New technologies could one day potentially reengineer species in the wild

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

Return to main article:

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

Are ‘Little Red Dots’ Keys to Understanding the Early Universe?

Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Fabio Pacucci explains one of cosmology’s newest mysteries.

What Do Puppies Know?

Canine capabilities emerge early and continue into adulthood.

Research in Brief

Cutting-edge discoveries, distilled

Most popular

Martin Nowak Placed on Leave a Second Time

Further links to Jeffrey Epstein surface in newly released files.

Is Copyright Law the Wrong Weapon Against AI?

Harvard law professor Rebecca Tushnet explains how “fair use” applies to LLMs.

Chan School of Public Health Department Chair Departs for UCLA

Kari Nadeau, an environmental health leader, will serve as the dean of the Fielding School of Public Health.

Explore More From Current Issue

Four Labrador puppies—two black and two yellow—sitting in green grass.

What Do Puppies Know?

Canine capabilities emerge early and continue into adulthood.

Modern campus collage: Rubenstein Treehouse Conference Center, One Milestone labs, Verra apartment, and co-working space.

The Enterprise Research Campus in Allston Nears Completion

A hotel, restaurants, and other retail establishments are open or on the way.

A woman gazes at large decorative letters with her reflection and two stylized faces beside them.

The True Cost of Grade Inflation at Harvard

How an abundance of A’s created “the most stressed-out world of all.”