Gene Editing

Bikash Gupta
Shashwat Sinha HUL 371 - SCIENCE TECHNOLGY & SOCIETY
IIT Delhi
Agenda
• Introduction
• Development of Gene Editing
• STS Analysis
• Points for Discussion
Introduction

WHAT IS GENE EDITING ? A BIOLOGICAL VERSION OF

WORD-PROCESSING PROGRAM'S
"FIND AND REPLACE" FUNCTION
 Vaccines and Treatments
•Insulin, the first genetically
engineered drug was created in
1982
•PCR was developed in 1983 and
subsequently ZFN was discovered
in 1984
Basic Research •Recombinant vaccine for Hepatitis
B is approved in 1986
•Restriction enzymes were •The first BT corn was planted in
discovered in 1968 1988
Discovery of Modern
techniques
•Gene targeted therapy drug was
approved by FDA in 2001
•TALENs were discovered in 2011
•CRISPR- Cas9 technology was
discovered in 2012

Development 1970s 1990s

of Gene 1960s 1980s 2000s and 2010s

Editing
Further Breakthroughs
•Successful Gene Splicing
experiment conducted in 1971
•Recombinant DNA is created in
1978
•The National Academy of Sciences
imposed a moratorium on
experiments in 1974
Cloning and GMOs
•A variety of tomato engineered to
stay ripe was brought to market
in 1994
•Dolly the sheep was cloned in
1996
 • Universities
• Scientists
• Public
Actor Network • Governments
Theory Analysis • Other Actors

• Popular perception
STS Analysis Social Construction
• Presenting distorted facts with collusion
of Realities
Overview
• Chinese genetically modified twins
• Ethical, Legal and Social Issues
Controversies and
Associated Risks
Actor Network
Analysis
 Universities

• Recent trends show more commercialization

• UC Berkley and Broad Institute involved in legal
battle
• Both institutes highlighting their achievements by
marshalling their networks
• Universities have strived for co-production in the
past
• Profit centered approach can have far reaching
consequences
• How it could have been different ?
• Zhang and Doudna were both co-founders of Editas.
• Both institutions as co-inventors.
 Scientists
• Rhetoric analysis
• Scientists used CRISPR as agent: a metaphor that
rhetorically inhibits the prospects for responsible
research
• Science magazine named CRISPR its “Breakthrough of
the Year” in 2015, calling it a “molecular marvel”
• With a metaphor that compares it to a person, the
journal says that CRISPR “was conceived” in 2007, got a
“birth announcement” in 2012, took its “first steps” in
2013, experienced “a massive growth spurt” in 2014,
then quickly “matured,” so that by the end of 2015, it
“shows its power” with its “mind-blowing” capabilities
• We are carried along by a linguistic and cognitive
momentum that makes it less likely that we will orient
toward this technology as a tool under the control of
scientists and science regulators who make decisions
about whether or not particular synthetic biology
projects should be undertaken
• The metaphoric vehicles are being used to talk about,
namely,
• The scene -> genome
• The agency -> CRISPR
• The act -> what CRISPR or genetic tech. is used to do
 • Over the years, there is a surge in
number of CRISPR publications
• Used bioethics literature as part
of their network
• Two core distinctions were
developed within the bioethics
literature in order to gain moral
purchase on the emerging
technology (Martin, 1999; Scully & Rehmann-Sutter, 2001)
• Distinction between somatic (body)
cells & germline (gamete producing)
cells
• Distinction between gene therapy
and genetic modification intended to
boost human traits
• Scientists created/used distinction
as their networks
• Scientists became futurologists
• Raises question about
how legitimacy is created or disputed

Scientists for future-oriented technological

claims
Governments
• Role of Governments central
• Proper deliberation on funding
essential
• Different governments have very
different approaches
• Some governments have come together
to decide on course of action
Public
• There are always some lights and shadows to such
technologies
• Much emphasis by the public on the shadows
• One of the reasons for the skepticism among the
public towards science is the existence of well-
funded movements against science
• The public’s trust in science has declined in
recent years
• From a traditional Christian perspective, human
life begins at conception and is created in God’s
image
• 64 % of highly religious Americans agreed
that such an application meddled with nature
and crossed a line that should not be crossed
 Other Actors

• Industries:
• Work in close collaboration
with educational institutions
• Major objective is maximum
commercialization
• Media & Journalists
Social Construction
of Realities
Social Construction of
Realities
• The book Our PostHuman Future,
emphasize that human life has a higher
moral place than the rest of the natural
world as traditionally accepted
• Human life should always be treated with
a sacred respect
• Such teachings have shaped Western
culture to the extent that their principles
are passed on even to those who have
never set foot in a church
• On a topic such as gene editing, churches
often serve as powerful networks of civic
recruitment where congregants receive
requests to voice their opinion to elected
officials
Controversies and
Associated Risks
Chinese genetically
modified twins
• November 2018: He Jiankui claims that he modified
the genes of two twins as embryos
• Claims that researcher deliberately avoided
oversight have emerged
• Initially stated that he was proud of his work
• Politics
• Chinese government responded by tightening
regulations on gene therapy research
• Led to being fired from job
• Gender
• What led to this?
 Associated Risks

The possibility of a 'slippery-slope': Technology may move from disease

curing applications to uses with troubling implications

Concerns about 'Runaway Evolution'

Easy access to such technology can lead to more demand for genetic
changes to alter percieved less likely traits

Societal Inequality and Discrimination

 Final Thoughts

RESEARCH USING GENOME EDITING TECHNOLOGIES THE PROMISE OF OVERCOMING GENETIC DISEASE IS A ACKNOWLEDGING THE COMPLEXITY OF THESE SCIENCE-
MAY CHANGE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT POWERFUL IDEA THAT DISRUPTS WHAT WE THOUGHT SOCIETY RELATIONSHIPS AND FOLLOWING THEM OVER
MEANS TO BE HUMAN. WAS DETERMINED OR DESTINED. TIME IS PART OF REFLECTING ON WHO WE ARE AND
WHERE WE ARE GOING
 Should gene editing of human germ line cells, gametes and embryos be allowed in basic
research—for the further understanding of human biology (e.g., human development) and
without the intention of being used for creating modified human life?

How do commercial incentives and the technological imperative play a role in these
decisions?

Who will decide on roles and responsibilities in this novel context?

Discussion
 References

• Howard, H., van El, C., Forzano, F., Radojkovic, D., Rial-Sebbag, E., & de Wert, G. et al. (2017). One small edit for humans, one giant edit for
humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans. European Journal Of Human
Genetics, 26(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1038/s41431-017-0024-z
• Ormond, K., Mortlock, D., Scholes, D., Bombard, Y., Brody, L., & Faucett, W. et al. (2017). Human Germline Genome Editing. The American
Journal Of Human Genetics, 101(2), 167-176. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012
• Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R., & Church, G. et al. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and
germline gene modification. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6230/36
• Sherkow, J. (2016). CRISPR: Pursuit of profit poisons collaboration. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/news/crispr-pursuit-of-profit-
poisons-collaboration-1.19717
• Perets, E. (2018). Why Does Europe Lag Behind the US and China in the Gene Editing Race?. Retrieved from
https://labiotech.eu/features/gmo-gene-editing-europe/
• Chinese scientist 'proud' of gene-editing trial despite international outcry. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/28/chinese-scientist-says-gene-editing-trial-paused-international/
• Nisbet, M. The Gene-Editing Conversation. Retrieved from https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-gene-editing-conversation