Zombies: Can Gene Editing Cause an Apocalypse?

Scientists have long known that our DNA sequences can and do change. These changes can occur naturally or following exposure to mutagens or viral infections. Differences in DNA sequences are the reason that we have different coloured hair, are different heights, and have different eye colours. Changes in DNA sequence also mean that we can develop genetic disorders; early onset Alzheimer’s, some cancers, HIV and Cystic Fibrosis are all examples of disorders caused by changes in the DNA sequence. So, can we treat these disorders by changing the DNA sequence back?

Gene editing is where DNA is added, removed, or altered at certain locations in the genome. Although gene editing is used in a wide range of situations, such as in the food industry, the first successful use of gene editing in humans was in 1995, when scientists were able to temporarily treat patients with severe immune system deficiency. Since then, advancements in gene therapy have come on leaps and bounds, and in 2020, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given to the scientists who developed a new type of gene editing:  Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) gene editing; this has allowed scientists to edit DNA so precisely, that they can change single bases in the sequence. This is an exciting discovery and has wide scale application such as treating and preventing complex diseases like heart disease, cancer, and HIV, and has already saved many lives.

However, since the hypothesis of gene editing was first proposed, there has been vehement opposition, causing gene therapy to become highly regulated. The main ethical arguments regarding gene therapy are safety, boundaries, and equity. Let me delve into these a little deeper…

The safety of gene therapy is the primary concern of many scientists and ethicists. Any change to an existing DNA sequence, although it may improve the effects of a genetic condition and potentially restores normal functioning, it may also cause unknown, unwanted, and potentially harmful secondary effects.

There are some issues with setting the boundaries of gene editing. One concern is that if gene editing is allowed for therapeutic purposes, there may then be a demand for gene editing for non-therapeutic, cosmetic purposes. This could lead to the development of ‘designer babies,’ where babies’ traits are selected, rather than because of natural inheritance. This selection of ‘positive traits’ and removal of ‘negative traits’ in a population is concerningly similar the terrible ideologies behind eugenics. Therefore, the consensus is that gene editing should be used for therapeutic purposes only, to increase quality of life to that of a healthy individual, and no further.

Let’s discuss equity and fair distribution; gene therapy is expensive, meaning that, more often than not, only the wealthy would have access to the treatment. This puts poorer people at a greater disadvantage, as they do not have access to potentially lifesaving treatment, which could increase class divisions further. Access to gene therapy would be even more problematic if it were ever approved for use for cosmetic purposes. It could give wealthy people the opportunity to modify genes to give themselves a competitive edge over non-genetically modified individuals in any field, which again could put the non-edited, and often poorer, individuals at a disadvantage.

Finally, a concern for gene editing is that it could be used for immoral purposes. There are fears that gene editing can be used for bioterrorism, by genetically editing a bacteria or virus to make them more transmittable or dangerous. For example, there are several viruses, bacteria and fungi in nature which can cause ‘zombification’ in animals. One species of fungus can infect ants and force them to change the behaviour, before killing them and sprouting out of their heads. If this fungus was genetically modified to infect humans, this could theoretically create a zombie apocalypse in the human race; thankfully, we have global measures in place to prevent this from happening. International law conventions restrict countries from acquiring or retaining biological weapons, including gene therapy to create bioweapons. The World Health Organisation has also made recommendations about how human genome editing should be governed.

Overall, gene therapy is an incredible tool which can be used to improve quality of life and save lives. Whilst there are concerns for potential malpractice within gene editing, it is my opinion that the pros far outweigh the cons, and we should not halt scientific progress simply because of the worst-case scenario. Although these fears are not unfounded, we have several global regulations which reduce the likelihood of these occurring and have countermeasures in place should they ever happen. As gene editing technology continues to develop, we will likely further evolve our global rules and regulations to make legally binding frameworks to avoid ever having a man-made zombie apocalypse.

References

https://menafn.com/1103158336/Zombie-apocalypse-How-gene-editing-could-be-used-as-a-weapon-and-what-to-do-about-it

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-gene-weapon.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260159/

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319817

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns

Disclaimer

The information in this blog is for information and entertainment purposes only. I am not a medical professional, so I have never and will never give medical advice in this blog. You should always speak to a healthcare professional about your unique health needs. My opinions are entirely my own and do not reflect the organisations or people I work for. I only discuss published literature in this blog which are referenced with links.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testing: Put Your Genes Under the Microscope

What do you think of when someone says ‘Mutation’? The X-men? A zombie apocalypse? In reality, a mutation is simply a naturally occurring, random change in a gene. These mutations often have no effect, but occasionally, they can be harmful; for example, they could increase a person’s risk of developing cancer, a genetic disorder, and other rare diseases. However, scientists can detect these gene changes through genetic testing. There are several types of genetic testing, and they can be used to test individuals at different life stages: pre-natal testing detects harmful mutations in a foetus before birth; childhood testing is usually used to confirm a medical diagnosis or predict whether a disorder may develop and therefore requires observation. Any mutations detected during pre-natal and childhood testing are usually due to an inherited genetic mutation; conversely, adult genetic testing is used to predict late-onset genetic disorders, usually caused by mutations that occur in that ...
Read more

X and Y: How Important are Sex Chromosomes in Gender Identity?

When we talk about sex and gender, there are a few things that need to be addressed. Biological sex is determined by the sex chromosomes that a person has; if someone has two X chromosomes (XX), they will be biologically female and will have female sex organs. If someone has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY), they will be biologically male and have male sex organs. Gender is the external behaviour and characteristics which are typically expected of women and men; gender identity is an individual’s personal perception of having a particular gender. A person’s sex and gender identity do not always align, and this is called gender dysphoria or transgenderism. In this article, I will be exploring whether being transgender is genetic, as well as discussing the issues many transgender people face. The argument I hear most often is that ‘you can call yourself what you want, but at the end of the day you’re still either biologically male or biologically female’. There are two faults...
Read more

Year of Genetics

Compared to other areas of science, the history of genetics is relatively short. This means that there are vast amounts of genetic phenomena which are still unknown.   This is very exciting, because it means that we are living in an age where we can experience breakthroughs in science which can impact a wide range of people, in real time. Every year we have seen new discoveries in genetics, and the last twelve months have been no exception. Personally, I feel the biggest breakthrough in genetics this year has been how genetics is becoming part of mainstream awareness, and terms like ‘Spike protein’, ‘T-cells’, ‘antibodies’, ‘viral variant’ and more have become common in everyday language. This is in part due to scientists and medical professionals and some politicians who have made it their duty to help the public understand the complexity of the pandemic, epidemiology, and public health guidelines in a way that anyone can understand. It is no surprise that a lot of the breakth...
Read more