New gene-modifying technology powerful yet misunderstood
In the talk, Ellen Jourgensen clarifies the way CRISPR works and is used by professionals, which helps to cut through the distortion of public voices and widespread platforms from which to spread part of the greater whole with little context.
Despite this, Ellen Jorgensen, doesn’t address my chief concerns, which is with the safeguards against abuses. Unfortunately, this wasn’t her chief aim the talk, however, she does mention in passing:
This type of science is moving much faster than the regulatory mechanisms that govern it.
Which was true of firearms, automobiles, and drones as well. They were regulated after they had been in use. CRISPR isn’t the only new technology that has evolved faster than the means of evaluating the best means of safeguard. Should research be backlogged until properly assessed? Does this not put lives at risk over bureaucratic pacing?
I don’t have a solution to offer, however, given the risks (which I’m not qualified to define or measure) which strike me as dire, would it not do us better to err on the side of caution?
As with so much of our current research, how much of it is serving our pragmatic needs, and how much serves other, less radical urges? An example in the talk that struck me were modelling diseases, however, what Ellen Jorgensen claimed she was approached with were requests from people who wanted to edit their own genome.
I’m just not sure what to think.