c r i s p r

A scrapbook
Genetic Modification, the recent developments of human genome
editing and how they have impacted society on an international scale
 c r i s p r

ABOUT GENETIC MODIFICATION

Genetic Modification in humans
Genetic engineering in humans is a development that has only just
recently been introduced within the last decade, holding the power to
substantially change society and modernize the future on an international
level. In 2015, CRISPR was first implemented and studied regarding
genetic modification in humans and has since changed the thinking of
biologists and biomedical engineers across the globe. The debate
regarding whether it should be made accessible to the public is one which
is highly controversial and a decision that holds the power to change the
course of the future. Figure 1.A – CRISPR modification process

CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats

which is a part of a natural segment of the genetic code found in prokaryotes
(which are single celled organisms that do not have a true nucleus or membrane
bound organelles) and has a lot of short repeated sequences. It is the fastest,
easiest and cheapest gene editing tool and is surprisingly a natural process
originally found defending single cell bacteria and archaea against invading
viruses. In turn, this allows prokaryotes to remember and essentially ‘fight’ any
organisms such as bacteriophages that prey on them. They also have the ability
to modify and alter the genes of almost any organism which has become
somewhat controversial regarding the possibilities of human DNA modification
and ‘designer babies’ where parents can change certain features and genes of
their unborn babies.
Diagram regarding CRISPR and process of
genome editing via Cas9-RNA

CRISPR consists of two components, cas9 protein which is a protein that can cut DNA
almost like ‘molecular scissors’ and short parts of repetitive DNA along with a guide
RNA which is able to recognise the sequence of DNA that is going to be edited (figure
1.A). Before CRISPR was used as a gene editing technique, it was a naturally occurring
defence mechanism in several types of bacteria including Halophiles, E.Coli and
Clostridium. When a virus invades a bacteria, cas proteins cut out a segment of the viral
DNA to stitch into the bacteria’s CRISPR region capturing a ‘chemical snapshot’ of the
infection. These codes are then copied by short pieces of RNA which bind to cas 9 which
then act like ‘scouts’ to identify a match to the virus, if the virus invades again the
‘scout’ will able to identify it immediately and cas9 can destroy it. In 2012, scientists
discovered how to use CRISPR for other uses and found that they can use it to target any
DNA and change it .
 c r i s p r
To what extent should genetic modification utilizing CRISPR be legalized on an
international scale and how accessible should it be made to the public?

To use CRISPR scientists first identify the

sequence of the human genome, from
there a specific guide RNA is created to
match the gene that they want to edit
and recognise that particular sequence of
T,C, A or G’s in the DNA (figure 1.B). The
guide RNA is then attached to the DNA
cutting enzyme, Cas9 and similarly to the
viral RNA used as a defence mechanism
in different types of bacteria, the RNA is
able to locate the target gene/letter
sequence and cut the DNA. It can then be
edited by either removing, inserting, or
altering sequences.

Figure 1.B – World map depicting the restrictions implemented

regarding genetic modification in humans.

The accessibility of genetic modification on a global scale is currently very minimal,

not fully being legalized in any country. The current legalisations and restrictions
regarding genetic engineering in humans on a global scale can be seen in figure
1.B. In China, India and Japan, bans are existent however there are no current
legislations or legal enforcements against it. In Russia, South Africa, Argentina,
Chile, Iceland, Colombia, Bulgaria and Peru there are ambiguous rules and there
are no specific guidelines or laws against it. In the United States, there are specific
restrictions against it however no legalisations prohibiting it. Therefore, under
specific conditions it is allowed. Strictly laboratory research regarding genetic
modification is permitted, no use of engineering a human embryo to be
inseminated into a human is currently permitted. Despite this, out of 106 countries
which have specific policies regarding human genome engineering, only 11 allow Figure 1.B – DNA coding sequence
the use of genetically modified embryos in vitro for research purposes only. along with RNA codons and the
various proteins.
Moreover, it’s clearly evident that the accessibility of genetic modification on a
global scale is extremely minimal and at this rate it’s unlikely it will become
accessible to the public in the near future.
 C R I S P R

CASE STUDY AND MOST RECENT EXAMPLE

In November of 2018, a Chinese scientist named He Jiankui reported the birth of two twins (Lula and Nana) who had
their genomes genetically modified using CRISPR to build HIV resistance. He went on to describe his experiment “I
understand my work will be controversial - but I believe families need this technology and I'm willing to take the
criticism for them." The birth of the twins had been announced via a video publicly through Associated Press and as a
result received a vast amount of attention from across the globe. The Chinese government arrested He imprisoning
him for three years, as well as fining him three million yuan which is equivalent to around $430,000. Subsequently,
Lula and Nana were placed into custody of the government where they are being medically observed. All of He’s
research was stopped and he was also fired by the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen who
made a public statement addressing the event stating they “firmly opposed” it. This was the first ever gene-edited
‘designer baby’ experiment recorded in history and whilst it was ground-breaking, it was arguably too soon and
deeply frowned upon.

Ultrasound of Lula and Nana after embryos were

reportedly genetically modified to “fight HIV
resistance”.

He Jiankui at the second
international summit on Human
Genome Editing, sharing some of
his research regarding the use of
CRISPR.
Due to the fact that the long term consequences of gene editing are unknown as
there hasn’t been enough research conducted, it is completely unknown as to what
the gene pool of Lula and Nana will look like in the future. If they end up having
children of their own, the implications and effects are not now understood and
only predictions can be made. Correspondingly, it was also recently published that
He’s experiment was very different to what he had said it was. He had targeted
the correct gene however he had not created the exact mutation known to be
resistant to HIV. As a result, he created genes that have never been seen before
meaning the results of these are undetermined.

They've crossed the bottom line of ethics in

scientific research and medical ethics.
 PROS VS CONS

CONS PROS
Whilst there are lots of pros of There are several pros of genetic
genetic modification in humans, modification in humans that
there are also a few cons that need have been widely discussed, these
to be considered such as: include:

 GENETIC ENGINEERS AREN’T ABLE TO PROPERLY EVALUATE EVERY

 ALLOWING BIOLOGISTS TO GAIN A BETTER

SINGLE GENE
UNDERSTANDING OF GENETICS AND
FURTHERING CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
 IF THE PROCESS ISN’T COMPLETED CAREFULLY THE EMBRYO COULD
HUMAN DNA
BE ACCIDENTALLY TERMINATED

 THE TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED ISN’T FULLY SAFE YET AND IS STILL

 INCREASING THE LIFESPAN OF THE
INDIVIDUAL BY UP TO 30 YEARS
IN THE EXPERIMENTAL STAGE

 MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT’S UNETHICAL AS A BABY CANNOT

 HELPS TO KEEP UP WITH MODERN

CONSENT TO HAVE THEIR BODY ALTERED AND PEOPLE ARE

TECHNOLOGY
AGAINST THIS AS PARENTS DON’T ‘OWN’ THEIR CHILDREN
 CAN PREVENT GENETIC DISEASES
 PARENTS MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND USE IT FOR
 REDUCES AND ELIMINATES RISKS OF DEADLY
SUPERFICIAL PURPOSES AND APPEARANCE CONCERNS ONLY SUCH
AND SEVERE DISEASES, IMPROVING THE
AS ALTERING THEIR CHILD’S GENES SO THAT THEY’RE BORN WITH
IMMUNE SYSTEM TO STOP THE SPREAD OF
BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES
VIRUSES AND GLOBAL PANDEMICS.
 DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS NEW IT IS UNKNOWN
WHETHER THE BABIES WILL AFFECT THE GENE POOL AND THIS CAN  REDUCES THE RISKS OF INHERITED MEDICAL
CAUSE PROBLEMS LATER IN LIFE CONDITIONS

 MOST PEOPLE WILL WANT TO SEE OUT ATTRACTIVE AND  ALLOWS PARENTS TO GIVE THEIR CHILD A
INTELLIGENT BABIES MEANING THAT EVERYONE WILL BE HEALTHY LIFE AND TO GIVE THEIR CHILD THE
SOMEWHAT SIMILAR BASED OFF OF SOCIETY’S BEAUTY GENES THEY DO NOT CARRY
STANDARDS. - NOT EVERYONE WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT
MEANING THAT A PREJUDICE BETWEEN ‘DESIGNER’ AND ‘NON-  INCREASES INTELLIGENCE AND LONGEVITY
DESIGNER’ BABIES WOULD BE CREATED.
 CAN CHANGE HAPPINESS AND PRODUCTIVITY
 THE COST IS VERY HIGH AND COULD RANGE ANYWHERE BETWEEN
$500,000 TO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
 Ethical and Moral Implications
There are various moral and ethical repercussions associated with genetic modification of human embryos, all of
which substantially impact the legality of genetic engineering. A moral consequence with genetic editing is that it
will only be available to the rich, exacerbating existing gaps in health care and other treatments. Most people
informed on the full concept of CRISPR fear that if gene editing is followed to its plausible decision, it would end up
essentially creating a social hierarchy with classes based off of the quality of their modified genome. Additionally,
religion also plays a significant part as there are several religious objections to the use of human embryos for
research and the editing of a natural embryo, particularly for aesthetic purposes. A survey was conducted where it
was determined that 63% of total participants opposed due to religious and ethical concerns whilst 37% supported
it. 52% of Catholics opposed to it whilst 42% supported it, 66% of Muslims were against it whilst Jews were the
most positive with 35% against it. Correspondingly, many fear that obtaining informed permission for genetic
modification will be impossible because the patients impacted by the alterations are the embryo and future
generations. These individuals are babies and cannot consent to the changes being made and their genetics being
edited. Moreover, the individual who has had their genes edited as an embryo may suffer from mental and
psychological effects later in life, experiencing a sense of lacking their identity as they don’t know who they are. It’s
also been raised that many believe genetic engineering goes against ‘mother nature’ and is messing with natural
processes which should not be changed. Genetic modification also puts the child at risk even though they are
completely unaware, often biologists and biochemical engineers make decisions about the child’s life when it is not
theirs to make. In addition, the question regarding how divorced parents or separated parents of a child make
these decisions and the ethics behind consent are arguably questionable.

THE OUTCOME
To put it simply, there is no straight answer. There are substantial arguments for both sides,
and one can argue that this decision holds the entire fate of the human race. Making genetic
modification in humans accessible to the public comes with great responsibility, there are so
many processes and technologies that are still not understood but does making it accessible
mean that scientists are able to gain more knowledge? On the other hand, does permitting it
put lives at risk? Creating accessibility for the public could create a social and economic
divide in society, but it could also unite individuals. It’s highly likely in the future, restrictions
will lessen however the most ethical solution is to strictly use it for medical purposes limiting
the engineering of human embryos to genes that are at risk of inheriting genetic diseases or
unwanted traits with the potential to completely change their lives. Human engineering can
and will change the human race, the way in which it will do so all relies on it’s accessibility
and use of by the whole of society and international community.