- Genomic editing tools. Beginning with the human genome project in the 90's, our understanding of human genetics has skyrocketed. With this project and novel breakthroughs in analytical chemistry and biochemistry instruments, we've been able to do some amazing things with regards to discovering, understanding, and applying information on DNA's biochemistry. However, the idea of genome editing has struck a nerve with the public. From non-GMO movements to backlash on cloning Dolly, it's evident that genomic editing is a mysterious and unnatural "black box" for many. To what degree is this fear warranted? And how can our society come to understand the broader uses and applications for genomic editing tools?
- "Big Pharma", the FDA, and drug price inflation. The drug development industry is a thriving and lucrative business, some say. Others respect it as our key to controlling the inevitable surge of disease we face with a massive, growing world populous. In any case, it's undeniable that there's money to be had in the race to cure innumerable diseases. Conversely, the research funding required for drug development can be astronomical. But does the FDA-approval process for a drug severely over-inflate its general market price, or is it possible that the "big pharma" companies to blame?
- "Natural" medicine and drug development. Related to the aforementioned issue is the ongoing battle between homeopathic methods and the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Some claim that biochemists and pharmacy scientists are "hiding" the cures to cancer, Alzheimer's, etc., because of the money otherwise made. Many of these voices also blame scientists for harmful and "unnatural" drug treatments. Is it possible that the general public misunderstands the process of drug development from bioproducts found in nature?
 |
| What are the possibilities of genome editing? |
While each of these strike a personal note, I feel that genomic editing tools are one of the most misunderstood facets of modern science. It's astonishing to me how fearful even my own circle of non-scientist associates treat the subject. Yes, tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 are certainly powerful. But the idea of a "pick-and-choose" selective-trait human race, along with many other stigmas around genomic editing, are exaggerated. I wish to convey the frequency, normalcy, and life-saving benefits of this field.
Image credit:
https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/genome-editing/geneart-crispr.html
I personally have a deeply rooted unsettled feeling about genomic editing. I realize that it has many good applications, but the idea of a future where the rich could pick a gender, select favorable traits is a scary one for me. I would love to hear why you think we should be able to mess with the genome.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Peter. The science that used to be shown in movies as going overboard or horribly wrong (Jurassic World, Frankenstein, Gattaca, etc.) is now in reach and we need to protect ourselves from the horrible endings that creative minds have already uncovered. Lines are going to be blurred, regulations pushed, and ethics breached unless we turn our efforts to more useful, less potentially harmful endeavors.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are certainly benefits to genome editing. However, people are never satisfied with stopping, especially when there is an ocean of discovery ahead of you. Sure we could find ways to protect people from terrible diseases, but scientists wouldn't want to stop there. As time goes on scientists would find more and more ways to change humanity.
ReplyDelete