Gene therapy: A Biological Revolution

by Mark Piazza

Legislators meet to discuss future laws concerning healthcare

"Legislation that restricts gene-based medical research should be based on history and fact"

In February 2019, there was a massive public outcry over the Chinese scientist He Jiankui using the gene editing technology known as CRISPR to alter the genome of twin human fetuses. (Mischel 2019). This event garnered criticism from people both inside and outside the scientific community and sparked debate about the ethical nature of such experiments, and when should national and international governments step in to stop or regulate gene-editing research?

Gene Editing in Today's world

The genome contains the secrets to treating many 
diseases and improving quality of life

Gene editing is the altering of DNA in an organism in order to improve its biological resilience. Most recently, CRISPR has been used by researchers to cut out and insert pieces of DNA to modify an organism. In cell cultures, this is used to understand the function of specific genes in our DNA. This practice has also been used to create more nutritive and pest-resistant crops.(Jagathan 2018).

A problem researchers face is that many activists campaign against it because they don’t understand the technology or oppose its use on religious or moral grounds. Such campaigns have resulted in boycotts and FDA sanctions that suspend research. However, because this is also relatively new, scientists are still studying it. When funding and use of the technology are restricted, research that improves our understanding of the technology is stunted. In other words, if we hope to improve it and learn more about it, we need to use it.

Moving forward, we should consider the current state of the research, and see any parallels with history. Let's use history to more accurately predict the future of gene therapy and direct today's discussions. Although public opinion helps shape the level of government involvement, legislation that restricts gene-based medical research should be based on history and fact, not public perception which may end up stopping new treatments that will potentially be more effective than current medicine.

Its Connections to History

We are in the middle of a biological revolution that's changing the world. Many technological advancements during the industrial revolution gave rise to new industries and change lives, but also led to massive disparities and social issues.

The Enclosure Movement

One result of industrialization was the enclosure movement. As wealthier farmers became accrued greater capital, they could buy up the land of smaller farms. The increase in farmland would make that farmer even more wealthy. The excess income allowed them to incorporate larger harvesting and production methods that smaller farmers couldn't afford to do. A negative outcome from the enclosure movement was that larger farming establishments eventually pushed out the smaller farmers who then had to move into cities. However, it was also a positive thing because crop production improved, and farming practices became better than they were before.

Genome patenting is mimicking the enclosure movement.  In order to recuperate the money spent by large companies on developing new medical treatments, patents are imposed to prevent others from leeching profits by creating cheaper versions of the same thing. Smaller innovators are shut out from testing by exclusive patent rights, but larger companies will have a stronger pool of resources with which they can make greater advancements in the field of gene-based medical therapies.

Industrial Reform Efforts

During the industrial revolution, civilization expanded rapidly. Workers and their families lived in deplorable conditions in cities as a result. In an attempt to know what was happening, many people began applying the investigating social issues like poverty and education.  Greater understanding led to reform efforts, higher standards of living and better work conditions.

As people seek to mediate social disparities, it is necessary to consider the disadvantages caused by genetic disease. Some families have to pay extra money for their children's healthcare costs. This would be a tremendous good for children who could be treated and enjoy a normal childhood, as well as alleviate the financial burden on families who need constant medical treatment.

CRISPR can be used to create designer babies
by altering their DNA before they are born

However, this could also create even greater disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Many traits like intelligence and athleticism are influenced by our genes. Some speculate that wealthier families will be able to use gene editing to create designer babies. This implies that rich families will be able to have smarter and more athletic children while those who can't afford it are left behind.

What This Means for You and Me 

The way we approach the issues regarding the research and implementation of gene therapy technologies will determine its future. When it comes to something as personal as healthcare, education about gene therapy treatments helps us make better decisions for the treatment of ourselves and loved ones.

However, regardless of the facts, we are still talking about people. When I think of my family’s healthcare, I think of the unique experiences we’ve had with my handicapped cousin, the long-running heart problems that killed great-grandparents and my stepfamily’s problems with polycystic kidney disease.

I know they would immediately accept any treatment that guarantees neither they nor their children would suffer through genetic diseases and predispositions. Even though it wasn’t available for them 40 years ago, gene therapy is here now and it’s wonderful.

At the heart of gene therapy’s future is a conversation that we all need to have. The way scientists and its opponents communicate about gene editing will affect how and if it is made available to the public.

In popular culture, our fears about science running rampant dominates over our hopes. For example, in the movie “The Island” cloned people are bred like cattle to be secondary organ donors for the rich. The movie Blade Runner also showcases “replicates,” or synthetic humans, that are used for slave labor who then revolt.

However, if we ignore the dramatized appeal to our fears, and turn to our reason, then we can look at gene therapy objectively. Our decisions will not be based on a rhetoric of fear and misinformation, but of sound information with realistic expectations. Ultimately, this debate comes back to the decisions we make for ourselves, our families, and our future.

In summary, there are many opinions and approaches to deciding how genetic research should be conducted in the future. When it comes to government policy, we should make sure we use facts, draw from the past and then endorse what we think will be the best option.

Sources:

• Rowan Jacobsen, Feb 6th, 2019, "A Brief History of Gene Editing", Pacific Standard Magazine
• Deepa Jaganthan, et al, Jul 17th, 2018, "CRISPR for Crop Improvement: An Update Review", Frontiers in Plant Science
• Fiona Mischel, Feb 8th, 2019, "The CRISPR twins: Bioethics for the Gene-editing Age", Synbiobeta

Image Credit

• "LG Health Exchange Legislation Testimony" by MDGovpics is licensed under CC BY 2.0 
• "Genoma" by Aleiex is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 
• "Gene Editing" by National Institutes of Health (NIH) is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0