Everything in moderation, even hype: learning from vaccine controversies to strike a balance with CRISPR

Abstract

The ease and applicability of CRISPR/Cas9—a new and precise gene-editing and reproductive technology—have garnered hype and heightened concern about its potential “unprecedented and horrific consequences” and have led many scientific leaders to call for a moratorium on its research and use. CRISPR appears distinctly more controversial than previous technological innovations (genetic or otherwise), with a greater reach and speed of human treatment and enhancement; however, we have seen similarly inflated hopes and fears in response to other medical innovations for well over a century. One intervention that has both historically and recently incited alarm—vaccines—serves as a pertinent example of what could go wrong if a technology’s reach is shortened due to inflated fears. By comparing the vaccine controversy and the CRISPR debate, we can help separate the hype from the realistic potential of these technologies. How our society grapples with such innovations will determine the extent to which their impact on our individual and collective health will be beneficial. We must recognize the need for a tempered approach to CRISPR conversation leading to regulation and ethical application. Although CRISPR’s reach will continue expanding with ongoing research, thus requiring continuous evaluation, the lessons we’ve learned from the vaccine controversy demonstrate that our approach must not be to shut down regulation and application now, but to thoughtfully conjoin productive debate and action so that therapeutic gene-editing can alleviate suffering as soon as possible without precipitating social outcomes we would belatedly deplore.

CRISPR-Cas, a robust gene-editing technology in the era of modern cancer immunotherapy

“…Regardless of privileges associated with CRISPR-Cas system, some malfunctions of this technology and ethical concerns must meticulously be taken into account before entering the clinical stage [ 8 ].…”

“…Induction of tumor suppressive protein P53 impairment, and human somatic tissues or germline cells editing, whether intentional or unintentional, are among the ethical debates aroused around CRISPR technology, which are enough to elucidate the importance of the subject [ 84 , 85 ]. Additionally, some irresponsible deployment of CRISPR like the birth of CRISPR gene-manipulated twins in China should be prevented before the same fate as vaccines befalls CRISPR and stops it from its potential development [ 8 , 86 ].…”

“…In this article, we focused on an exclusive zone of these trials in which adoptive immunotherapy intersects with a sophisticated gene-editing tool, CRISPR-Cas technology. However, a huge tendency toward utilization of this combination has been aroused some ethical controversies [ 8 ]. Humanitarian health concerns, as well as other limitations associated with CRISPR-assisted cancer immunotherapy, and the attempts to bypass these challenges have not been overlooked from our critical viewpoint.…”

CRISPR-cas gene-editing as plausible treatment of neuromuscular and nucleotide-repeat-expansion diseases: A systematic review

“…[130] Benston (2017) gives an interesting comparison of this movement to that of the antivaccination lobby, with regard to its impact on society. [131] Vaccines brought a major change in the scientific community and the societies worldwide, thus becoming a political instrument used by some groups. CRISPR-cas has been widely applied in the scientific community.…”

Innovative breeding technologies in lettuce for improved post-harvest quality

“…However, as witnessed for genetic modification technologies, sociopolitical factors and regulatory hurdles are likely to obstruct the application of genome editing to crop improvement. Indeed, reports of human embryo editing for the correction of human diseases ( Ma et al, 2017 ) have generated a huge ethical debate over the use of the technology, with some labelling it as ‘eugenic’, which could have detrimental impacts on its application to crop improvement ( Benston, 2017 ). A major advantage to genome editing over prevailing transgenic technologies is the potential for generating gene knockouts without the presence of transgenes by NHEJ, providing hope that genome-edited crops will not be considered as “Genetically modified organisms” (GMOs) and increasing the likeliness of such crops entering the commercial market ( Scheben and Edwards, 2017 ).…”