Bioethics Blogs

Baby, You Can’t Drive Those Genes

One risky aspect of the practice of gene editing—exploding because of the powerful CRISPR/Cas9 technique—is the prospect for widespread and permanent genetic alteration of whole species from a process called “gene drive.”

In classical genetics, initially defined by the 19th-century Moravian cleric Gregor Mendel, frequency of the inheritance of genes is controlled by more or less simple arithmetic.  Higher organisms (animals and man) have two copies of each gene, and sexually reproducing organisms pass on one copy from each parent to the offspring.  If the copies are all the same (homozygosity), all progeny get all the same gene.  If the copies are different (heterozygosity), half of Mom’s progeny get one of her copies, half get the other, and so on.

As a recent cautionary policy article in the journal Science points out (subscription or purchase required),  “Gene drive systems promote the spread of genetic elements through populations by assuring they are inherited more often than Mendelian [genetics] would predict.”  That is, they tilt the balance in favor of a particular genetic trait.  In one form of these, where the CRISPR system is used in close combination with a particular gene edit of interest, heterozygotes are converted to homozygotes and the changed gene can propagate unchecked through an entire population of an organism, like wildfire, eventually making all members of the population alike with respect to that gene.  The environmental costs may be unpredictable, and they quite probably irreversible.  For this reason, the scientists who signed on to the Science article are urging caution over DNA editing in the wild.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.