Radiolab is uniformly superb. This podcast is an update from one they did two years ago, when CRISPR first started heating-up as a gene editing tool. Of course, they discuss what CRISPR is, how it works, and some of the potential applications. However, what I really enjoyed about this, is that they discuss the ethical implications of the innovation. If you are presented of paying to reduce your child’s chance of ever getting Alzheimer’s or not, is there really a decision to be made? What about manipulating the genome of an entire species? Its easy to see where the law might start wading into the debate. Its also easy to see how one side may seek to stop the innovation entirely, either for ethical reasons, or under the flag of IP rights and obscene licensing fees. The IP debate over CRISPR is ongoing, but I found the ethical discussion refreshing.
The ethical implications are evident. The IP implications are less frequently discussed. I think that one of the murkier ethical issues is the difference between genetic manipulations to eliminate a disease – these will be the arguments used in favor – and genetic manipulation to provide enhancements other than health. E.g., studies show that overweight people face a distinct disadvantage in hiring – should you manipulate genes to eliminate a predisposition for obesity? What about to enhance “attractiveness” (however defined)? Consider the lengths people will go to now – plastic surgery, for example. What’s the difference?
I felt the human ethical issues were evident – such as whether access to the cure for a disease ought to be considered a human right. And, indeed, humanity has proven itself willing to go to extreme lengths in the name of vanity.
What was refreshing to me, as a newcomer to the CRISPR discussion, was Radiolab’s attention to CRISPR’s broader ecological impact. So far, CRISPR has been successfully deployed in every setting conceived. For example, it has been used in corn, mosquitoes, and yeast, in addition to the many human trials that are ongoing. In the case of the yeast, they successfully modified the genome in such a way that the desired trait would never become recessive, thus ensuring it would persist in every subsequent generation. My questions are to the effect, do we really understand agriculture so well that we are confident making a change that would transform the entire industry? or, is there a strength in diversity? Are we confident that by eliminating the ability of a mosquito to carry malaria, we might not trigger a boom in the mosquito population somewhere that leads to other adverse consequences?
As for the IP issues, I think they are really interesting but I also think CRISPR has proliferated to a point where traditional legal methodologies may be unable to cope. Indeed, the first application of CRISPR to modify a human embryo’s DNA was conducted at a Chinese university, and Radiolab noted that at least three other labs in China are doing similar research. As opposed to a patent battle between Apple and Samsung, which may involve manufacturing complexities no university could dream of becoming involved in, the use of CRISPR technology is relatively simple to begin experimenting with, and the dissemination of the methods that Broad and Cal are currently fighting to patent might be a sideshow to the scale and pace of innovation that is actually occurring.