The Guardian view on the latest genetic engineering techniques: we need to talk about this, Professor

Genetic engineering of blood cells could help cure widespread and crippling diseases such as sickle cell anaemia. Above, blood samples collected during a conference on sickle cell anaemia in Senegal. Photograph: Pierre Holtz/EPA

The last time thoughtful and well-informed scientists demanded a moratorium on the use of genetic engineering techniques was in 1975, when it had just become obvious that DNA from one species could be spliced into entirely different organisms and still function there. This is now so commonplace that we take it for granted but at the time it seemed to open up terrible risks. So a conference, convened at Asilomar in California by the man who had come furthest in the world at the technique, drew up very clear safeguards and made them public.

The next stage could be to apply the technique to make modifications in the human genome that can be passed on

The transplantation of genes from one organism to another is now widespread in science and often extremely beneficial. No one doubts that it could be used in wicked and dangerous ways, but with the right safeguards it has an immense power for good. This does not mean that the fears expressed, and acted on, at Asilomar were ridiculous.

Now there are calls for a fresh moratorium on some techniques of genetic engineering. They are worth taking seriously. The demand has been prompted by the spread and incipient commercialisation of a new technique for editing single genes, called Crispr-Cas. This may not be more effective than some of its predecessors, but it is very much simpler to use, which means that far more labs can use it, and for many more purposes. They will be operating in very different political, ethical and regulatory frameworks. We can no longer assume that the exploitation of scientific discoveries will be controlled and directed from the US and Europe. But that does not relieve us of the responsibility of keeping our own housesinorder.

The democratic control of science was an idea much more alive in the 1970s than it is today, when we are numbed by the assumption that all knowledge will be appropriated by the people who paid for its discovery. Shameless attempts to privatise knowledge essential to a technological civilisation, from software patents to the human genome, have flourished in ways thatwere almost unimaginable at the time ofthe Asilomar conference.

Crispr has already been shown capable of some astonishing feats when used on animals. It will undoubtedly lead to more precise genetic engineering in plants. There are clear therapeutic prospects for humans. Aspects of this future are exhilarating. To be able to re-engineer blood cells and cure the widespread and crippling diseases such as thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia, is an exciting prospect. But pause, and consider the long-term implications. The next stage could be to apply the technique to make modifications in the human genome that can be passed on. It could wipe out some inherited disease. It could also be used to create a world in which the rich were different from you and me not because they have more money but because theyd spent some of it on better genes. It poses grave ethical questions that risk a public backlash against a technique that, properly directed, offers great potential. It is time for another Asilomar, and a global conversation about theproper limits ofscience.

See original here:
The Guardian view on the latest genetic engineering techniques: we need to talk about this, Professor