CRISPR-Cas9
A Look at the Implications
WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS TECHNOLOGY?
CRISPR-Cas9 has taken DNA modification to the next level, inciting both hope and concern over the implications for society and humanity as a whole. If undesirable genes can be removed, then it stands to reason that desirable ones could be inserted. At this time, the science community’s only focus is learning more about the human genome and perfecting the technology that might someday eradicate genetically inherent diseases. But others worry that CRISPR will eventually be utilized to “improve” society in the same superficial fashion as the eugenics of the past. Even its co-creator, Jennifer Doudna, admits that CRISPR’s application in terms of enhancement versus disease prevention is a real possibility. Because of such implications, Doudna strongly recommends a “global pause” as we move forward with this technology. She wants to encourage public awareness and discussion so that the ramifications of genetic modification are carefully considered, and proper policies are put in place to protect the human race from undesirable consequences. How might the application of CRISPR-Cas9 affect society or even human evolution? While there are many possibilities, both anticipated and unforeseen, widening the existing gap between socioeconomic classes is a probability. If this technology becomes safe and effective, it will likely be expensive. Thus, available only to the wealthy, who already maintain a space of dominance and privilege. If this class is also afforded better health, and possibly the advantage of genetically enhanced traits like intelligence, social stratification and prejudice will be maximized.
WHAT WILL THIS ARTICLE ADDRESS?
This article will briefly outline CRISPR’s capabilities and the socioeconomic implications of the application of this technology. To this end, I will utilize the films Blade Runner and Gattaca, as they each portray a world that includes genetically modified beings. While these films were released over twenty years ago, they are a reflection of the genetic engineering technology and debates of the time. In the mid-seventies scientists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen successfully combined and replicated genetic information from different species, leading to the Asilomar Conference of 1975 where the science community and government officials came together to address the growing success of genetically modified organisms and the concerns about the “potential ramifications on human health and Earth’s ecosystems” (Rangel). The conference resulted in approval for the continued development of the technology with implementation of new safety and containment policies. Then, in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of General Electric utilizing genetically engineered bacteria to assist in the clean up of oil spills. This momentum in the field of genetic engineering, the acceptance and practice, encouraged public speculation as to the eventual application to the human species and became the subject of science fiction film. With the latest success of the CRISPR-Cas9 comes the resurgence of this concern for humankind and the relevance of these films.
HOW DOES CRISPR WORK?
If genetic engineering made its debut in the 1970’s, and has been in agricultural practice since the 1990’s, why is CRISPR creating such a stir not only within the science community, but within the world at large? Because this discovery positively opens the door to the evolution of the human species. During research on the effects of bacteria on viral infections, Doudna and her team discovered the potential for a relatively simple, yet precise method for editing the human genome. Bacteria contain an adaptive immune system called CRISPR, which detects and destroys viral DNA. CRISPR itself contains the protein Cas9 that facilitates the repair of a break within a strand of DNA. Doudna’s team directed this process to create a break within a human DNA strand at the site of a disease causing mutation, like “a molecular pair of scissors”, which then repaired itself to create a disease-free strand of DNA (Doudna). While other technology exists to combat harmful cells found within DNA, they lack the exactitude of CRISPR. Radiation therapy is used to destroy cancer cells, but it also destroys healthy ones. And viral vectors are used to deliver DNA into target cells, but can target the wrong cells for insertion. CRISPR’s merit is its accuracy as “scientists can program CRISPR genes, as well as Cas9…to target a single specific gene and have it wiped out” (Hart). Doudna’s team successfully edited 36 out of 54 human embryos (Belluck). All of these embryos were discarded, it is unlawful and unethical at this stage of research for implantation, but the very fact that the technology was successfully applied to human embryos, not another species, has resurrected the eugenics debates of the past. The concept of genetically modified human beings is no longer abstract, it is supported by scientific facts that cannot be ignored. The potential for disease prevention is far too great, but other ramifications must be heavily weighed.
SOME CONCERNS…
While the science community is focused on the dangers of tampering with the human genome, in regards to unforeseen consequences to the human form, others, both secular and non-secular, are concerned that the practice of DNA modification will ultimately lead to the enhancement of desirable traits. This notion echoes the objectives of past eugenicists who desired “a class of people who possess superior attributes such as intelligence, physical strength, and physical appearance” (Eugenics). All of these communities have reason for concern as CRISPR establishes germ-line engineering, where alterations are permanent, and passed on to future offspring (Regalado). From a scientific standpoint, this technology could propel humanity into times of greater health and longer life spans, or result in some irreparable DNA mutation that perverts the human form. From a cultural standpoint, if traits like intelligence could someday be enhanced, it could potentially flood the world with an advanced intellect better equipped to solve our current struggles, e.g. international relations and environmental hazards, or it may only maximize those problems if that sophisticated intelligence was misused or not properly dispersed. But the concept of enhancing human intelligence merely through the manipulation of DNA is complicated by the nature versus nurture theory. CRISPR’s potential to combat genetically based disease is pragmatic, as the removal of a specific cell simply removes the threat of that disease. But the potential to genetically enhance intelligence is fraught with unpredictable complexities. First, multiple genes determine traits like intelligence, making it difficult to target the specific combination needed to achieve the desired result. Next, if this primary issue was eventually resolved, providing the nature for advanced intelligence, the varying environmental factors of nurture make for an unpredictable outcome: “the genome for exceptional performance may be present inside a person’s cells, but the environment may not allow the expression of said DNA. That interplay between nature and nurture is known as epigenetics, and it’s responsible for who we are just as much as our genomes” (Hart). This brings us to Gattaca and its argument against future genetic discrimination.
GATTACA
(Warning! Spoilers!)
Gattaca presents a world where genetic enhancement is common practice. While parents can choose whether or not to have their future offspring enhanced, choosing not to commits them to a life of injustice as the foundation of their society is genetic determinism, “the belief that human behavior, personality, and physical appearance are determined exclusively by a person’s genetic makeup” (Kirby 197). The protagonist, Vincent, is a “faith birth”, or naturally conceived. He is subjected to genetic testing immediately following his delivery, and the nurse callously calls out the results revealing an estimated life span of 30.2 years, as well as various statistical probabilities regarding mental, emotional, and physical “flaws”. Because of these inadequacies, his parents decide to opt for genetic modification when they later conceive a younger brother for Vincent. While they intended only to choose the hair, eye, and skin color, as well as the elimination of any potential disease of their next child, the geneticist discourages leaving anything to chance, “I have taken the liberty of eradicating any potentially prejudicial conditions, premature baldness, myopia, alcoholism…”. Because this technology is available to the public, but only applied to a portion of society, a new system of prejudice is born, genetic discrimination. Vincent is subjected to this from a young age due to the presence of his genetically enhanced brother. Not only does his father bestow his namesake on the second, enhanced son, but Vincent’s younger brother’s superior physical status is a constant reminder of their genetic differences. The discrimination persists outside the home as Vincent is consistently excluded from educational and employment opportunities based on his “inferior” genetics. Society is distinctly divided into two classes, the elite of the enhanced and the oppressed of the unenhanced. Vincent narrates, “I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. We now have discrimination down to a science.” In this film, only a portion of society is afforded the benefits of genetic engineering, maximizing social stratification and prejudice, much as it would in real life. The application of this technology to our society would include differential access, favoring the wealthy class, which in turn would increase the existing gap between socioeconomic classes.
But Gattaca attempts to subvert the notion of genetic determinism, as Vincent eventually proves that his potential exceeds that of his genetic make-up. Due to the prejudicial structure of his society, Vincent goes to extreme lengths to pass himself off as the genetically enhanced Jerome in order to achieve his dream of going to space. Once he secures a position within an elite space mission company, he outperforms many of his enhanced coworkers. He impresses his supervisor by creating an error free flight plan, and is approved for his space travel. Of course, conflict ensues as his genetic deception begins to unravel, but in the end, Vincent is the victor. His final triumph is awarded him on two levels. One, he realizes his dream to travel to space despite the enormous societal obstacles. Two, the reappearance of his brother after an extended estrangement allows Vincent to conclusively relinquish his feelings of genetic inadequacy from childhood. In the end of the film, he outperforms his genetically privileged brother both intellectually and physically. Vincent persevered in the face of genetic discrimination, developing a fierce determination to subvert the confines of genetic determinism, inspiring the tagline for the movie “there is no gene for the human spirit” (Kirby 207). So, while Gattaca reflects the expansion of social stratification due to differential access to genetic modification, it also reminds us that genes alone do not define us. This is an important moral for our society as we move towards a future that includes genetic enhancements. Genetic discrimination in the future would be as ignorant as the racial discriminations of the past.
BLADE RUNNER
Blade Runner draws on those past discriminations to explore the darker implications of genetic engineering. In opposition to Gattaca, the enhanced of this film are subjected to extreme oppression. Genetic engineering is employed for the sole purpose of creating a race of slaves to perform physical labor in outer space colonies. These beings are referred to as “replicants” and are engineered with superior strength and agility, but lacking emotional capacity which encourages the societal perception that they are less than human, justifying their enslavement. They are labeled with derogatory expressions like “skin jobs”, which Deckard clarifies as being comparable to the African American racial slurs of the past. Indeed, the mistreatment of these replicants parallels many aspects of U.S. African American slavery. They, too, were believed to be less human than the ruling white class, not worthy of compassion, and were often tortured and put to death. When these replicants begin to develop emotions, most likely due to the largely human components of their being, they rise up against their authorities and escape to earth. Deckard is coerced into accepting the responsibility of hunting these replicants down and executing them. Although replicants are engineered with a short life span, to discourage the development of any personal objectives, any need to dispose of them before their internal expiration date requires a skilled executioner due to their physical superiority to humans. These executioners are referred to as “blade runners”, and although it is established that Deckard has excelled in this field, he is reluctant to accept his latest orders to eliminate these escaped replicants. He does accept, but his reluctance paired with the replicants emotional development and their fierce desire to live, encourage the viewer to sympathize with the replicants and condemn the corporate exploitation of genetic modification. Within this dystopia, the future of gene modification includes the restoration of old systems of prejudice and exploitation. But the film also reminds us of the barbaric practices of past discrimination as a warning that technological evolution should serve societal progression, not regression.
WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHAT WE CAN DO
Both of these films explore the societal structures of a genetically modified future. While Gattaca’s enhanced exist at the top of the socioeconomic class system and Blade Runner’s replicants have been forced to the very bottom, they both acknowledge a persistence of prejudice and attempt to warn against its unethical and unfounded nature. In this way, science fiction films provide an outlet for the cultural exploration of technology and its implications. At this time, although the development of CRISPR has made human genetic modification a reality, the potential of its application on desirable traits like intelligence and athleticism is only theoretical. For now, that concept remains in the realm of science fiction as its actualization exists in a distant future. CRISPR’s success currently applies only to the potential for genetically based disease prevention. The complexity of the human genome makes the modification of desirable traits an extremely ambitious goal. But most scientists do acknowledge the “slippery slope” of the application of CRISPR from disease prevention to eventual individual enhancement. This is the reason for Doudna’s call for a “global pause”. As a society we cannot stop scientific evolution, and we should not prohibit technology that may provide significant improvements to our world. Imagine a real cure for society’s leading killer, cancer. But other implications, like the exacerbation of exising class divisions, must be analyzed and prepared for. Proper legislation should be implemented along with the availability of this technology to the public. While there is an argument to be made for the effectiveness of enforcing legislation, in Gattaca genetic discrimination is technically illegal but Vincent tells us that no one takes that law seriously, the laws must at least exist in order to provide an ideal framework for a civilized society. In regards to the science community’s fears for the human form, strict regulations need to evolve along with the technology to ensure that it is conclusively safe before introducing it to the human species. The government can assist with the problematic issues of differential access through forms of taxation, educational programs, and medical coverage for this technology (Bostrom 21). Those of us not in lawmaking positions can continue to foster a tolerance of diversity and encourage compassion for all humankind. It is difficult to predict the societal structure of a future that consists of a genetically enhanced population. Existing socioeconomic gaps may be maximized, subverted, or completely redefined. The trajectory of history demonstrates that while a hierarchy persists through all cultural and technological evolutions, society works to stabilize its imbalances. Our world still contains much injustice, but it has also improved significantly over the last century. Maybe our future intellectually enhanced descendants will be far more capable of addressing these issues.
Works Cited
Belluck, Pam. “In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos.” Nytimes.com, 2 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtp=cur&_r=0. Accessed 19 Oct. 2017
Bostrom, Nick. The Transhumanist FAQ. World Transhumanist Association, 2003.
Doudna, Jennifer. “We can now edit our DNA. But let’s do it wisely.” TED. 2016. Lecture.
“Eugenics in the United States Today: Are We on the Same Path Nazi Germany Followed?”healthimpactnews.com, 2015, http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/eugenics-in-the-united-states-today-are-we-on-the-same-path-nazi-germany-followed/. Accessed 17 Nov. 2017.
Hart, Matthew. “Landmark CRISPR Breakthrough Makes Us Ask ‘How Realistic Are Designer Babies?” nerdist.com, 6 Aug. 2017, https://nerdist.com/crispr-genome-designer-babies-embryos/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2017.
Kirby, David A. “The New Eugenics in Cinema: Genetic Determinism and Gene Therapy in ‘GATTACA’.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 193–215, Jul 2000, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4240876?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 12 Nov. 2017.
Rangel, Gabriel. “From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology.” Harvard.edu, 9 Aug. 2015, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2017.
Regalado, Antonio. “Engineering the Perfect Baby.” Technologyreview.com, 5 March 2015, www.technologyreview.com/s/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/. Accessed 7 Oct 2017.
