I don’t know how much of her time Jennifer Doudna spends thinking about bioweapons, but I do think she spends a lot of time thinking about the ethical implications of CRISPR. If you read things like this NYT interview with her from last week she’s saying things like:
Interviewer: It’s also easy to imagine two different countries, let alone two different people, having competing ideas about what would constitute ethical gene editing. In an optimal world, would there be some sort of global body or institution to help govern and adjudicate these decisions? In an optimal world? This is clearly a fantasy.
OK, how about a suboptimal one? The short answer is: I don’t know. I could imagine that given the complexities of using genome editing in different settings, it’s possible that you might decide to use it differently in different parts of the world. Let’s say an area where a mosquito-borne disease is endemic, and it’s dangerous and high risk for the population. You might say the risk of using genome editing and the gene drive to control the mosquito population is worth it. Whereas doing it somewhere else where you don’t face the same public-health issue, you might say the risk isn’t worth it. So I don’t know. The other thing is, as you indicated with the way you asked the question, having any global regulation and enforcing it — hard to imagine how that would be achieved. It’s probably more realistic to have, as we currently do, scientific entities that are global that study these complex issues and make formal recommendations, work with government agencies in different countries to evaluate risks and benefits of technologies.
This doesn’t seem like a person who is just arguing “CRISPR should be everywhere, for everyone”. I also think she is not claiming to be an expert at making bioethical determinations of what technology should be deployed, and my sense from hearing her public speaking is that she is reluctantly taking on a mantle of going around and saying that we all need to have a very sober and open discussion about where and how CRISPR should be used, but that she doesn’t feel particularly qualified to make those determinations herself. The Innovative Genomics Institute, which she co-founded, has an entire research area dedicated to Public Impact, including initiatives like the Berkeley Ethics and Regulation Group for Innovative Technologies. You can argue that these actions are poorly targeted, but I don’t think it’s accurate to frame Doudna as a naively pro-technology actor.
Doudna wants to “democratize” CRISPR, as she puts it. But whatever her perspective, it doesn’t really matter, because genetic engineering will inevitably follow a path similar to computing where it becomes easier and easier, cheaper and cheaper, and more and more accessible to more and more people over time.
Doudna and other technical experts appear to still be laboring under the illusion that they will remain in control of this process, which is why they continually reference governing bodies and so on. My reply to that is, tell it to the North Korean regime.
Even if we rule out evil doers, which we can not do, the fact still remains that over some period of time literally millions of people will be fiddling with technologies like CRISPR and whatever is to come next. There are already CRISPR kits on Amazon, and bio-hacking groups of amateurs on Reddit. Only God knows what such amateurs will be releasing in to the environment. Yes, genetic change in the natural world is a given, but never before at such a pace.
Yes, it was the IGI Facebook page where I invested a month attempting to engage. Yes, Doudna does make the points you’ve credited to her, agreed. But none of that really matters, because the technical experts are rapidly losing control of the genie they have let out of the bottle. I see their talk of governance systems etc as basically a way to pacify the public while this technology continues it’s rapid march past the point of no return.
Please feel free to rip any of this to shreds. I have strong views, that’s true, but I’m also very receptive to challenge.
My real concern is not genetic engineering in particular so much as it is the ever accelerating knowledge explosion as a whole.
Let’s say you’re right, and biosecurity is close to impossible to control and is almost certainly going to destroy us all. Doesn’t that just make it even more urgent to work on it?
I don’t know how much of her time Jennifer Doudna spends thinking about bioweapons, but I do think she spends a lot of time thinking about the ethical implications of CRISPR. If you read things like this NYT interview with her from last week she’s saying things like:
This doesn’t seem like a person who is just arguing “CRISPR should be everywhere, for everyone”. I also think she is not claiming to be an expert at making bioethical determinations of what technology should be deployed, and my sense from hearing her public speaking is that she is reluctantly taking on a mantle of going around and saying that we all need to have a very sober and open discussion about where and how CRISPR should be used, but that she doesn’t feel particularly qualified to make those determinations herself. The Innovative Genomics Institute, which she co-founded, has an entire research area dedicated to Public Impact, including initiatives like the Berkeley Ethics and Regulation Group for Innovative Technologies. You can argue that these actions are poorly targeted, but I don’t think it’s accurate to frame Doudna as a naively pro-technology actor.
Hi again Tessa,
Doudna wants to “democratize” CRISPR, as she puts it. But whatever her perspective, it doesn’t really matter, because genetic engineering will inevitably follow a path similar to computing where it becomes easier and easier, cheaper and cheaper, and more and more accessible to more and more people over time.
Doudna and other technical experts appear to still be laboring under the illusion that they will remain in control of this process, which is why they continually reference governing bodies and so on. My reply to that is, tell it to the North Korean regime.
Even if we rule out evil doers, which we can not do, the fact still remains that over some period of time literally millions of people will be fiddling with technologies like CRISPR and whatever is to come next. There are already CRISPR kits on Amazon, and bio-hacking groups of amateurs on Reddit. Only God knows what such amateurs will be releasing in to the environment. Yes, genetic change in the natural world is a given, but never before at such a pace.
Yes, it was the IGI Facebook page where I invested a month attempting to engage. Yes, Doudna does make the points you’ve credited to her, agreed. But none of that really matters, because the technical experts are rapidly losing control of the genie they have let out of the bottle. I see their talk of governance systems etc as basically a way to pacify the public while this technology continues it’s rapid march past the point of no return.
Please feel free to rip any of this to shreds. I have strong views, that’s true, but I’m also very receptive to challenge.
My real concern is not genetic engineering in particular so much as it is the ever accelerating knowledge explosion as a whole.
Let’s say you’re right, and biosecurity is close to impossible to control and is almost certainly going to destroy us all. Doesn’t that just make it even more urgent to work on it?