Science, at its core, poses an irreconcilable dilemma. The insights it unveils makes our world better. The same knowledge, however, carries the potential to destroy us. The last century saw vivid examples of that dichotomy on display. In physics we harnessed nuclear energy and built atomic weapons. In chemistry we cured some of the toughest diseases and created drugs that can kill us instantly. In mathematics we ushered in a new era of computing intelligence yet created computer viruses that can bring our modern world to a standstill. We are now repeating that pattern in biology.
Readers of this blog are familiar with the technology CRISPR. This technology allows us to easily manipulate the DNA of any organic entity. I believe this is going to be one of the most consequential technologies of the twenty first century, solving intractable diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer and depression. Today the technology is primarily used by a worldwide cadre of professional scientists governed by an emerging bio-ethics framework. However, the plummeting cost of the technology is widening its accessibility beyond regulated laboratories. This is worrisome.
What caught my attention was a recent article in Scientific American which discussed being able to order a DIY mail order kit of CRISPR to manipulate e-coli bacteria DNA on one’s kitchen table. It is hard enough to get companies to comply with a bio-ethical framework that regulates what genes get altered and for what purposes. We make our task impossible if we allow a global army of DIYers tinkering with the fundamental building blocks of life. The probability of creating a deadly species destroying pathogen is not trivial. Rarely will you hear me saying these words, but please, somebody needs to restrict access to this technology.
The world already has a somewhat successful framework for doing this, the treaty for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, commonly known as the NPT. Despite its limitations, the NPT has succeeded in preventing a nuclear war for seventy two years. I believe the United Nations needs to urgently engage the global scientific community in creating a similar framework for managing access to and the use of CRISPR technology. CRISPR’s potential for harm is in some ways greater than that of nuclear weapons.
In the meantime, our best defense against the perversion of biology and all other sciences continues to be our basic humanity and spirituality. Most humans, I believe, wish no harm to their fellow beings. The worry is science’s ability to put formidable power in the hands of the few that do. As Martin Luther King Junior so aptly put it,
"When our scientific power outruns our spiritual power We end up with guided missiles and misguided men"
Chats on the Charles 
We’re fast entering the era of Homo Deus. Human nature has remained worryingly constant as the tools at our disposal are evolving exponential. Exciting and terrifying at the same time
LikeLike
Vik- your article was sufficiently terrifying for me to go through the DIY article from Scientific American. Here’s the argument in the end from the scientists – sounds somewhat unconvincing in the absence of greater academic insight into their comment but I hope they know what they’re talking about (!):
“Finally, what about the nightmare scenario: Is CRISPR so easy to use that we need to worry about biohackers—either accidentally or intentionally—creating dangerous pathogens? Carroll and others think that the danger of putting CRISPR in the hands of the average person is relatively low. “People have imagined scenarios where scientists could use CRISPR to generate a virulent pathogen, ” he says. “How big is the risk? It’s not zero, but it’s fairly small.” Gersbach agrees. “Right now, it’s difficult to imagine how it’d be dangerous in a real way,” he explains, “If you want to do harm, there are much easier and simpler ways than using this highly sophisticated genetic editing technique.”
-Sid
LikeLike
Thanks Sid – great point. I worry that by the point people start to worry it will be too late.
LikeLike
Thought provoking perspective. I wonder if “a framework for managing access to and the use of CRISPR technology” a la the NPT would work. The NPT created physical (you can’t get the stuff you need), IP (it takes some serious scientific chops to do), and economic barriers aimed largely at nation states to slow the spread of nuclear weapons. Will those types of tools apply to this problem or do you need a different kind of framework? Consider that if organisms are information and CRISPR is the preferred tool of biohackers, that IT security could be an appropriate analogy.
LikeLike
Very interesting idea Nikhil. Not sure how one can mandate implementation without government standards or regulation.
LikeLike