CRISPR: The What, How, & Why
CRISPR, a term not to be confused with the goals of the beloved Colonel of Chicken, is a gene-editing technique that has become an essential tool in modern science, used in everything from agriculture to medicine.
The process, in a nutshell, begins with scientists deciding which area of the DNA sequence they want to interact with and designing a guide RNA (gRNA) accordingly. The gRNA is then associated with a Cas protein, forming a complex that is introduced to the target cell. This complex travels along the cell's DNA sequence until it recognises the specific stretch of DNA code it’s been programmed for, at which point the gRNA (generally) will tell the Cas protein where to make the edit.
Now, if all of that went over your head, don’t worry. You’re not stupid; it's a complicated bit of science, which is something to bear in mind as you read on.
So, what is the end goal of this scientific wizardry, I hear you ask? Well, if performed correctly, a scientist should be able to predictably and precisely modify DNA, meaning that, at some point in the not-too-distant future, many genetic diseases may be curable.
And it’s not just genetic diseases; there are murmurings of the technology's potential to diagnose and combat pathogenic infections. This, as COVID-19 showed us, is quite important, particularly because of all the doomsday predictions that state the next global pandemic is just around the corner. One report, published fairly recently, calculates a 28% risk of a new COVID-like pandemic occurring within the next 10 years.
Further reading on the topic presents an even gloomier picture, as it suggests that the study’s figure may have been a tad conservative, as it doesn’t factor in a number of other issues like climate change.
Now, the two may seem like odd bedfellows, but there is strong science behind it. It is expected that as the Earth heats up, the disease-carrying habitats of vectors will increase, as will their geographic spread. This leads to changing migratory patterns that increase the likelihood of cross-species virus spread, which could theoretically jump the species barrier into humans.
Outside of pandemics and diseases, CRISPR technology could also play a key role in overcoming another of humanity's impending issues: food security. The ability to genetically optimise crops at a highly specific level relatively quickly gives us the scope to adapt to changes in the environment and disease. The technology is already making inroads, but the scale of the problem is immense. It’s expected that food production will need to increase by 70% in the coming years to keep up with the world's population, which is expected to exceed 10 billion around 2050.
So, having harped on about the messianic potential of this technology, you may be wondering what exactly the issue is. Well, here’s the thing: despite the potency and complexity of the technology, you can, in many countries, buy your own DIY CRISPR kit to play with at home.
Biohacking: An Emerging Market
Biohacking is a relatively new and growing industry, valued at $15.42 billion in 2020 and expected to grow to $63.7 billion by 2028. The industry is a diverse landscape of ideas and technology unified by a single goal: changing or hacking the biology of your body to improve health, performance, and well-being. Which, when you think about it, sounds like every diet you’ve ever been on, and for the most part, it is.
The general, vanilla concept of biohacking is safe, albeit expensive. It just means incorporating specific supplements and technologies, such as the Fitbit, into your lifestyle. At its core, biohacking is simply a scientifically optimised diet.
Where biohacking gets sketchy is in the subculture, specifically the idea of transhumanism. Transhumanism, for the uninitiated, is the concept of utilising technology to augment the human body. Some advocate this as a way of 'shaping your own biological destiny', while others see it as the manifestation of innumerable sci-fi dystopian films.
Whatever your position, you will likely agree that handing out technology capable of altering genetic code to completely untrained people is a recipe for disaster. As far as legislation goes, you can’t produce and sell a CRISPR kit specifically designed to alter human genetics – for the most part, anyway.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done with what is being sold, or that it's even that hard to do. A quick search on Google will give you a variety of guides. Perhaps more worryingly, the people and companies selling these kits are not what you might call responsible.
Loki, The Kardashians, And Ragnarok
The big flagship pioneer company of DIY CRISPR kits is The Odin. They’re based in the US but ship internationally; whether that includes the UK isn’t clear on their website. The company might sound familiar, and it should, because they have had a lot of press coverage, including a feature in the Netflix documentary series – Unnatural Selection.
The Odin and its founder, Jo Zayner have been a lightning rod for controversy over the years, and not without merit. The former NASA employee reportedly started the company in her garage with the somewhat naive view that everyone should have access to the technology, regardless of their intentions or capability.
Generally speaking, this is the belief among the whole transhumanism subculture: that technology and materials should be open access. Some of the reasons why are very “tin foil hat,” Illuminati stuff; one of the community's big fears is that the super-rich will get together and create a master race that will, in time, become our all-powerful overlords.
There is also concern that drug companies will extort people for access to new CRISPR-based treatments, charging outlandish prices because, in essence, they have you by the balls. This isn’t such a crazy idea, particularly if you are American.
After all, pharmaceutical companies in the US pretty much have carte blanche. Make no mistake, it is the Wild West out there in terms of drug prices. It’s not a country where healthcare is a right given to all, regardless of social status. It is a Lord of the Flies system in which any talk of public healthcare sends the average citizen into a frenzy about communism.
To the extent that a group of Americans see open access to advanced and potentially dangerous technology as more palatable than simply reforming their healthcare system, or hell implementing some basic market regulation.
Odin: Giving The Left Eye For Octopus Fingers And The Right Buttock For Kangaroo Legs
Now, back to the aforementioned controversies: Zayner (CEO of The Odin) is infamous for her questionable public displays of self-experimentation, from attempting to genetically engineer her skin colour to injecting herself with a CRISPR-based concoction designed to enhance her muscles.
It's pretty crazy stuff and the antithesis of scientific procedure, which is in place to prevent important things like permanent injury and death. Hence the controversy and fascination within the scientific community. In essence, Zayner became the biologist's equivalent of Evel Knievel.
Now, Zayner has subsequently given interviews expressing regret for her actions. In an interview with Sarah Zhang from The Atlantic, she said she blames herself for getting the ball rolling and acknowledged that the one-upmanship in the community means “somebody is going to end up hurt eventually”.
Whilst it is quite the penitent admission, it is worth pointing out that Zayner still, to this day, sells DIY CRISPR kits and other equipment that can, and very likely is, used for self-experimentation. Although Zayner did state that she “discourge[s] people from doing that,” the fact remains she has very publicly done so on multiple occasions. It’s the equivalent of opening a marriage counselling service between a brothel and a law firm; there is the suggestion that all is not quite what it seems.
Zayner has attributed some of the outlandish things she’s done to “social activism.” But the reality is she has a PhD in biochemistry and biophysics, something that the vast majority of her imitators do not. Thus, it's very unlikely that Zayner will make a mistake or do something with extraordinarily high risk and dire consequences. It has a whiff of detached intellectualism – intellectually engaged but entirely disconnected from the practical consequences of the idea.
What Are DIY CRISPR Kits & What Are The Risks?
Billed as educational tools designed to be an accessible way of experimenting with and learning about genetics, these kits are a perfectly reasonable idea provided the kits are used in a controlled environment by qualified professionals in settings like schools and universities. But when you can buy them on Amazon, which at the time of writing you can, then Houston, we have a problem.
You see, the regulatory framework around the subject is fairly bare bones (even in the UK). The whole field has a whiff of the AI problem; everyone in the government doesn’t really understand the risks, how it works, or what it all means. And to some extent, like AI, the genie is out of the bottle and it's almost impossible to put it back in.
Therefore, the only real solution is to regulate the market, but it's something governments around the world seem to be dragging their feet on – most likely because it isn’t on their radar yet. I suspect it is going to be one of those issues where scientists are going to fruitlessly wave a warning flag until some calamitous event occurs that makes people sit up and take notice. Like waking up from a night's sleep to see a forest fire heading towards you and having the sudden realisation everything is covered in kerosene.
Putting aside the variety of ethical issues involved in the technology, the real-term risks are immense. Firstly, the technology gives nefarious actors, either at a national or group level, the ability to perpetuate biological terrorism in a way that simply could not have occurred before the wide availability of the technology. This isn’t just in terms of the low cost but also the relative lack of expertise required to carry out the task. It is quite possible that someone with a rudimentary understanding of genetics could increase the transmissibility or lethality of an existing pathogen, or convert non-pathogen organisms into pathogens.
Now, governments haven’t completely sat on their hands with these issues; indeed, there are a number of different multi-agency bio-defence strategies in place. However, the reality is it’s not about whether they can contain the infection. It’s about how long it would take to cure it and what the cost would be in terms of lives lost and financial impact.
Many people in favour of open access to the technology may point out that governments around the world already have access to it, and that’s true. But the potential for even the most despotic regime to perform an act like this is pretty minimal. The reality is they have no idea what the consequences would be and if they themselves could end up being wiped out by the very disease they unleash. And as history tells us, these sorts of regimes need to maintain control and stability in order to survive.
In truth, the only type of people who would even be willing to consider something like this would be the fundamentalists, the radicals, those on the fringes of global society and its conventions. The type of people who would not have access to this technology but for the availability of these CRISPR kits and the open access research freely available on the web.
Unfortunately, the risk is not limited to the deliberate misuse of the technology. There is growing evidence of unforeseen and long-term implications associated with the technology. A study performed by the Sagner Institute in 2018, published in Nature Biotechnology, found that CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing can cause greater genetic damage than previously thought. They detected extensive mutations at a greater distance from the target site than anticipated, and in doing so demonstrated that the the typical genotyping methods previously used to detect changes had been inadequate. They found that the consequences of these mutations were large genetic rearrangements that resulted in DNA deletions and insertions, which could cause important genes to be switched on or off.
So in a hypothetical scenario where some ‘revolutionary’ biohacker decides with reckless abandon to modify something or indeed themselves, to the level of the germ line (cells that will pass on genetic material to the next generation), the off-target effects could persist in future generations. For humans, this could mean a lifetime of potentially irreversible suffering, and for lab specimens released into the wild, it could very well lead to the collapse or irrevocable modification of an ecosystem.
Now, to be very clear, this doesn’t mean all CRISPR-based therapies are innately dangerous or wrong. It’s more an acknowledgement that this science is complex, unpredictable, and has a lot of variables that are not easy to account for. And that’s why proper academic institutions take many years and go through many trials and experiments before their science ever leaves the lab.
As every amateur DIYer sooner or later realises, sometimes it’s better to leave it to the professionals. I, for one, hope this epiphany arrives before we get overrun with mutant frogs and twelve-footed giraffes.
Our Sources
Seven diseases that CRISPR technology could cure (labiotech.eu)
CRISPR-based strategies in infectious disease diagnosis and therapy - PMC (nih.gov)
Covid-Like Pandemic Could Hit World Within 10 Years: Health Analytics Prediction - Bloomberg
Climate Change and Its Impact on the Outbreak of Vector-Borne Diseases | SpringerLink
Climate change will result in new viruses and risk of new diseases, says study | PBS News
WDI - World’s population will reach nearly 10 billion by 2050 (worldbank.org)
Global Biohacking Market Size & Share Report, 2021-2028 (grandviewresearch.com)
Biohacking Market Size Worth $63.7 Billion By 2028 | CAGR 19.4% (grandviewresearch.com)
Biohacker Regrets Injecting Himself With CRISPR on Live-Stream - The Atlantic
How gene editing could be used as a weapon, and what to do about it (phys.org)
Comments