and altering the human gene pool. These statements aren’t enforceable, but there are precedents for such self-imposed restrictions being successful, like when scientists chose to stop molecular cloning until it was better understood in the 1970s. That said, while some researchers believe that this is a Rubicon never to be crossed, others advocate for its immediate usage. A British researcher received permission in February to use CRISPR on embryos to help understand early development and miscarriage, though they will be disposed of.
All that being said, the sense that something great is happening is almost irresistible. Biology doesn’t yet understand the genetic makeup of most of humanity’s most interesting traits, but as knowledge accumulates, it may be just a matter of time. If the technology becomes sufficiently powerful that a procedure could make one resistant to atrophy, give a greater capacity for happiness, make one a better thinker, and ensure that one is a more tolerant friend, then that’s breathtaking. I don’t trust my parents with designer baby powers, but if we get to choose what we are on a cellular level rather than be condemned by the luck of the draw, then the possibilities for what it means to be alive become close to limitless. I want to become a new “handy man.”
There are still a few years until the technology is good enough to safely use on viable embryos, and probably longer on adults, if we decide those things are desirable. In the meantime, we should appreciate that we’re at the cusp of adopting what may be one of the biggest discoveries of our century into our daily lives. Once patents are handed out and policies are put in place, it will be increasingly difficult for the general populace to influence how the technology is used. It is our responsibility to explore these quagmires now for our own sakes, because the apprehensions raised by science fiction are now the questions of today. Welcome to the future.
Image: Pandora by John William Waterhouse, 1896