Nobel Prize for CRISPR
Dr. Sneha Sinha
Research Associate, RIS
There is consensus among
scientists about the immense scientific potential of CRISPR, which has revived
promises for the future of gene therapy. In comparison with previous gene
engineering technologies, CRISPR is easier, quicker, cost-effective, precise
and can be used in all living organisms.[4]
It has
shown promising results for treating diseases and facilitating beneficial
agricultural applications. CRISPR can be harnessed in health-care, medicine[5], food, agriculture[6], biofuels and industrial
biotech.
Though
its benefits are immense, CRISPR is seen as a ‘double-edged sword’, increasingly criticised
for its potential risks and limitations.[7] Scientists have raised
numerous scientific, societal, governance and ethical issues associated with
CRISPR.[8] The lack of international
consensus about its societal acceptability and safety became strongly evident
when a Chinese biophysicist in an effort to make HIV resistant - ‘CRISPR
babies’- edited human embryos. CRISPR’s clinical use, while the technology is still
emerging, without proper governance and oversight mechanism led to the
formation of the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline
Genome Editing convened by the National Academy of Medicine and National
Academy of Sciences in U.S., and The Royal Society of London.[9] In 2018, WHO formed an Expert Advisory
Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human
Genome Editing to examine scientific, ethical, social and legal challenges
associated with both somatic and germ cell human genome editing.[10]
The consensus study report
on the Heritable Human Genome Editing (HHGE) was prepared through deliberations with
26 academies by 18 experts from 10 countries from all continents (except
Antarctica). It recommends ‘no clinical use of gene editing until it has been
clearly established that it is possible to make precise and efficient changed
without undesired changes’. Its initial use had to be cautious with restricted
set of criteria and circumstances. The preclinical requirements should be
ensured through national and international governance arrangements before HHGE
is approved by any country. CRISPR’s clinical use should only be allowed after
its safety issues has been resolved by the researchers, and public too are
totally aware of its limitations.[11][12] The report has received
diverse reactions from experts of the field.[13]
Increasing attention is being paid
to CRISPR by public and media, on account of the Nobel Prize awarded to two
pioneering scientists for their research on CRISPR. It provides immense
potential for agricultural interventions and treatment of diseases in
developing economies like India and Africa. Recognising CRISPR’s limitations
and ethical issues associated it is essential for developing its regulatory and
governance framework.[14]
In India, genome editing using
CRISPR technology is being applied for disease resistance, herbicide
tolerance and increasing the yield of hybrid varieties of rice, which holds
promises for the agriculture and food security.[15] Scientists at the Institute of
Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB) are working towards development and
application of CRISPR technology. CSIR’s Sickle Cell Anemia Mission
clearly illustrates how CRISPR could translate into medical sciences. The
FELUDA test, employing CRISPR technology developed at IGIB is a breakthrough in
the COVID-19 detection. It is quicker, accurate and adaptable, and can easily
be used at home.[16]
The societal and ethical
issues associated with CRISPR has to be addressed before its application
towards betterment of the society. There is a need to connect science
with society to make technology ethical and acceptable, removing people’s
perception about its risks. India should also participate in global debates around
CRISPR for developing an effective ethical and regulatory framework in India
for facilitating research and finding solutions to improve human health.[17]
Evolving regulatory and
technology governance frameworks, and institutional architecture in India,
requires addressing issues of access, affordability, equity, delivery systems
apart from its ethics and safety concerns. The experts’ panel discussions and
public debates among the stakeholders, both nationally and internationally will
be crucial in tackling issues associated with the emerging technologies, like
CRISPR.
Endnotes
[1] The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences press release on the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020 available at https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/press-release/.
[2] The historical
timeline of key events in the development of CRISPR/Cas-9 can be accessed at https://www.whatisbiotechnology.org/index.php/science/summary/crispr.
[3] The Nature video lucidly illustrates the
CRISPR genome editing mechanism available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YKFw2KZA5o
[4] Hilde, Lovett
‘CRISPR: Five New Debates on Genetic Engineering’ writes ‘why is CRISPR
ground-breaking?’. available at https://teknologiradet.no/en/crispr-five-new-debates-on-genetic-engineering/.
[5] Yang,
Li, H., Y., Hong, W. et al. 2020. Applications of Genome
Editing Technology in the Targeted Therapy of Human Diseases: Mechanisms,
Advances and Prospects. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 5, (1) available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-019-0089-y#citeas.
[6] Zhu,
H., Li, C. & Gao, C. 2020. ‘Applications of CRISPR–Cas in Agriculture and
Plant Biotechnology. Nature Reviews Moecularl Cell Bioogyl 21, pp. 661–677 available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-020-00288-9#:~:text=CRISPR%E2%80%93Cas%20in%20crop%20upgrade,also%20revolutionized%20current%20breeding%20systems.
[7] Shwartz, Mark. ‘Target, delete, repair - CRISPR is a revolutionary gene-editing tool, but it’s not
without risk’ available at https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2018winter/CRISPR-for-gene-editing-is-revolutionary-but-it-comes-with-risks.html.
[8] The applications
and limitations of CRISPR technology can be read at https://www.cbinsights.com/research/what-is-crispr/
[9] Ledford, Heidi. ‘CRISPR babies are
still too risky, says an influential panel’ available at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02538-4.
[10] Details available
at https://www.who.int/ethics/topics/human-genome-editing/committee-members/en/.
[11] Thelma, B. K. Presentation
made during the webinar organised by RIS on ‘Nobel
Prize on CRISPR’ on 29th October, 2020. She is a Professor at the Department of Genetics, University of Delhi and is a member of the
International Commission. She also chaired the panel discussion.
[12] The Commission’s
full report can be accessed on https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25665/heritable-human-genome-editing.
[13] For candid
reactions of experts see https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/crispr.2020.29106.man.
[14] Chaturvedi, Sachin. 2020. Introductory remarks made
during the webinar organised by RIS on ‘Nobel
Prize on CRISPR’ on 29th October, 2020. The recorded webinar can be
viewed on YouTube.
[15] Reddy, M. K. 2020.
Presentation made during the webinar organised by RIS on ‘Nobel Prize on CRISPR’ on 29th October,
2020. He is a Group Leader, Crop Improvement at International Centre for
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGB), New Delhi.
[16] Chakraborty,
Debojyoti. 2020. Presentation made during the webinar organised by RIS on ‘Nobel Prize on CRISPR’ on 29th October,
2020. He is a Senior Scientist, Genome Editing, Stem Cells and Organoid Biology
at CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB).
[17] Mathur, Roli.
2020. Presentation made during the webinar organised by RIS on ‘Nobel Prize on CRISPR’ on 29th October,
2020. She is Scientist F and Head, ICMR Bio-Ethics Unit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete