Opinions editor Zachary Woodworth shares his opinion on the pros of DNA manipulation

Zachary Woodworth, Campus Carrier opinions editor

The idea of editing human DNA to make people stronger and smarter sounds like something out of science fiction. “Star Trek” and many other famous franchises have used the idea of genetic manipulation as a plot point for decades, but with advancing technology, many scientists have begun wondering if this can actually be done.

That question was answered in April, when a group of Chinese scientists from Sun Yat-sen University published a study in which they edited the DNA of human embryos in an attempt to prevent a potentially fatal blood disorder.

To do this, they used a molecular tool called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR). Specifically, they used what is called the CRISPR/Cas9 system. CRISPR itself is a group of repeating DNA strands, which guides enzymes called Cas proteins that precisely cut and paste bits of DNA. Scientists have found that the Cas protein in the bacteria streptococcus, called Cas9, is more accurate than any other protein.     

Nature Magazine of April 22 reports that they injected 85 nonviable embryos, or embryos that could not be carried to term, with a CRISPR molecule designed to alter the disorder-causing gene. The experiment failed in exactly the way that many scientists feared: the DNA showed signs of unprecedented mutation.      

Scientists are concerned about the effects that DNA editing could have on people whose DNA is edited this way. An editorial published in Nature Magazine on March 12 argues that because the technology is so new, there is no way to gauge how using it would ultimately affect the individual that grows from the altered embryo, or their offspring.

MIT Technology Review of March 5 explains that negative media attention resulting from unsafe experiments could hurt other research being done with CRISPR. Much of the research being done doesn’t involve genetic material, but scientists worry that negative publicity surrounding experiments on human DNA would create a stigma against CRISPR that could prevent them from using it at all.

This could be extremely detrimental to people with debilitating genetic disorders. The Sun Yat-sen scientists were attempting to prevent beta-thalassemia, a blood disorder common to China and other Southeast Asian countries that creates a lack of oxygen in the body. If DNA editing techniques can be improved, this and many other genetic disorders could be prevented.

But this raises serious ethical questions. Should we, as humans, have the ability to directly alter our genetic makeup? Jennifer Doudna, one of the scientists who developed the CRISPR/Cas9 system, told the New York Times on May 11 that the ability to affect human evolution was a profound thing, and that like many scientists, she believes that it is too much power for people to have.

Genetically engineering a new race of super-people sounds like something out of “Star Trek,” but George Church, a genetic researcher at Harvard, told the previously cited Technology Review that CRISPR could potentially alter genes to make people stronger and more resilient to disease.

More pressing, however, is the fact that the team’s experiment showed that editing human DNA is no longer theoretical. The team showed that the technology used to edit DNA is relatively affordable.

Business Insider of May 1 explains that the CRISPR/Cas9 system is so simple that a person with the right skill set could use it for less than $2,000. The DNA sequences can be purchased online, and the supplies needed to use it can be found in any biology lab. Any molecular biologist with a dedicated workspace and a modest budget could use CRISPR to edit human DNA. Church anticipates that this could lead to unmonitored experiments on human DNA, despite widespread objection.

With genetic disorders like beta-thalassemia, Huntington’s disease and sickle-cell anemia affecting millions of people worldwide, DNA editing has the potential to improve their quality of life. For this reason, despite objections, scientists should persist in experimenting with this new technology. They have inspired a new wave of scientists eager to boldly go where no man has gone before.