New technologies could one day potentially reengineer species in the wild

New technologies could one day potentially reengineer species in the wild.

Illustration by Stuart Bradford

Illustration by Stuart Bradford

This July, Wyss Institute fellow Kevin Esvelt and Winthrop professor of genetics George Church coauthored a paper in the journal eLife outlining how new technologies containing self-replicating pieces of DNA could potentially be used to genetically reengineer entire species in the wild. A recently discovered bacterial system called CRISPR-Cas, named after the DNA and proteins involved, has allowed scientists to make highly specific genetic modifications with greater ease than ever before (see harvardmag.com/genomic-14). As Church and colleagues predicted in the recent paper, certain genetic changes that themselves include a CRISPR-Cas system could copy themselves in a process called a “gene drive,” enabling a modification to spread through an entire species during the course of many generations. Scientists might one day be able to alter or even eliminate entire species—reengineering herbicide susceptibility into populations of resistant weeds, for instance, or suppressing malaria mosquitoes or invasive plants.

 Church’s technical paper was published simultaneously with a policy paper in Science that assessed the technology’s possible impacts. The environmental and security effects of gene drives are still unclear, wrote the authors, a team of scientific and legal experts that included technologists Church and Esvelt, Ph.D. ’10, evolutionary ecologist and former National Science Foundation director for population biology and physiological ecology James P. Collins, and lead author Kenneth Oye, Ph.D. ’83, professor of political science at MIT. Moreover, regulatory gaps remain: domestic and international policies, built narrowly around lists of dangerous toxins or organisms, fail to address the uniquely broad character of gene drives. The authors made 10 recommendations for managing environmental and biosecurity risks. Certain types of gene drives might reverse prior genetic changes or immunize organisms from further modification, for instance, and new regulatory structures might adopt broader definitions of biological impact. The authors also called for a public discussion on how the new technology ought to be used. “For emerging technologies that affect the global commons, concepts and applications should be published in advance of construction, testing, and release,”  they wrote in conclusion. “Lead time will allow for broadly inclusive and well-informed public discussion to determine if, when, and how gene drives should be used.” 

Related topics

You might also like

Harvard’s Arthur Kleinman reflects on what’s lost when healthcare systems prioritize efficiency.

A theatrical reenactment explores a 1976 clash between science and democracy.

An animal’s journey from grief to love shows how much humans need each other, too.

Most popular

Tomiko Brown-Nagin has been named dean of Stanford’s Graduate School of Education.

In her memoir All That's Unseen, Emilee Hackney explores religion, friendship, and home.

Both Sides Now

Tomiko Brown-Nagin’s bifocal view of the civil-rights movement

Explore More From Current Issue

A woman with long, silver hair rests her chin on her hand, wearing a black top.

Author and Harvard Divinity School writer-in-residence Terry Tempest Williams finds beauty in the world around us.

An open book with a film strip emerging, trailing popcorn and a dancer silhouette.

Readers Respond to Our Adaptations Survey

We asked people to share their favorite art adaptations. Here’s what they said.

Black and white photo of Joseph Murray in a white lab coat sitting in an office.

Nobel Prize recipient Joseph E. Murray dedicated much of his career to organ transplant surgery.