The Dark Side of CRISPR
By Sandy Sufian and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson,
Scientific American
| 02. 16. 2021
Its potential ability to “fix” people at the genetic level is a threat to those who are judged by society to be biologically inferior
Americans have celebrated the fact that the Biden administration is embracing science and returning the country to evidence-based policymaking. We agree that science should guide policy—except in cases where it wouldn’t assist people to live their lives but would, instead, exclude them.
The CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, for which biochemists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, has the potential to do just that. So do other forms of scientific technologies. We should therefore always be aware of the ethical choices these technologies can pose.
In the case of CRISPR, those choices are complex. CRISPR has many functions; one of these is that it can be used to treat disease. Yet the far-reaching, more fraught promise of this technology—one about which scientists seem at once excited and cautious—lies in its ability to eliminate from the gene pool what medical science identifies as faulty or abnormal genes that cause difference in individual people. Certainly, goes the logic of CRISPR’s promise, the goal of ridding future generations of terrible diseases that cause suffering and death and deplete resources... see more
Related Articles
By Katherine Plumhoff, Teen Vogue | 04.09.2021
"Editing or Eggs" by daithifortytwo is
licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
The first advertisement was slid under the door of Maggie’s* Ivy League dorm room. The quarter sheet of thin paper featured a woman’s silhouette, leaping with open arms over...
By Ellen Trachman, Above the Law | 04.07.2021
A lot of surprising things happen when the use of assisted reproductive technology slams up against outdated family law doctrines. I see a lot of unexpected cases that end up in this column. This case is actually shocking to me...
At least five separate studies involving human embryo research are raising fresh versions of old questions about science, ethics and regulation. On March 17, Nature published two peer-reviewed papers about generating in vitro, with slightly different methods, “blastoids” or “human blastocyst-like structures.” (One team, perhaps trying to be cute, called them “iBlastoids” but the Nature summary article sensibly eschews this.) One process involved developing from human embryonic stem cells, the other used cells reprogrammed from adult tissues. A few...
By Ian Sample, The Guardian | 03.11.2021
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash
Twins may be more common today than at any time in history, according to the first comprehensive survey of twin births around the world.
Researchers analysed records from more than 100 countries and found...