Emily Thomas

15 December 2016
Introduction to American Law-Honors Section
Final Paper
CRISPR-Cas9
A new gene editing technology called CRISPR-Cas9 offers countless opportunities to
change the world as we know it, but any change comes with controversy. The new technology
presents ethical issues as well as opportunities, and is forcing people to reshape what they think
is possible, and the regulations around what should be done.
CRISPR-Cas9, more commonly known as CRISPR, is a revolutionary method of gene
editing which was patented for use in 2014. CRISPR stands for "Clustered Regularly Interspaced
Short Palindromic Repeats." Some bacteria use a similar process as an immune response. In it,
guide RNA molecules, which use short sequences complimentary to DNA bases to find the
correct section, and naturally occurring Cas-9 proteins work together to find and replace foreign
bodies. Scientists Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, et al. copied this process, injecting
embryos with a synthetic guide RNA, which finds gene sequences, and Cas-9 protein, which
removes the undesirable sequence so it can be replaced with the desired modification. The new
technology is relatively inexpensive, and offers unprecedented speed and precision, as well as the
ability to modify multiple genes at once.
Gene modification has never been this easy. The CRISPR technology is opening doors
we never ever knew existed. Genes control virtually every facet of every existing organism, from
lifespan, to intelligence, to, some studies are showing, personality. With this technology, humans
have the ability to create mutations, and could design the next generation of life on earth. The
possibilities are unlimited. Already, CRISPR has been used to create mosquitos who are resistant
to the parasite that causes malaria, treat muscular dystrophy in lab mice, delete genes that inhibit
muscle and hair growth (in sheep and others), and remove a gene that causes blindness in mice.
Researchers are confident that the technology will be able to create drought resistant plants
(which are particularly important in the changing climate), help cure cancer and other genetically
linked diseases, and further our understanding of life in general.
Of course, with uncharted territory come unexamined questions and controversies.
CRISPR-Cas9 has the ability to modify the human genome, as well as that of countless
organisms. The possibilities for abuse are innumerable, and long lasting. Modified traits are
heritable, meaning any alleles could be passed on to offspring, even if they are deleterious.
Though we are, in fact, creating new traits, the modifications threaten a loss of genetic diversity,
which leaves organisms less able to adapt to disturbances in their environment and susceptible to
inbreeding depression (a phenomenon results from high homozygosity--a possibility if a
particular "desirable" trait is becomes a population-wide norm. This is not much of a risk for
humans, because the population is massive and migration is relatively unrestricted, compared to
animal populations where it is an issue, but it does bear consideration, as the results are
disastrous). Furthermore, the idea of choosing traits begs the question: which traits are "better?"
The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing--traits do not exist because they are better or
worse, but because they were useful adaptations that helped organisms survive. However, though
most people know this, racism and other forms of discrimination still run rampant. The new
technology could exacerbate these issues. Along those lines, the ability to completely remove
disabilities is a challenge to those working for disability rights. Disabilities are often painful, and
decrease quality of life, and if something can be done to avoid them it should be. However, some
people will inevitably be unable to afford the treatments for their children, which would leave the
remaining disabled even more marginalized than ever, and convinced something is "wrong" with
them, when nothing is. A similar issue is presented when poorer countries and the poor within
countries are taken into consideration. These people may not be able to afford the technology,
resulting in increased inequality, and fewer programs to ameliorate the issues CRISPR solves,
because it is unnecessary for the wealthier people in a nation. On the other hand, disabilities
could actually be caused by the technology--CRISPER isn't perfect, and errors can result in
mosaicism, which causes Down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, and Turner syndrome. With so
much at risk, following international ethical testing codes becomes more important than ever, but
problems arise there too. These codes demand voluntary informed consent, a favorable risk/
benefit analysis, a right to withdraw without repercussions, a series of animal tests before
proceeding with human experimentation, and a total of three phases of human clinical trials
before a treatment can be approved for the market. Since the treatment is injected into embryos,
however, the first three are impossible to comply with. This may prompt a public outcry, which
would slow further research.
The benefits are as multitudinous as the drawbacks. Proponents of continuing testing
remind us that we are always making decisions for the next generation without their consent, and
that the current subjects of human trials are not viable--they would have been thrown away if
they were not studied, because they cannot develop into living humans. Researching the new
technology is necessary. It is immortal to deny treatment to people suffering from genetic
disorders, especially when it could save and improve lives, and eliminate the illness from the
next generation. Furthermore, human gene editing is not the only purpose. A rapidly growing
population and drastic climate change necessitate tough, highly productive resources. However,
nature can only act on existing traits, so such species could not come about naturally. CRISPR
can create these mutations. Furthermore, researchers are developing technologies that "blunt" the
Cas9 protein, keeping it from removing the gene section. This will allow researchers to find any
gene, and manipulate it, turning it on and off at will. This could be particularly useful in working
to find and develop a cure to cancer. The research is valuable for the fruits it produces, but also in
itself. CRISPR offers us the opportunity to find answers to questions about life and organisms
that scientists had not known were there. Knowledge is valuable for its own sake, and CRISPR is
a key to answering countless questions about the natural world, and presents new ones we had
never considered.
Currently, there is very little regulation on CRISPR technology. The Biological Weapons
Convention and International Summit on Human Gene Editing both met, and the International
Summit on Human Gene Editing called for a voluntary ban on human testing, which China
refused to consider. The countries that participated in the summit agreed that continued
international cooperation is necessary, because humans are part of every nation, and that further
testing is imperative, because the benefits the technology offers are undeniable. Gene editing has
been possible for many years, but it has never been as inexpensive and effective as it is now. The
new technology has created an unexplored field. Very few cases concern gene editing, though the
patents did benefit from previous cases, such as Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which holds that living
organisms can be patented. Though no cases on cell or embryo ownership (as in the case of
Henrietta Lacks) in regards to CRISPR have occurred in recent years (that I can find), I'm sure
that many will arise in the near future as the technology becomes more commonplace. These
cases will shape the regulations around gene modification. I hope that narrow and specific
regulations will be developed, because it will allow testing to go on. Currently, there are few
regulations, but quite a lot of panic. Studying and developing the technology is imperative,
because of the countless benefits it could offer and questions it could answer. However, the risks
are massive; regulation is necessary to protect the rights of marginalized groups. Ideally, laws
would ensure everything was well researched and safe before it was tested on humans, without
prohibiting it in general, because disease cures and disability treatments will do very little good if
they are not implemented.
I chose this topic because I could read about it for hours. The first time I read about
CRISPR, I completely ignored my homework to spend several hours reading articles. So, when I
had the chance to read about CRISPR for homework, I jumped at it. Doing the project was
enjoyable, and I found myself excited to keep working on it and give my presentation. Besides,
the day we talked about property law and bodies was one of my favorites; it was a totally new
way of looking at law. Before this class, I hadn't even considered bodies and property, except in
vague, undefined terms--a person's body is their own, people have a right to choose what medical
procedures they undergo, you cannot sell your bodily fluids or organs. I hadn't ever thought of
discarded material, or many of the concepts introduced in class. However, the intersection of
biology and law intrigued me. Researching CRISPR, which I have been fascinated by since I
first heard of it, and connecting it to law, which presents a new and unique way of thinking, was
an awesome opportunity. It was also interesting to consider all the possibilities gene modification
offers, from glowing trees to disease cures. The field is set to change the world as we know it,
and and I can see it becoming a major issue in our lives in the future, so I want to be informed.