Author

mm

Communications Advisor, The Michener Institute

Brianne Tulk is the Communications Advisor at The Michener Institute of Education at UHN. Before joining The Michener Institute, Brianne completed an M.A. in Communication from the University of Ottawa, specializing in health communication.

Is CRISPR the sci-fi future we’ve been warned about?

Imagine a future where parents can control the genetic traits of their children. They could carefully select their most desirable qualities, such as hair or eye colour, or an aptitude for swimming or running. Diseases and hereditary conditions like certain cancers and heart conditions, or even colour blindness and male pattern baldness could become virtually obsolete. But as diseases are eradicated, genetic manipulation could become so pervasive that those born without some kind of intervention could become considered “lesser”; someone whose mixed bag of genetic traits is an uninsurable, unemployable liability.

For fans of sci-fi, this might sound familiar. It’s the premise of the 1997 film Gattaca starring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman. The film explores a dystopian future where naturally conceived humans (“in-valids”) are considered inferior and relegated to menial labour, while their genetically altered “valid” counterparts rise to the upper echelons of society. The film is a warning against eugenics, exploring issues around genetic determinism and the socioeconomic disparities between those who can afford genetic manipulation – therefore those whose children are given a privileged advantage from birth – and those who cannot.

For decades, science fiction has warned against the dystopic implications of eugenics and the evils of trying to create a ‘superior’ human. Notably, the theme appeared in both the original 1960s Star Trek series and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), which featured the notorious villain Khan, a member of a race of genetically enhanced “supermen” who aimed to enslave humans during the eugenics war within the Star Trek universe.

But themes around genetic manipulation are not just fodder for countless works of sci-fi. The issue has permeated the public debate in the bioethics of gene editing in humans. In Canada, since the early 2000s there has been a broad ban through the Assisted Human Reproduction Act on the use of reproductive technology that could modify inheritable genetic traits. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, some researchers pointed to concerns that the application of medical genetics could lead to eugenics, and by the time the ban was introduced in Canada, it was presented as an ethical response to issues surrounding human cloning and embryo sex selection.

However, as technology advances and bioethical debates progress, many scientists are calling for a reassessment of the ban, citing the emergence of one key player: CRISPR.

CRISPR is a gene editing technique that has emerged only in the last six years. It can quickly and easily edit the DNA of any organism, including animals, plants and viruses. It works by carefully snipping certain sections of DNA to either disable or insert new DNA into the strand. This process can either stop specific genetic traits from appearing, such as genes that cause certain kinds of cancer, or introduce new traits altogether.

The possibilities for CRISPR are enormous: it has the potential to edit plant DNA to create hardier, disease-resistant crops, eliminate mutations causing hereditary diseases like cystic fibrosis, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or some types of cancer, as well as edit the DNA of viruses or eliminate certain harmful pathogens. CRISPR technology has even been touted as a potential cure for HIV.

As it stands right now, CRISPR use on the human genome is illegal in Canada. The Assisted Human Reproductive Act makes editing the human genome in any way that could be inherited by future generations a criminal act, punishable with up to 10 years in jail. The ban even extends to genetically altering a human embryo solely for research purposes.

In light of CRISPR research that has been conducted in the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere, many Canadian researchers are calling for the federal government to reassess the ban, concerned about being left behind while others benefit from these immense scientific advancements.

Among those calling to reopen the debate is Dr. Peter Bridge, a geneticist and Chair of the Medical Laboratory Sciences department at The Michener Institute of Education at UHN. He says that it’s time to move away from the notion that genetic editing could be used for designer babies or creating a new race of superhumans, echoing the sentiment of the Stem Cell Network saying the theoretical risks of cloning and eugenics are overplayed.

“Medical genetics should not be seen as the same thing as eugenics,” explains Dr. Bridge, who says he too supported the Assisted Human Reproductive Act at the time it was introduced. He tells me that CRISPR, however, offers unprecedented opportunities to enable research, and that lifting the complete ban is necessary to enable such study into hereditary diseases and medical genetics.

“With the ban in place, scientists can’t do basic research, even if it leads to something viable,” he says.

CRISPR genetic editing is not without its risks or ethical considerations, of course. What many researchers have already discovered is if you change the genes in one area of the DNA, there might be an unanticipated mutation in another area. For example, you could edit HIV in such a way that introduces a mutation that allows the HIV cells to resist a CRISPR attack. This is why, for many, more research is sorely needed.

Scientists are urging the Canadian government to follow the United States’ example, which makes it still illegal to genetically modify DNA that can be passed down to future generations, but allows researchers to conduct experiments on embryos that will never become human babies.

“Consensus is leaning towards allowing techniques and processes for manipulation to be practices for research, but not to implant an embryo to create a genetically modified human,” Dr. Bridge says.

Though some have speculated that 2018 could be the year that CRISPR finally makes its foray into human gene editing, delays in clinical trials … not to mention government legislation and oversight … have not yet opened CRISPR’s Pandora’s box. CRISPR is still in its infancy, though the research is evolving rapidly. The future that sci-fi warned us about, that which includes designer babies or creating a ‘superior’ race of humans, is still a ways off and still, as far as current research is concerned, remains science fiction.

Share