The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race

From the 19th century onward, literature and art have often warned against the perils of interfering with the natural human being, as seen in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus (1818). In Frankenstein the eponymous doctor creates a human being from the parts of corpses but later abandons “playing God,” for even Prometheus was considered a sacrilege. After all, Prometheus, who in Greek mythology stole the fire of the gods for humanity, was condemned to have his liver perennially eaten by vultures. However, Prometheus is also a heroic figure who represents humanity’s ambition. The arguments for and against gene editing follow a similar binary: it might bring about chaos, or it might herald a better future for humans.

The idea of engineering humans became a distinct possibility with the use of recombinant or hybrid DNA in the 1970s. From then on, the field of genetic engineering has leapfrogged into gene editing. Using CRISPR systems, short segments of RNA can guide a scissors-like enzyme to cut up genetic material even in human cells. This could mean deleting genes or mutations that code for terrible diseases like sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and more. Though this is a great development in principle, in practice things may play out differently. For example, the sickle-cell gene can also give immunity against malaria, which is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, where most sickle-cell sufferers live. In this case, who decides which risk is worth taking?

The debate gets even more heated when it comes to the question of editing germ or reproductive cells. Genetic edits in these cells are permanent, so the offspring inherits the edits. Again, if it was simply about editing genes for autoimmune diseases, the question would be simple. However, Isaacson considers another complication: What if the edit is not medically unnecessary? And what if it is about enhancing a trait, like IQ or height, or even eye or skin color? The implications of making such changes freely available in a world riddled with racism and gender injustice must be considered very deeply. The concern came into international spotlight in 2018, when He Jiankui, a Chinese biotechnologist trained in America, reported that he had edited out a gene linked with HIV in embryos, implanted them in wombs of couples who had signed up for the process, and delivered “healthy” children. Jiankui defended his experiments on the basis that HIV-positive individuals are stigmatized in China, and he wanted to give the twins a chance for a better life.

Further, the information in human genes creates diversity. Would tweaking the genome eliminate diversity? Would Eurocentric ideas of intelligence or beauty dictate these tweaks? It’s also possible that fiddling with the genome would create more problems than it solves. For instance, editing the gene for mental illness might curb creativity. Moreover, there are also questions around whether a parent has the right to decide what constitutes a potential disability for a child. What if a parent thinks being female is a disability? Such gray areas make the concept of gene editing a minefield to explore.

Some objections to gene editing deal more with philosophical and religious considerations. Does gene editing interfere with the natural order? In pursuing gene editing to any end, are scientists attempting to play God? However, Doudna makes a pertinent response to such questions: Who decides what is natural and unnatural? Pursuing that argument, it can be postulated that all medicine interferes or intervenes with the natural course of things. Should cancers then be left untreated and polio vaccines left unadministered?

The two most pertinent arguments for caution in gene editing address more secular concerns. Since gene-editing treatments are prohibitively expensive, they can aggravate inequality. The world’s inequality problem will be further exacerbated if gene editing is made available in the free market, as richer parents will be able to buy their children better genes.

Finally, it remains true that suffering builds character and empathy. Would Franklin Roosevelt have been Franklin Roosevelt without polio, or Sylvia Plath herself without depression? Would Flannery O’Connor have been the writer she was had she not suffered from the autoimmune disease lupus? It can also be argued that with perfection becoming the norm, people will lose empathy for those considered imperfect. The text concludes that the best way to negotiate these tricky questions is to include humanists in formulating guidelines for gene editing.