Muscular dog, meaty goat, fluffy sheep--the way we want! Yes, this is becoming a reality with the new CRISPR Cas9 technology which enables genome editing in complex species such as animals and even humans.
But wih the penetration of technology, debates on ‘moral right and wrong’ are also on rise, with ethical concerns over the potential scope and scale of genome editing modifications.
So far, genome editing techniques have been used to change genomes in individual cells and in entire (non-human) organisms. Currently, modifying plants, some animals, and non-inheritable cells in humans is allowed under strict controls. Benefits include better targeted gene therapy in animal models. It is also hoped that it will lead to a better understanding of the structure, function and regulation of genes. But with greater power sould come greater responsibilty as well
Genome editing in humans and animals has been the basis for many works of fiction; but now there is fear among the scientific community of how genome editing might be used to change traits in human. Can we expect all scientists to behave ethically right way? Some experiments performed by the scientific community have raised real concerns! Genome modified dogs, goats and monkeys are already made at a research station in China, and it voice worries about ethics and whether the methods should be used on humans.
At the Shaanxi Provincial Engineering and Technology Research Center for Shaanbei Cashmere Goats, scientists have just created a new kind of goat, with bigger muscles and longer hair than normal. The goats were made not by breeding but by directly manipulating animal DNA—a sign of how rapidly China has embraced a global gene-changing revolution. Geneticist Lei Qu wants to increase goatherd incomes by boosting how much meat and wool each animal produces. The results are published in Nature’s Scientific Reports.
The research is just one of a recent flurry of papers by Chinese scientists that describe CRISPR-modified goats, sheep, pigs, monkeys and dogs, among other mammals. In October 2015, researchers from the country discussed their work to create unusually muscled beagles in the Journal of Molecular Cell Biology. Such research has been supported via grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Science and Technology as well as provincial governments. Dozens, if not hundreds, of Chinese institutions in both research hubs like Beijing and far-flung provincial outposts have enthusiastically deployed CRISPR. “It’s a priority area for the Chinese Academy of Sciences,” says Minhua Hu, a geneticist at the Guangzhou General Pharmaceutical Research Institute and one of the beagle researchers. Many experiments, like the one on cashmere goats and a similar experiment that deleted the gene-inhibiting muscle growth in sheep, are aimed at transforming animal husbandry—more muscled livestock could help satiate China’s fast-growing middle-class appetite for meat.
But some experiments are aimed at potential biomedical applications. For instance, scientists at Yunnan Key Laboratory of Primate Biomedical Research have used CRISPR to augment the neurological development of monkeys in an effort to test the feasibility of creating primate disease models for better understanding human conditions like autism, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease.
All the above ‘achievements’ are all made possible with the adoption of CRISPR–Cas9, the technique developed in the U.S. about three years ago. As the technology is by far more precise, cheaper and easier than the past technologies, this powerful method now raises both tantalizing possibilities and pressing ethical questions.
Although China’s government has allocated a lot of financial support in genetically modified animals in both Agriculture field and biomedicine field, few scientists from China itself has raised concerns over the new experiments. In fact, the concerns are significant as the experiments are raising a number of ethical worries about making new life forms. Unlike past gene therapies, changes made using CRISPR to zygotes or embryos can become “permanent”—that is, they are made to the DNA that will be passed onto future generations. For each zygote or embryo that scientists successfully transform, typically dozens, if not hundreds, of others do not work.
Now, the technology is rapidly improving, and the ethical concerns are now rising because the technology is ‘real’.China has been an extremely rapid adopter, aided by a fast-growing research budget and the sheer shale of China’s science establishment, which is largely state-affiliated. The level and sophistication of work in China using CRISPR is already “about the same” as in Europe and the U.S., says George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. An analysis by Thomson Innovation, a division of London-based Thomson Reuters, found that more than 50 Chinese research institutions have filed gene-editing patents.
But what first brought widespread global attention, or infamy, to China’s ambitions was a recent published experiment on human embryos, the first in the world. In April, China became a lightning rod for criticism and anxiety when a team of Chinese scientists published a paper online in the journal Protein& Cell detailing attempts to use CRISPR to modify nonviable human embryos, obtained with consent from a fertility clinic. Their aim had been to delete a gene linked to a blood disorder called beta-thalassemia without creating other mutations, but the experiment failed on 85 attempted cases..
At present, modifications that alter the human germ-line are not allowed under law, with the exception of the recent decision in the UK to allow mitochondrial replacements. In fact, the research was legal within China , which bans experiments on human embryos more than 14 days old, and was supported in part by government grants. (Such research is not banned in most U.S. states but is probably ineligible for federal funding.)
However, many international observers reacted with sharp rebuke, attributing nefarious intentions to the Chinese scientists. “No researcher has the moral warrant to flout the globally widespread policy agreement against altering the human germ line,” Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the California-based Center for Genetics and Society, a nonprofit advocacy group, wrote in a statement reacting to the report. Respected news organizations ran ominous headlines: “Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns” appeared in The New York Times and “Editing Humanity” in The Economist.
As China is new to global scientific stage, its institutional standards for approving research projects is not seen fully transparent by the world. Moreover, as the researchers involved were not the heads of well-known global institutions, like the Broad Institute of MIT or Harvard University or the Francis Crick Institute in London, whom global research community knows well and understands their motivations.
However, Chinese scientists decline all allegations by saying that the controversy is simply overblown. According to them the objective of human editing was to learn about human disease s through future CRISPR experiments. However, China is having its own internal debates about the ethics of editing DNA.
Final thoughts
Public debate over any powerful new technology reflects preexisting public hopes and fears. In the case of CRISPR the hope is the desire to eliminate hereditary diseases and the fear is about the commodification of parenting, the privileges of rich over poor.
Worldwide, there can be different viewpoints on gene modification. Even in China there are different viewpoints on this issue. Academicians and scientific commuity will be confident and hopeful. But what about the public? Are they convinced? Are they ok with the genes that will be on passed to the future generations? If any one want to use modified animals in Agriculture, they must consider the public opinion—Will they accept this? What do you say?
View Latest News