Ethics – BioQuakes

Tag: Ethics

Dark Side of the CRISPR

On April 17, 2024

In the bright glow of rapid scientific advancement, CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing techniques stands out as hope for many people, achieving a future where genetic diseases are no longer an issue to consider about. Awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, biochemists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier‘s discovery of CRISPR has shocked the world with the potential to “fix” genetic diseases and malfunctions. However, beneath the surface of this fascinating technique is a complex ethical dilemma: the potential to erase diversity when preventing genetic diseases from occurring.

The Promise and Danger of CRISPR

CRISPR offers abilities to edit genes with accuracy, having the power to treat or even eliminate diseases that have plagued humanity for thousands of years. However, this powerful technology also brought up an ethical challenge. It is a risky path that cures diseases but might end up eliminating genetic traits that is undesirable by societal standards, which will decrease the diversity of genes.

Disability studies scholars, especially those who have genetic conditions, express deep concerns over CRISPR’s application. They fear that perhaps one day humanity will use this technology to “edit out” genetic conditions like cystic fibrosis (CF) and syndactyly, not just from the patient, but from the entire human gene pool. Such result raises the question: Who decides what gene is “normal” or what gene is “bad”?

CC BY 2.0, Link

Ethics
For many, genetic conditions are closely related to their identity and life. Considering these conditions just as errors results in overlooking the richness and diversity of human life. Lives like those of Sandy and Rosemarie, authors of “The Dark Side of CRISPR”, who navigate daily life with CF and syndactyly respectively, points out the value of diverse experiences and perspectives, even if they are often considered “undesired”. They remind us that difference is not always a negative thing and that the quest for a “perfect” genetic makeup is flawed.

Humanity is at a crossroad of genetic editing, we must recognize the significance of decisions we make today on the future. CRISPR technology have the potential for unprecedented medical abilities, but it also have ethical questions that require careful consideration. We must balance the benefits of gene editing while also accounting for genetic diversity and the rights of individuals that live unedited lives.

Connections to AP Biology
In our AP biology class, we’ve learned about the mechanics of genetics, exploring how DNA sequences determine traits and how mutations can lead to genetic disorders. CRSPR-Cas9 gene editing technology ties closely with these topics, demonstrating a real-world application of the knowledge we’ve learned. The vast majority of genetic disorders are due to mutations or errors on the DNA, there is a very small chance that mutations or errors might occur, and even if there is one, most of the time it would have no effect. However, occasionally, it is still possible for a critical place of DNA to have a mutation, which can result in various genetic diseases that seemed impossible to prevent. This is where CRISPR comes in to save the day, its ability to precisely edit these genes brings up closer from being able to correct genetic mistakes that lead to diseases, preventing patients from getting an genetic disease.

Lets Discuss!
The ethical implications of CRISPR technology are topics that deserve our attention and thoughts. How do you perceive the balance between the health benefits of CRISPR and the ethical dilemmas it presents? How can we use this technology in a way that respects and preserves the diversity of all human experiences? Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below and we can dive further in this topic! For more information, go ScientificAmerican.com for latest research and updates!

Unnatural Selection: The Future of The Future?

By sukrose

On March 20, 2022

In Student Post

Imagine it’s Saturday night, you are snowed in until the morning and you need a way to pass the time. Like many people, you resort to Netflix. Upon browsing through the vast selection of horror, comedy, and romantic films, you decide you are in the mood for a documentary. Scrolling through the options, you stop at a title that grabs your attention: Unnatural Selection.

Since you are an AP Biology student, you immediately connect the words “Natural Selection” to the work of Charles Darwin, the study of genetics, and most importantly: evolution. In brief, natural selection is the survival and reproduction of the fittest, the idea that organisms with traits better suited to living in a specific environment will survive to reproduce offspring with similar traits. Those with unfavorable traits may not be able to reproduce, and therefore those traits are no longer passed down through that species. Natural selection is a mechanism for genetic diversity in evolution, and it is how species adapt to certain environments over many generations.

If genetic diversity enables natural selection, then what enables unnatural selection? Well, If natural selection eradicates unfavorable traits naturally, then unnatural selection essentially eradicates unfavorable traits or promotes favorable traits artificially.

The Netflix docuseries “Unnatural Selection” focuses on the emergence of a new gene-editing technology named CRISPR (an acronym for “Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats”). CRISPR is a revolutionary new method of DNA editing, which could help cure both patients with genetic diseases and patients who are at risk of inheriting unwanted genetic diseases. The two pioneers of this technology, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, recently won Nobel Prizes in Chemistry for their work on CRISPR.

Animation of CRISPR using guide RNA to identify where to cut the DNA, and cutting the DNA using the Cas9 enzyme

CRISPR works with the Cas9 enzyme to locate and cut a specific segment of DNA. Scientists first identify the sequence of the human genome, and locates a specific region that needs to be altered. Using that sequence, they design a guide RNA strand that will help the Cas9 enzyme, otherwise known as the “molecular scissors” to locate the specific gene, and then make precision cuts. With the affected region removed, scientists can now insert a correct sequence in its place.

Using the bacterial quirk that is CRISPR, scientists have essentially given anyone with a micropipette and an internet connection the power to manipulate the genetic code of any living thing.

Megan Molteni / WIRED

CRISPR is just the beginning of gene editing, introducing a new field of potential gene editing research and applications. But with great power comes great responsibility — and great controversy. Aside from the obvious concerns, people speculating the safety, research, and trials of this new treatment, CRISPR headlines are dominated by a hefty ethical dilemma. On one hand, treating a patient for sickle cell anemia will rid them of pain and suffering, and allows their offspring to enjoy a normal life as well. However, by eliminating the passing down of this trait, sickle cell anemia is slowly eliminated from the human gene pool. Rather than natural selection choosing the path of human evolution — we are. We are selecting which traits we deem “abnormal” and are removing them scientifically. Although CRISPR treatment is intended to help people enjoy normal lives and have equally as happy children, putting evolution into the hands of those evolving can result in more drastic effects in the future.

For our generation, CRISPR seems like a magical cure for genetic diseases. But for future generations, CRISPR could very well be seen as the source of many problems such as overpopulation, low genetic diversity, and future alterations such as “designer babies.” Humans have reached the point where we are capable of our future. Is CRISPR going to solve all of our problems, or put an end to the diverse human race as we know it? Comment how you feel down in the comments.

Dead Pig Brains Were Brought Back to Life…Kind Of

By ionizingjadeation

On October 20, 2019

In Student Post

A recent article published by Christof Koch raises the question of if death is really as final as it seems.

Koch highlights a study undergone by a sizable team of physicians and scientists at Yale School of Medicine, led by Nenad Sestan. This group used hundreds of slaughtered pigs from the Department of Agriculture to carry out a rather extraordinary experiment.

The experiment began with the removal of the pig brains from the pigs’ skulls. The veins and carotid arteries were then connected to a perfusion device that created the effect of a heart beating. This perfusion device circulated a synthetic concoction, or a type of artificial blood, containing drugs and oxygen with a specific molecular constitution that would protect the cells from damage. Sestan’s team studied these pig brains’ capability to survive four hours after the pigs had been electrically stunned, bled out, and decapitated. His team also compared these pig brains with others that were not connected to a perfusion device.

A closer look on a pig brain (not from the actual experiment)

The tissue integrity of the pig brains that were connected to the perfusion device was preserved and there was also a decrease of the swelling that causes cells to die. In addition, synapses, neurons, and output wires (axons) looked normal. The glial cells, which support neurons, had some function, and the brain consumed glucose and oxygen. This means that there was some metabolic functioning. The researchers seemed very satisfied with their findings and titled their paper “Restoration of Brain Circulation and Cellular Functions Hours Post-mortem.”

However, brain waves, like those from EEG recordings, were not found in the pigs’ brains that were connected to the perfusion device. There were electrodes put on the surface of the brains but no great global electrical activity was recorded. This, although, was intended. In theory, bringing a pig that had just gone through such trauma back to life could’ve led to a number of horrible side effects. Some include massive epileptic seizures, delirium, deep-seated pain, distress, and psychosis. It was because of this fact that Sestan’s team ensured the artificial blood contained drugs that suppress neuronal function.

According to Koch, this experiment causes a new question to surface: “What would happen if the team were to remove the neural-activity blockers from the solution suffusing the brain?”. In reality, it is probable that nothing would happen. Even though some neurons responded to the stimulation doesn’t mean that millions would be able to. However, it can’t be completely disregarded that maybe with some external support the seemingly dead brains can be brought back to life.

Keeping this in mind, one may wonder if this can be applied to human brains. The pig brain is the most popular laboratory animal as it has a fairly large brain that has a folded cortex similar to that of a human brain. Because of this, in theory, the human brain could undergo the same experiment. Even so, the question of if this would really be ethical or not is a factor that should definitely be taken into consideration.

If possible, do we have the right to bring dead brains back to life?

A CRISPR Controversy

By saezhallploid

On March 12, 2019

In Student Post

The Issue:

A recent article published by Grace Tsoi highlights the ongoing controversy regarding CRISPR, a new technology capable of editing DNA sequences, and thus genomes. Among those experimenting with CRISPR is Chinese researcher He Jiankui, notoriously nicknamed “China’s Dr. Frankenstein.” Many are critical of He Jiankui, as they deem his work with CRISPR — such as producing the world’s first gene-edited babies — inhumane and unethical. He Jiankui, however, argues that CRISPR has the potential to help “…millions of families with inherited diseases or exposure to infectious disease.”

Pictured above is He Jiankui, researcher and associate professor of the Southern University of Science and Technology’s Biology Department.

The Study:

In proving CRISPR’s potential, He Jiankui referenced an experiment in which he was able to produce two healthy twin girls by manipulating their genes, specifically making them resistant to HIV. He Jiankui had ultimate success with CRISPR technology, as the twins produced were not HIV positive, unlike their biological father. To learn more about the threat of HIV during contraception, click here. While He Jiankui expressed pride to his audience, stating, “For this specific case, I feel proud actually. I feel proudest because Mark [father of the twins] thought he had lost hope for life,” some audience members did not feel the excitement. Rather, his animated claims were met with intense criticism.

The Risks and Suspicions:

Given CRISPR’s potential, why are people so critical? Is CRISPR’s label “gene scissors” accurate or oversimplified? Regardless of these answers, it is undeniable that utilizing CRISPR for human embryos is a much more complex process. As Kenneth Lee, a biomedical sciences professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, explains it, using CRISPR in human embryos is “highly risky,” and could potentially mutate other genes in the process. As a result, the embryo might not survive, or could acquire deformities and/or other genetic disorders. Adding another element to the audience’s suspicion of He Jiankui’s experiment was the secrecy surrounding it, as he failed to answer why he initially hid it from Chinese officials. Failing to consider the opinions of these aforementioned officials has left many questioning the genuine ethics of He Jiankui’s experiment. In defending his work, He Jiankui emphasized that every individual involved consented to his experiment and were well-educated on the study itself. However, the consent form uploaded to his website, explicitly states that He Jiankui would not be held responsible for any unintended gene mutation. Moreover, the University where he conducted his experiment appeared unaware of his lab work, thus rendering an investigation of He Jiankui’s activities. Although China is a more “relaxed” country regarding its gene editing rules (gene editing is banned in the U.S., as well as many other countries), He Jiankui has faced condemnation from many Chinese scientists. Despite this, he plans to expand his studies, focusing next on another gene-edited pregnancy — yet another controversial experiment that will prove to either have potential or deep ramifications.

Crispr-Cas9 is the gateway to a new frontier in genetic engineering. Here’s The good and the bad.

By chromison

On March 13, 2018

In Student Post

For a number of years now, molecular biologists have been diving increasingly further into the field of genome editing. The latest development into the field is the emergence of CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR-Cas9 has risen to prominence over other potential methods of genome editing due to its relatively simple construction and low cost. CRISPR-Cas9’s original primary and intended purpose was to help fix mutations within DNA, and with this it could theoretically help eradicate entire diseases. This application of CRISPR is wholly positive, however with the increasing prevalence of the technique other potential uses have been discovered, and some of these potential uses raise profound ethical questions.

One of the main concerns of people skeptical about CRISPR is their assertion that once the door to the wholesale genetic editing of offspring is open, there is no going back. This, on its own, is a reasonable concern. The ability to choose a child’s sex, eye color, hair color and skin complexion is very likely to be made available to by CRISPR in the coming years. CRISPR does not yet have the capability to influence more abstract elements of the genome, such as intelligence and athletic ability, but this may not be far off. There are legitimate concerns that this is a slippery slope towards a dystopian society similar to the one seen in the movie Gattaca, where society is stratified into two distinct classes: those who are genetically engineered and those who are not.

Another concern raised by some scientists is the overall safety of genetic editing. A potentially very hazardous negative result of CRISPR is the possibility of an “off target mutation.” An off target mutation is the result of CRISPR mutating something other than the intended part of the genome and it could have disastrous consequences. Now, many scientists believe that with further advancements in the field the likelihood of something like an off target mutation occurring could be reduced to almost zero. However, it is important to examine the risks of any new process, and the prospect of something like an off target mutation occurring is certainly noteworthy.

For more information click here.

Crispr-Cas9: Coming to a Theater Near You

By marsupialniche

On April 13, 2016

In Student Post

This sequel to GATTACA is to be released shortly, and this time, they’re transcending the movie screen and bringing the experience to reality!

Crispr-Cas9 is a fairly recent DNA-editing technique that has been developed, and allows for extremely easy and precise gene editing, a development said to be at least on par with PCR for bio engineering. In many ways, this is great. Now biologists won’t have to spend the time nor undergo the difficulty of creating variant DNA through old methods, meaning that all these cool genetic breakthroughs should be happening at an unprecedented pace! The problem is, it may be going too fast for humans to wrap their head around.

Similar to the ethical questions raised by the film GATTACA, countries and scientists are debating what regulations should be put on this new and powerful tool. With Crispr-Cas9, the possibility to genetically modify humans becomes a very real option to consider. Scientists could remove DNA sequences which lead to defects and diseases such as albinism and Huntington’s Disease. Or anything else, really.

(The miracle protein)

The main point of Crispr-Cas9 is not necessarily the ability it gives to scientists to easily modify DNA, but the increased rate at which we can understand what specific sequences of DNA do by altering them. Not only are we more able to modify DNA, we are now able to figure it out at breakneck speed.

Where it gets complex is, as always, how humans deal with it. Some people, such as Mark Leach, whose daughter has down-syndrome, believes that children with disabilities not only are still able to live rich lives, but also teach others to be more compassionate. Although debating if I would choose to let my child have down-syndrome or not for that reason seems like an absurd consideration, and most likely a coping mechanism, the point still stands that some people are uneasy with fixing genetic-related problems because “they wouldn’t be the same person.” (That’s the point!)

People are really afraid of change, aren’t they?

However, for those on the more lethal/completely disabling part of the genetic spectrum, the answer is more than clear. Charles Sabine, the brother of the renown British lawyer John Sabine, who both have Huntington’s Disease at varying stages, says “If there was a room somewhere where someone said, ‘Look, you can go in there and have your DNA changed,’ I would be there breaking the door down.” Similarly, Matt Wilsey, a parent of a child with a terminal genetic illness, is awestruck at the ridiculousness of the situation: “As a parent with an incredibly sick child, what are we supposed to do — sit by on the sidelines while my child dies?” The oddity of the situation is, we have the capability to start figuring out how to solve these genetic issues with a very effective and efficient technique, it’s just that humans are riding the brakes, trying to slow down the almost inexorable progress of the freight train that is Crispr-Cas9. The irony is that many are afraid with tampering with the “sanctity” of human embryos. I would agree, except that humans defile it all the time. Birth defects, genetic diseases, miscarriages, etc. Of course, this is not intentional, but the parents have the largest hand in these outcomes, as they provide all the material,genetic and otherwise, to create the embryo, fetus, and eventually child. We are already making horrible mistakes with human embryo’s that cripple or kill the resulting child through the natural birth process. Personally, I would go off of this to say we should at least learn from this, so we could eventually progress far enough to prevent these things from ever happening, but I only ask all of the readers to keep this in mind: Nature (very badly) screws up too.

(The process Cas9 facilitates)

I’m not saying that we should be careless with this new and potentially dangerous or aberrant-spawning technology, but I think it’s time that humans come to terms with the fact that their world, and their lives, are entering a new era of existence. For millennia, structured humans have lived in a world where the outside world is the only thing we can manipulate, but now the very structure and formation of ourselves as well. I understand that such a change from a thousands-year-running viewpoint can be hard to make. We’ve never had to think about these things before as a species, because it wasn’t understood and out of our reach. It is daunting. It is terrifying. Only because it is unknown. But how are we to learn, to benefit, from this great potential, if we are too afraid to explore it? I understand that like any form of potential, it can go either way, but this is a great new time of possibilities that simply won’t go away, but reemerge constantly.

I think it’s time we gathered the courage to face it.

Crispr 9, A Dangerous New Field

By jackuole

On April 13, 2016

In Student Post

Crispr 9 Editing

With the new developments in gene altering, scientists have begun to use technology to alter the gene sequence of embryos. According to an article by Tia Ghost, Chinese scientists have modified the genes of human embryos with mixed results. The idea behind the research was that they would cut out a faulty gene in the DNA sequence and replace it with a correct one, therefore improving the embryo. This is done through a stretch of RNA called CRISPR targets places on the genome that are then cut by Cas9, an enzyme that cuts out specific strands of DNA leaving a spot to be filled within the genome. Scientists then provide a new strand of DNA as replacement. This method is effective in all different kinds of animals as well as humans.

However, the technology is not yet accurate enough to become common practice. According to a leading scientist in the field “the CRISPR technology is simply too risky to use in embryos” at this point. The issue arises in the fact that the RNA sometimes goes to a different site then the one desired, slicing out a necessary part of the genome and replacing it with useless information. This could lead to harmful mutations in the embryo, the opposite of what the scientists want. Even if the technology was at a higher level, editing embryos is still a large ethical dilemma. Some scientists feel that they should not alter life, but simply let it play out the same way it has for billions of years. Other’s argue that each child deserves the best possible chance they can get. Both have strong arguments, and only time will tell which side will win out.

Original Article:

http://www.livescience.com/50596-what-are-genome-editing-risks.html

BioQuakes

AP Biology class blog for discussing current research in Biology

Tag: Ethics

Dark Side of the CRISPR

Unnatural Selection: The Future of The Future?

Dead Pig Brains Were Brought Back to Life…Kind Of

A CRISPR Controversy

Crispr-Cas9 is the gateway to a new frontier in genetic engineering. Here’s The good and the bad.

Crispr-Cas9: Coming to a Theater Near You

Crispr 9, A Dangerous New Field

Archives