from the world's big
CRISPR's Greatest Hurdle Isn't Biology, But Ethics
Jennifer Doudna, the CRISPR co-creator, says that the genie of genetic engineering might be hard to put back in the bottle.
Jennifer A. Doudna, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology and Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, has devoted her scientific career to revealing the secret life of RNA. Using structural biology and biochemistry, Doudna's work deciphering the molecular structure of RNA enzymes (ribozymes) and other functional RNAs has shown how these seemingly simple molecules can carry out the complex functions of proteins.
Doudna is a pioneer of the revolutionary CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology. Working with microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, postdoctoral researcher Martin Jinek and graduate student Krysztof Chylinski, the team published their findings in Science in August 2012. Their paper immediately and dramatically transformed the field of molecular biology and genetics. Since then, Doudna and other scientists have shown that the CRISPR/Cas9 technique works in human cells, a finding with enormous implications for preventing and treating many intractable diseases, including viral illnesses, such as HIV, and genetic conditions, such as Down syndrome and sickle cell anemia.
Jennifer Doudna is the author of A Crack in Creation: Gene-Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution.
Jennifer Doudna: Well, when we think about designer humans or “CRISPR babies” as we've seen in the media, this sparks some people's imagination to think about what one might want to do with a technology like this, maybe not today and maybe not next year but in the future.
And it's one thing to talk about being able to remove mutations from the human population that cause genetic disease—and I think for many people that would be a desirable thing to do—On the other hand I think it's a very different discussion to think about using a technology like this to create enhanced human beings, people that are taller or have a certain eye color or other kinds of physical or intellectual traits that might be considered desirable.
And it sort of immediately brings up sort of the whole area of eugenics and sort of access to technology, who gets access, who pays for it, who decies? Who decides whether or not to do such a thing? Should companies be allowed to offer this as a service to parents who want to do this so should they be regulated in some way? There's a lot of very interesting and challenging questions I think that go along with that. And then there's the whole question of, since this is a technology that is widely available—I really call it a democratizing technology because it's not very expensive to use and labs worldwide have been able to easily deploy it in different systems—So then how do we think about a global regulation?
Is it even possible to come to some kind of consensus globally? I'm not sure, honestly, of the answer to that.
I think that it's certainly important to be having this discussion with our colleagues in other countries and fortunately that's happening.
But are we going to be able to control what people are doing in every jurisdiction? I think no way, and so I think it's one of those things that it's one of the aspects of this technology that we have to grapple with, is the fact that it's widely available and that people will start using it in different ways, potentially even in the future to create genetically altered humans.
Can genetic engineering be regulated? Better question: should it be regulated? Jennifer Doudna, the co-creator of genetic engineering tool CRISPR, thinks that the answer isn't easy. Corporate interests could change everything, as could the desires of a madman if CRISPR were to fall into the wrong hands. But Doudna is happy that people are talking about the best ways to regulate the technology this early in the game as it's the kind of thing that could truly reshape the human race. Should we be concerned? Frankly, no. But we should remain vigilant that CRISPR gets used correctly and not for a future Westworld-esque scenario.
Jennifer Doudna's most recent book is A Crack in Creation
Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
A recent analysis of a 76-million-year-old Centrosaurus apertus fibula confirmed that dinosaurs suffered from cancer, too.
- The fibula was originally discovered in 1989, though at the time scientists believed the damaged bone had been fractured.
- After reanalyzing the bone, and comparing it with fibulas from a human and another dinosaur, a team of scientists confirmed that the dinosaur suffered from the bone cancer osteosarcoma.
- The study shows how modern techniques can help scientists learn about the ancient origins of diseases.
Centrosaurus apertus fibula
Royal Ontario Museum<p>In the recent study, the team used a combination of techniques to analyze the fibula, including taking CT scans, casting the bone and studying thin slices of it under a microscope. The analysis suggested that the dinosaur likely suffered from osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer that affects modern humans, typically young adults.</p><p>For further evidence, the team compared the damaged fibula to a healthy fibula from a dinosaur of the same species, and also to a fibula that belonged to a 19-year-old human who suffered from osteosarcoma. Both comparisons supported the osteosarcoma diagnosis.</p>
Evans et al.<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The shin bone shows aggressive cancer at an advanced stage," Evans said in a <a href="https://www.rom.on.ca/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/rare-malignant-cancer-diagnosed-in-a-dinosaur" target="_blank">press release</a>. "The cancer would have had crippling effects on the individual and made it very vulnerable to the formidable tyrannosaur predators of the time."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The fact that this plant-eating dinosaur lived in a large, protective herd may have allowed it to survive longer than it normally would have with such a devastating disease."</p><p>The fossilized fibula was originally unearthed in a bonebed alongside the remains of dozens of other <em>Centrosaurus </em><em>apertus</em>, suggesting the dinosaur didn't die from cancer, but from a flood that swept it away with its herd.</p>
Dinosaur fibula; the tumor mass is depicted in yellow.
Royal Ontario Museum/McMaster University<p>The new study highlights how modern techniques can help scientists learn more about the evolutionary origins of modern diseases, like cancer. It also shows that dinosaurs suffered through some of the same terrestrial afflictions humans face today.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Dinosaurs can seem like mythical creatures, but they were living, breathing animals that suffered through horrible injuries and diseases," Evans said, "and this discovery certainly makes them more real and helps bring them to life in that respect."</p>
Join the lauded author of Range in conversation with best-selling author and poker pro Maria Konnikova!
UPDATE: Unfortunately, Malcolm Gladwell was not able to make the live stream due to scheduling issues. Fortunately, David Epstein was able to jump in at a moment's notice. We hope you enjoy this great yet unexpected episode of Big Think Live. Our thanks to David and Maria for helping us deliver a show, it is much appreciated.
China moves to Russia and India takes over Canada. The Swiss get Bangladesh, the Bangladeshi India. And the U.S.? It stays where it is.
What if the world were rearranged so that the inhabitants of the country with the largest population would move to the country with the largest area? And the second-largest population would migrate to the second-largest country, and so on?
Study finds quantum entanglement could, in principle, give a slight advantage in the game of blackjack.