Profile Books
Advertisement
FOR more than 50 years, biologists have been genetically engineering organisms in increasingly precise ways. From the early, crude methods of the 1960s and 1970s, to the modern 鈥済ene editing鈥� exemplified by CRISPR technology, genetic engineering has elicited great hopes and terrifying fears.
In his disturbing and readable new book The Genetic Age: Our perilous quest to edit life, biologist and science historian Matthew Cobb tells the story of this field. Cobb鈥檚 last book, The Idea of the Brain, was a history of neuroscience, but this is a follow-up to 2015鈥檚 Life鈥檚 Greatest Secret, about cracking the genetic code.
Cobb keeps his focus on the applications of genetic engineering with the biggest impact, especially those that pose 鈥� or are perceived to pose 鈥� the greatest risk. In doing so, he calls attention to three areas of current research that are of particular concern.
The first is human germline editing, which involves tweaking a person鈥檚 DNA in such a way that the changes can be passed on to their descendants. The second is the concept of a gene drive, a 鈥済enetic chain reaction鈥� that can spread a particular trait through a population and thus reshape an ecosystem. The third is gain-of-function research, in which microbiologists, anxious to prevent pandemics, make more dangerous versions of pathogens to forecast how they might evolve in nature.
All three are claimed to have huge potential benefits. All three carry self-evident risks. Cobb is concerned, writing that 鈥渢here were things that I discovered that made my blood run cold鈥�. But he is aware there have been false alarms in the past. This is a technology that short-circuits our brains to some extent, forcing us to reconsider assumptions such as 鈥渘atural鈥� things are 鈥済ood鈥� and 鈥渦nnatural鈥� things are 鈥渂ad鈥�. So, he wisely second-guesses himself, wondering if he is just overreacting because the technologies are new and strange.
That is where the history comes in. Cobb recalls previous controversies, including the 1990s scare about genetically modified 鈥淔谤补苍办别苍蹿辞辞诲蝉鈥�. With the benefit of hindsight, how bad were they?
He finds some reassurance: notably that geneticists are the only group of scientists to have imposed moratoria on their own work while risks were assessed. Furthermore, many concerns turned out to be largely baseless 鈥� genetically modified foods aren鈥檛 inherently bad for you 鈥� or could be handled by safety procedures and regulations.
However, Cobb also identifies a streak of hubris running through the field. Many practitioners are too in love with clever technical solutions and can鈥檛 resist implementing them, without considering if the benefits are worth the risk. He quotes a line from Jurassic Park: 鈥淵our scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn鈥檛 stop to think if they should.鈥�
Cobb ends by raising the question of priorities. Is all this the best use of money? Proponents want to spend millions to save a handful of people from a single genetic disease, but that money could save millions of people from more common threats, such as dirty water. Sketchy plans to recreate extinct animals like mammoths will eat up resources that could be spent preserving threatened species.
Genetic engineering, it turns out, probably won鈥檛 end the world 鈥� but a lot of it might be a distracting waste of money.
Michael Marshall is a science writer聽based in Devon, UK
