The CRISPR Journal
Volume 1, Number 4, 2018
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.29025.edi
EDITORIAL
CRISPR Craziness:
A Response to the EU Court Ruling
Rodolphe Barrangou
Despite the global democratization of CRISPR technol-
ogies in industry and academia, the European Court of
Justice (ECJ) ruled last month that edited crops fall
under genetically modified organism (GMO) guidelines.
Downloaded by 141.101.132.224 from www.liebertpub.com at 09/24/18. For personal use only.
This bizarre ruling is a sobering reminder that, yet again,
the limiting factor for promising technologies does
not always lie within the boundaries of the scientific
world. While it can be challenging for regulators to bal-
ance consumer confidence and environmental concerns
with industrial burden, assessing scientific facts is—or
should be—straightforward.
Déjà vEU All Over Again
Numerous commentators have already delivered scathing
opinions—from sarcastic to articulately colorful—of this
crippling decision (see the First Cut commentary by Stuart
Smyth in this issue and Fig. 1). ‘‘By any sensible stan-
dard, this judgment is illogical and absurd,’’ was the ver-
dict of the British newspaper The Observer. The ruling
maintains that ‘‘the highly precise technology of gene
editing is somehow more risky than past, imprecise tech-
niques. This is simply untrue.’’ Writing in The Times,
Matt Ridley (author of Genome) charged: ‘‘By saying
that genome-edited crops must be treated to expensive
and uncertain regulation, [the ECJ] has pandered to the
views of a handful of misguided extremists.’’
Concerns about the ruling’s key drivers have been dis-
cussed, encompassing politics, public relations, and fear-
mongering that had historically been used in EU-centric
circles. This decision will have dire consequences, nota-
bly on research funding, and scientific careers, and, most
concerning, will impose a catastrophic burden on the ag-
ricultural sector. In addition to stifling innovation, the as-
sociated regulatory costs will preclude small and start-up
companies from commercializing plants in the EU, and
perhaps have the unintended consequence of solely en-
abling ‘‘big Ag’’ to survive and prevent competition
with high barriers to regulatory entry.
Europe seems poised, yet again, to remain behind, miss-
ing out on the gene-editing revolution already underway.
Burdening global businesses will disrupt and possibly
Editor-in-Chief, The CRISPR Journal.
251
halt local innovation and slow down or terminate commer-
cial exploitation of valuable technologies in many Euro-
pean countries. In a previous issue of The CRISPR
Journal, we discussed the rise of a CRISPR world via
open democratization and examined the encouraging reg-
ulatory paths that the United States and other countries
provide for editing implementation, particularly in agri-
culture. The scientific consensus is that this technology
will enable us to close the food gap, despite an expanding
population. Several proof-of-concept studies have already
demonstrated the capability of genome editing to replicate
classical breeding outcomes in many plants. Unsurpris-
ingly, we take strong issue with the rationale underlying
the ECJ ruling and argue that this was not a science-
based decision. It will be impossible to rationalize why ar-
chaic mutagenesis tools that randomly and heavily alter
DNA supersede precise editing that can be implemented
in DNA-free versions. Indeed, Europe reminds us that,
sometimes, science is the easy part.
‘‘It will be impossible to rationalize
why archaic mutagenesis tools that
randomly and heavily alter DNA
supersede precise editing that can be
implemented in DNA-free versions.’’
CRISPR Call to Action
Many scientists have important responsibilities to educate
and mentor students in classrooms and laboratories across
the globe. Many of the beneficiaries—the next generation
of scientists—will eventually work in academia and in-
dustry. UNESCO estimates that approximately eight mil-
lion scientists around the world perform research. This
means that on average, every member of ‘‘team science’’
has a circle of 1,000 civilians to inform and educate about
the public benefits of science and technology.
Unfortunately, most of us are so tied up managing
our own labs and interacting with students and fellow
 252
FIG. 1. Food fight. The
ECJ ruling prompted many
scathing responses on Twit-
ter. Commentators shown
here include Ewan Birney
(Director EMBL-EBI), author
and journalist Matt Ridley,
Downloaded by 141.101.132.224 from www.liebertpub.com at 09/24/18. For personal use only.
Conservative MP Owen
Paterson, Seeds of Science
author Mark Lynas, and
Clive Brown (Chief Tech-
nology Officer, Oxford
Nanopore).
scientists that we often fail to reach out to the public and
properly advocate with key decision makers and influ-
encers. While some think tanks, industry groups, societies,
and not-for-profit organizations succeed at educating and
influencing strategic stakeholders, scientists frequently
fail to illustrate how beneficial our work potentially is or
explain how passionate we are about improving our world.
The ECJ ruling underscores the importance of engag-
ing with the public about the benefits of CRISPR. Though
published books, television interviews, movies, and doc-
umentaries provide a solid foundation, we can all do
more. However, the window of opportunity is limited.
As important as it is to confront the fearmongers on a cru-
sade against technology, a more constructive approach is to
urge scientists with a stake in advancing editing technologies
to reassess how much time and effort they dedicate to edu-
cating the public. Commentaries in science journals targeted
at fellow researchers will not suffice. To succeed, we must
listen to the concerns of the public and look beyond the class-
room, conferences, and industry meetings by more actively
participating in public outreach, exploiting all the tools at
our disposal—social media, the press, popular magazines,
EDITORIAL
science cafes and festivals, and other public events. We
should use these platforms to explain why and how CRISPR
and genome-editing technologies will beneficially impact
agriculture and medicine for a better world and healthier
population. Consider replacing some of that classroom
time with an educational field trip or spicing up the next sci-
entific conference with a local panel open to the public.
In a media landscape rife with fake news and science
skepticism (anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, anti-
GMO), we must do our part as experts and evangelists to
advance the acceptance of science and technology, and bet-
ter and more responsibly promote valuable and impactful
technologies. In my previous editorial, I wrote ‘‘one
hopes scientifically informed decisions will be made, but
history reminds us it is not always the case.’’ Sadly, this
quote proved more prophetic than I would have hoped.
The scientifically absurd EU decision provides yet an-
other reason to embrace the challenge of advancing the
appreciation and understanding of science and technol-
ogy. Academia and industry must work together to
blaze a path forward with regulators and politicians col-
laboratively. We must rise to this challenge.