…What about the ethics of all those gene-editing possibilities? That's something you've been talking about for years now, but what would it look like to actually resolve those ethical issues? What is the green light we'd be waiting for that would make us say, "This form of gene editing was not OK yesterday, but it is OK today?" Maybe let's start with, "Where are the ethical boundaries right now for CRISPR technology?" Two come to mind…
3
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/15/magazine/jennifer-doudna-crispr-interview.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare But at the same time it could clearly have environmental impacts that might be of concern. That's one aspect. The other is using CRISPR in the human germ line. Meaning making changes in embryos that, if implanted to create a pregnancy, then would create human beings who have edits to their DNA that are not just affecting them but can also be passed on to future generations. Those are two distinct applications, but it's fairly clear why both of those could have profound impacts that could be dangerous. Understanding that, and then thinking about how to proceed as the technology continues to advance, has been incredibly important. Let's take the human-embryo example. Is there a particular event or decision or developments that would suddenly make us say, "Oh, we didn't think it was OK yesterday, but now it seems fine?" No. But it's a complex issue. There would be technical considerations. In other words, even before we ask, "Should we do this?" we have to ask, "Can it be done accurately and safely in a way that creates a change that is desired by the scientist who's doing the work?" Right now that's still not true in human embryos, I would say.
