The 50+ Shades of Genetic Engineering

Just as cybernetics took off in the 1970s, today we are witnessing the development of genetic engineering following major breakthroughs like the CRISPR technique—the use of an enzyme that acts like scissors on DNA, enabling precise editing. This discovery was made by Jennifer Doudna in 2012, and since then, we have seen various other innovations showcased at events like the one held in Quebec, which was described by Walter Isaacson for the website Airmail.

Isaacson notes that just as schools realized all children should learn to program in 0s and 1s, they will soon need to learn to program with other variables: the genetic code’s A, C, G, and T. Faced with these innovations, however, the need to regulate their use and practice has emerged, especially after we were taken by surprise last November when a Chinese scientist announced he had edited two embryos to make the children, who were already born, immune to HIV. Furthermore, a Russian doctor is also planning to edit embryos to attempt to eliminate congenital deafness.

In this regard, Isaacson recounts a conversation he had with geneticists at a post-event dinner, where he discovered a certain consensus among scientists regarding the safety and feasibility of such procedures: they should be used to repair genetic mutations, such as in cases of Huntington’s disease or sickle cell anemia. However, scientists still do not feel comfortable when editing concerns human enhancement, such as giving children more muscle mass, height, or perhaps even higher IQs and cognitive abilities. “The problem is that the distinction is hard to define—is preventing obesity a cure or an enhancement?—and even harder to enforce. ‘Look at what parents are already trying to do for their kids in college,’ says Feng Zhang. ‘Some people will certainly pay for genetic enhancements,’” Isaacson describes.

The issue, however, lies not only in the possibility of developing this type of technique or technology, but in who would have access to it, which, in principle, would not be widespread due to its currently high costs. It is from this perspective that Isaacson compares the current problem to the plot of the novel Brave New World, published in 1932 and written by Aldous Huxley. In the book, the author discusses how embryo modification produces a caste system distinguished by levels of intellectual enhancement for leaders and reduced cognitive capabilities for workers. “Our world is already suffering from widening disparities in wealth and opportunity, and a free market for genetic enhancements could produce a quantum leap in these inequalities, as well as literally encode them for eternity. ‘In a world where there are people who don’t have access to eyeglasses,’ says Feng Zhang, ‘it’s hard to imagine how we will find a way to have equal access to genetic enhancement. Think about what that could do to our species.’”

Speaking with Peggy Hamburg, director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a member of the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing, Isaacson notes the widespread shock that followed the news about the Chinese doctor’s work on human embryos. However, Hamburg believes it is impossible to create a single law for every country in the world. “We have different attitudes and regulatory standards, just as we do with genetically modified foods,” Hamburg argued. In this sense, the WHO could create a “menu” of regulatory options for each country, which, however, could lead to a scenario of “genetic tourism”: the wealthy who want enhancements could travel to countries that offer such services, much like how places like Brazil or Thailand are already hubs for those interested in plastic surgery. “It is very difficult to regulate practices and standards. It’s not like nuclear weapons, where you have guards and locks to enforce security,” Hamburg observes.

One possibility, however, would be to waive the patents on these techniques, which, on one hand, could diminish researchers' interest in advancing their studies at the current pace of the genetics field. Yet, Isaacson’s reflection suggests that even if the pace of innovation were to slow, that is less important than making discoveries accessible and cheaper for everyone, rather than just the wealthiest 10% who can afford these procedures.

Regardless, would this even be a desirable scenario? Isaacson ends his piece by describing the multiplicity of events and people gathering on the streets of New Orleans: of all colors, heights, body types, and even those communicating in sign language. “It took more than 3.2 billion years for the laws of nature and nature itself to create three billion DNA bases in a complex and occasionally imperfect way to allow for all the magnificent diversity of our species. Are we right to think that we can now, in a few decades, edit this genome to eliminate what we see as imperfections? Will we lose our diversity? Will we become more bland, like our tomatoes? Will it be good for our species?”

Between eugenics and the acceptance (as well as inclusion) of diversity, however, lies financial opportunity. Today, even without the ability to perform these types of genetic procedures, we are already witnessing the creation of inequality in children’s development, as some have the opportunity to pursue extracurricular activities while others cannot afford the costs.

A study conducted in the United States in partnership with Voices in Urban Education sampled students who participated in extracurricular activities from the 1970s to the present, attempting to understand if this behavior led to any differences in their development. What the researchers discovered, as reported in an article in The Atlantic, was alarming: “economic differences in extracurricular participation are growing, and these differences are likely to have profound future effects. The disparity increases the already widening economic gap that holds poor children back in school and throughout their lives. While middle- and upper-class students have become more active in school clubs and teams over the last four decades, their working-class peers ‘have become increasingly disengaged and disconnected,’ particularly since their participation rates began to fall in the 90s, the study found.”

In other words, access to education is, in itself, a way of manipulating people’s development without necessarily resorting to genetic procedures. Access to extracurricular activities or education itself are already determining factors for the inclusion and exclusion of people in the future, whether through the lens of employability or literacy— Brazil still has 6.8% of its population composed of illiterate people, while global levels total more than 750 million. Thus, we could say that certain consequences are already being experienced today without the use of gene-editing techniques; what such procedures could instill, therefore, is an accentuation of this problem on a generational level, since instead of a matter of opportunity and access, we would be talking about something more intrinsic to the individual: their own DNA.