Is gene editing dangerous?

Gene editing is defined as any genomic engineering process by which eDNA is inserted, removed or replaced by nuclease enzymes.

Beyond the definition of "book", this type of practice leads to a series of ethical considerations that must of course be taken into account. In 2015, the first attempt at genetic modification of a human embryo was given the green light, followed by experimentation that sought to improve the resistance of these unborn infants to HIV.

Following this, in April 2016, Nature News magazine reported that the research team of Professor Fredrik Lanner from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm had received the necessary ethical approval to begin research that included editing human embryos, a practice strictly prohibited until just a few years ago. years.

The barrier has been crossed: the experimental field is no longer confined solely to laboratory animals or the treatment of chronic patients, but the human being is potentially capable of modifying the attributes of people even before they are born. Of course, with these findings, questioning whether gene editing is dangerous is extremely common in the general population.

• Related article: "Differences between DNA and RNA"

Is gene editing dangerous? A possible double edge

Before immersing ourselves in the ethics of these practices, it is necessary that we understand even briefly how they work. Genomic editing is currently based on four different techniques:

• Meganucleases: use of natural nucleases that break the phosphodiester bonds of the DNA chain.
• Zinc fingers: structural motifs present in proteins that, if modified, can show high specificity for certain regions of DNA.
• TALEN: use of restriction enzymes that can be designed to identify and "cut" in specific DNA sequences.
• CRISPR-Cas9: This technique requires a section on its own.

What is CRISPR-Cas9?

This technique requires its own mention, as it has popularized in the world of science "gene targeting" or gene targeting. While the modification and use of zinc fingers costs an average of 30,000 euros per experiment, with CRISPR-Cas9 you only need a couple of weeks of work and a budget of 30 euros. Even if only for economic reasons, this methodology has opened countless doors in the world of genetic engineering.

To understand this technique we have to understand the two components of its name. Let's go there:

• CRISPR: a genetic region of some bacteria that acts as an immune mechanism against some viruses.
• Cas9: an enzyme that acts as a "genetic scalpel", that is, it cuts and adds new regions of DNA to it with great precision.

In general, we could say that the CRISPR-Cas9 system is responsible for destroy the regions of genetic material of the virus that has infected the bacteria, inactivating its pathogenic capacity. Beyond that, this sequence allows the integration and modification of regions of viral DNA in the bacterium itself. In this way, if the virus re-infects the microorganism, it will "know" its nature much better and act more efficiently against it.

To keep things simple, we will say that this methodology allows DNA modification at the cellular level, since cuts and modification do not apply only to viral components. The RNA encoded in the CRISPR DNA region acts as a “guide dog”, guiding the Cas9 enzyme to the exact place in the cell's DNA where sequences are to be cut and pasted genetic Although it requires an important exercise in abstraction, this technique is still a most fascinating microscopic mechanism.

The lowering of costs and the ease of use of this technique have represented a new stage for genomic engineering, which, without exaggeration, represents a new window for the concept of human life and evolution as we know them. But is genetic engineering dangerous?

• You may be interested in: "The 24 branches of Medicine (and how they try to cure patients)"

In the world of ethics, not every end justifies the means

The dogma that "science is unstoppable" it is an imperative by which research has been guided throughout the last century, and it has a double and interesting reading: first, scientists are not willing to stop. Naturally, the more you know, the more you want to know, since each discovery results in the posing of a series of questions that must be answered.

Second, this statement assumes that "everything that can be done must be done." It is a technological imperative, since it is the obligation of any professional to expand the bases of human knowledge, provided that the new information promotes the well-being and wisdom of the population. Beyond an opinion, an interpretation of the principle of responsibility proposed by the German philosopher Hans Jonas must be taken into account:

"Work in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of an authentically human life on Earth."

So, is anything valid as long as the human species and its permanence on the planet is not compromised at a general level?

By last, it is necessary to note that all these techniques are ethically neutral: morality applies to the use that is given to them, and they should not be prosecuted based on their initial premise.

Gene editing in the germ line

Of course, gene editing in the germ line is the area of ​​research that has been the most controversial in recent times. We are talking about the modification of life during its early stages: fetal development.

For example, in 2015 a group of researchers from Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) edited genetically embryos in order to eliminate the gene that causes beta-thalassemia, a very serious disease that affects the blood.

Although the investigation did not go very far due to the poor results, the purpose remained clear: to transfer the barrier of "natural" biological mechanisms to prevent the occurrence of diseases in newborns born.

The two most common risks with regard to these techniques are eugenics (the possibility of selecting human beings with certain characteristics) and uncertainty reported by this practice (due to ignorance of how it may affect future generations or the potential danger of putting these tools erroneous).

What's more, Scientists who criticize this type of practice are based on four essential pillars:

• The technology is not yet in a position to be applied safely, as its effect on the individual and future generations is not known.
• There are already alternatives to prevent the birth of children with serious birth defects.
• There is a probability of applying these techniques for non-therapeutic purposes.
• Performing reckless experiments can make the general population lose confidence in science.

Of course, disagreeing with these points is difficult. In the scientific community these practices are not completely crossed out, but rather they speak of precaution and to build bridges when necessary. In the verbatim words of scientific papers as far as the subject is concerned:

"If a case arises that clearly shows the therapeutic benefit of germline modification, we would bet on an open dialogue about the best way to proceed."

For this reason, certain scientists propose the prohibition of this type of scientific approach in all countries in which it is not have strict regulations as long as the social, ethical and environmental implications of these practices are not entirely elucidated. Meanwhile, education and dissemination of the population about this new era of knowledge would also be promoted, so that people not related to the subject can understand and reflect on the benefits and repercussions they bring.

Conclusions and personal opinion

As strange as it may be in a merely informative space, because of what he writes, to expose these kinds of ethical considerations and not giving a personal opinion is like throwing a stone and hiding the hand.

First, it is necessary to recognize that "The natural alteration of things" is something that humans have been doing for centuries. Not everything is based on the basal genetics of the individual, for example, natural selection is a mechanism that no longer applies to our species. We survive despite our pathologies, some of them chronic that in nature would have automatically erased us. This results in a biased gene conversion, by not responding to adaptive evolution.

In addition, we have spent centuries modifying the species in our environment through genetic selection (not transgenesis) to obtain maximum benefit from the land and the environment around us. It is no coincidence that various scientific communities propose that this geological age be renamed the Anthropocene. Not only have we modified ourselves as a species by varying natural genetic selection, but the environment has also been completely transformed based on our benefits.

It is because of that the "naturalness" of the human being is an empty and meaningless concept. Even so, this should not mean that "from now on anything goes." Science is knowledge, and knowledge, responsibility. Any scientific practice has to seek the general welfare in one way or another, but also, as scientists, we have an obligation to convey to the public our intentions and results in a reliable and friendly. This, in many cases, implies adapting to the pace of social change and the demands of the general population.

From here, the limit is set by each one. Is it necessary to stop taking into account the general opinion if what is sought is a common good? To what extent should the scientific community wait to implement certain methodologies? Can you get knowledge without risk? So is gene editing dangerous? The debate is open.

Bibliographic references:

• Capella, V. B. (2016). The CRISPR-CAS 9 gene editing revolution and the ethical and regulatory challenges it brings. Bioethics Notebooks, 27 (2), 223-239.
• by Miguel Beriain, I., & Armaza, E. TO. (2018). An ethical analysis of the new gene editing technologies: the CRISPR-Cas9 under debate. In Annals of the Francisco Suárez Chair (Vol. 52, pp. 179-200).
• Lacadena, J. R. (2017). Genomic editing: science and ethics. Ibero-American Journal of Bioethics, (3), 1-16.