Congress Gets Science-y
Finally, Some Positive Attention for CRISPR from Lawmakers
I have been researching the public policy implications of CRISPR gene editing technology for a while now and, in all that time, I can count the number of times I have heard a member of Congress use the phrase “CRISPR” or “gene editing” on one hand.
Yesterday was a different story. Thanks to an interview about CRISPR on a Canadian public access radio station during his fishing trip, Senator Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, called a hearing to learn more about this exciting technology.
The conversation was a breath of fresh air, not only because it was satisfying for biotech nerds like me to hear members talk about issues we are passionate about, but also because the partisan vitriol that has dominated the law-making body of late was not present. All of the assembled senators seemed uniformly excited by the stories of how CRISPR is currently and will continue to improve human health and they pressed the panelists for suggestions on how they could help to speed these benefits along.
Several aspects of the hearing stood out to me, the first being the positive and balanced discussion of gene editing technology. Both doom-saying and wildly unrealistic statements of CRISPR’s potential were absent from the proceedings. The panelists, who included Dr. Matthew Porteus of Stanford, Katherine Bosley of Editas Medicine, and Dr. Jeffrey Khan of Johns Hopkins, highlighted several promising clinical trials taking place, as well as acknowledging that concerns do exist. For the most part, the lawmakers similarly refrained from worrying about as-yet unlikely, Gattaca-style futures and instead appreciated what this technology could mean for patient care, while asking questions about more immediate, likely problems.
One of those problems was brought up almost immediately by Senator Susan Collins. She first identified that policy on gene editing is woefully behind the science. This problem is commonly referred to as the “pacing problem.” In light of that problem, Senator Collins asked, how do we ensure that gene editing technology is used for good, both in the U.S. and abroad.
Dr. Khan’s answer to this and several other similar questions brought up points that my frequent co-author Adam Thierer and I often discuss in our work.
Dr. Khan first made the point that science outpacing regulation is not necessarily dangerous. We ought to try understand a technology like gene editing before we pass prohibitions on it. Dr. Porteus nicely expounded on this point by saying that the field was too young to know which regulatory lines should be drawn in black ink and which should be drawn in pencil. Deeper understanding of a topic generally leads to more effective regulation.
Dr. Khan, and the other panelists, argued that being the leader on CRISPR is a powerful way to ensure safe use of gene editing technology and to encourage other countries to adopt a similar regulatory framework. He brought up what Thierer and I have called “global innovation arbitrage,” which in this context is the concept that researchers and patients interested in CRISPR will move to less restrictive jurisdictions where they can access these technologies.
Global innovation arbitrage is not an argument for a wild west or a desire for a race to the regulatory bottom. It is an argument against flat out prohibitions. Dr. Kahn agreed that would drive the science underground causing us to “lose in multiple ways.”
That begs the question that came from Senator Alexander: how then do we foster gene editing technology? Dr. Porteus stressed that consistent funding for the National Institutes of Health for basic genetic research was perhaps the number one way that Congress could contribute.
The panelists seemed to agree that no legislative changes were necessary to advance the field. They felt the current regulatory oversight structure was sufficient to both safely govern the technology and give researchers the flexibility to pursue promising projects without stifling them. I agree that no new agencies or oversight bodies need to be created to oversee gene editing. For the most part, the current system is equipped to handle the technology. However, there was no mention of the prohibition on germline editing that has been included in appropriations packages since the end of 2015. As I explained in my essay “Breaking Genetic Technology Out of Regulatory Limbo,” this policy section ought to be reconsidered and scrapped.
Overall, I was encouraged by what I heard yesterday. However, this attention could be a double-edged sword. Several researchers worry that increased attention, especially if it were to come from the Trump administration, could lead to limitations on their work. Gerald Schatten, a stem-cell researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, recently said, “It would not be good if [Trump] paid attention to us” due to the politically controversial nature of their work.
Despite these concerns, the senators assembled yesterday demonstrated an appreciation of the benefits that gene editing technology could bring to patients who are out of other options, as well as the danger of untimely regulations and flat out bans. The conversation left me feeling hopeful about and excited for the future of this truly revolutionary technology.
_________________
Additional Reading
“Build & Freeze” Regulation Versus Iterative Innovation
Will Genetic Editing Advance Faster Than Our Ability to Regulate It?
