Gene editing: should you be worried?

From combating climate change, to curing disease, to creating designer babies, gene-editing technologies have the potential to transform lives. What risks do they pose?

00:00 - Gene editing: risk v reward
01:06 - Cavendish bananas are under threat
03:47 - GM crops have a bad reputation
05:18 - GM mosquitoes could reduce transmissible viruses
07:50 - Ethical concerns around genetic interventions
09:30 - Editing genes with CRISPR
10:57 - CRISPR could cure sickle-cell disease
12:31 - Controversial applications of CRISPR
15:23 - Could gene editing lead to designer babies?
16:20 - Germline editing is causing international outcry
18:37 - CRIPSR could revolutionise agriculture and combat climate change
21:11 - Using genetic editing to rescue wild populations
23:30 - Gene editing may transform life on earth.

[felixthecat]

I have a seizure disorder that is genetic and passed down to offspring. It would be really fantastic to be able to avoid passing that onto my own children. There is no "culture" built upon epilepsy or seizure disorders. Most epileptics would be grateful to get rid of their disability in a heartbeat.

[FoodNerds]

As a partially deaf person I can not understand why anyone would rather maintain their disability and call it culture. Left ear deafnesses is hereditary on my father’s side. If I could have gene 🧬 editing that could give me perfect hearing I would take that immediately! Why would anyone not accept that. They could still use sign language with their deaf friends and family.

[TonyC-pqbp]

I live in Florida few years back before the gmo mosquito release it was unbearable to go and sit outdoors in a minute you'll be covered with these pests. Now since three years past we have no more issues. I can only thank these scientists for stabilizing the population of nuisance pests.

[simonmarkussen]

As a partially blind person (hereditary) there is nothing I fear more than passing my issues to my children. So I am very upset about the Deaf Professors reluctance to this type of technology.

Although I am sure there are some who appreciates life as blind or deaf I am pretty certain nearly all would give anything to change their circumstances; and more than that the circumstances of their children.

[nikolatasev]

A lot of the arguments here seem absurd.
Label GM produce as such, and let people decide. If there are no normal bananas, people will choose between GM bananas and no bananas, and I can already tell you what the vast majority is going to choose.
And curing deafness is a "threat of dissolving" the deaf community?! Just because someone build their entire identity around a disease does not mean more people need to suffer from a treatable disease so the sick can have a community!

[cascadiagrove]

An actual discussion of the risks of gene editing is completely missing here.

[NasserAljoudi]

Healing deafness is "controversial." Give me a break (:

[ConsultantSal]

I'm surprised nothing was mentioned about what other harmful effects GMO crops help counteract, such as the use of pesticides that are harmful to human health and fertilizers soil degradation. At the end of the day, consumers should have the choice to buy whichever food they want.

[rahanm]

that lady who wanted to stop the gene editing for curing deafness carries way too many genes for selfishness

[bluefernlove]

I'm truly baffled by anyone that thinks gene editing correcting certain hereditary disabilities is wrong. Why wouldn't you want people to live to their full potential? Nobody is going to "dissolve" you as people for simply allowing others the opportunity you didn't have. That logic alone implies that you value more the sense of community given by that disability rather than a person's individual rights and choices. That isn't a community, that is a cult.

[hanavesela]

As a person with genetic disease I am all for this. But everything has to be done in moderation. If the child would be born sick fix it but not if the only thing you want to fix is your childs eye color for aestetics. Unless health would be compromised in a minor I say let every person decide if they want it or not. Its their body after all.

[lostinbravado]

The public is not aware/educated enough yet to properly interface with GMO and technology like it. But, the public wants the benefits.

[ICreatedU]

15:40 Wait a minute, and not trying to offend anyone here, but are there really people out there who would argue against the elimination of genetic disorders such as Down syndrome? Why anyone would want another human being to endure this is beyond me. Do they know the huge amounts of energy, time and money that are involved in properly taking care of a child with Down syndrome? It is certainly no joke, not for the kid, nor for the parents.

Moreover, surely people can see the difference between "exterminating" people with Down syndrome and *preventing* people with Down syndrome from being born. The former is eugenics and social Darwinism whereas the latter is a proper use technological progress.

[sammo]

The whole "deaf community" thing is just absurd imo, any reasonable person would agree that curing diseases is a positive change. What will be much more controversial though, is when we'll be able to change things that are related to race/ethnicity, hair or eye color for example. Imagine a gene editing tech that can change black hair: some black women pay money to get straight hair, maybe some of them would want that? Then there will probably be a big controversy about whether people should gene-edit out some characteristics of their race, or whether those characteristics should be normalised/accepted instead.

[felixbridou]

"This kind of community needs to continue ; we can't continue if we have the threat of dissolving us as a people" - quote from the deaf bioethicist.
Like always, everyone will protect themselves/their community, no matter the cost to others (like the kids that the bioethicist seems to want to be born deaf?? or the whole ecosystem we spray dead because of the mosquitoes??)
You can increase the amount of times you walk to the well, or make it deeper every year. Or you invent desalination. The one that doesn't invent anything protects their community by going to journalists, complaining about the risks of the invention.

[gangigirl]

"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Richard Lewontin
Professor of Genetics/Harvard

[punkybrewstar]

My only concern is the fact that this technology moves so fast, and there is a lot of chance for error. We don't know far more than what we do, when it comes to genome sequencing. When I started my masters 5 years ago we used Sage a lot. They don't even teach people about it now, because it is already redundant technology. It is just happening so fast, without enough checks and balances. That is the problem.

[IKEMENOsakaman]

Even if we are worried, technology can't be stopped. If Europe or US makes a rule to slow down technological process, China will do it. If China stops it, then Russia will do it. If Russia stops it, then Japan will do it. There's not stop in technological advancement.

[thedamnedatheist]

Neo luddites . And what are the ethics of not curing deafness for those who want it, because others feel it makes them special? Has the Economist done a deep dive behind the scenes of the opposition to gene editing? Look to see if group or persons are coordinating the opposition and what their motives may be?

[danielmiller]

It's more than fear... It is a reasonable skepticism. Emphasizing the benefits doesn't mean they know what they are doing... Epigenetic research is still relatively new and the number of variables is still not known.