“Humans’ use of the bacterial defense mechanism called “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats” (CRISPR), with or without “CRISPR associated protein 9” (Cas 9) — along with the technologies that eventually will modify or displace it — is of vast importance.”
“That’s not because it is the first way we have found to edit DNA.”
“It misses that distinction by over 40 years. But it is the first truly fast, cheap, easy, and accurate way to do so.”
“It is biotechnology’s Model T. The Model T was not, by several decades, the first automobile, but it transformed cars from expensive, unreliable, inconvenient, and rare objects to something everyone could, and soon did, own.”
“CRISPR is the change in degree that turns gene editing from expensive, unreliable, inconvenient, and rare to ubiquitous. It vastly increases our powers to edit all life, including our own.”
“The Napa meeting reached consensus surprisingly quickly: the somatic cell uses of CRISPR should be pursued actively, but human germline modifications needed more thought. Doudna took the lead in drafting a commentary, signed by the meeting’s participants and several others, which Science published in March 2015.”
“The commentary made four recommendations about human germline editing:”
““Strongly discourage” germline genome modifications in humans while the implications are discussed.”
““Create forums” of experts to discuss the issues raised by genome editing,”
““Encourage and support transparent research” into the safety and efficacy of CRISPR for germline gene therapy, and”
““Convene a globally representative group” to further consider these issues.”
“As A Crack in Creation usefully points out, the debate over germline modification is not new.”
“The issue was discussed in print at least 30 years before CRISPR was imagined.”
“Doudna called for discussions about the uses of CRISPR in Napa in January 2015 and A Crack in Creation amplifies that plea, providing the interested public with the background critical to such discussions. But CRISPR has raised two other interesting questions, which, though not discussed in the book, are worth mentioning: the Nobel Prize and the patent fight.”
“In the end, the history, the prizes, and the patents don’t really matter. The structure of DNA would have been discovered without Watson and Crick, and CRISPR did not require Doudna and Charpentier (or Zhang). The discoveries, not those who make them, are important — and those discoveries are only important as they affect people.”
“CRISPR heralds a new era of massively increased human control over life, one that will affect every person on Earth, directly or indirectly, and much of the rest of our planet’s biosphere.”
“If humans are to have any chance of harnessing its benefits, avoiding its risks, and using it in ways consistent with our values and cultures, then we all — not just the scientists, ethicists, and patent lawyers — need to understand something about CRISPR and its implications. A Crack in Creation is a great place to start.”
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author has met, been on panels with, and likes Doudna, Charpentier, Zhang, Church, and many of the other scientists discussed in the review. He also has lectured the last three summers in a CRISPR program held by the Innovative Genomics Institute at UC Berkeley for modest honoraria.”
“Henry T. Greely is a professor of Law, and professor by courtesy of Genetics, at Stanford University, where he directs its Center for Law and the Biosciences and Program in Neuroscience and Society. He is an expert on the ethical, legal, and social implications of advances in the biosciences.”