Synthetic Biology 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.” 

Click here for the September-October 2014 issue table of contents

You might also like

Radcliffe Institute Announces 2025-2026 Fellows

Scholars pursue projects ranging from reducing ethnic violence to searching for an undiscovered super-Earth.

Taking the Fight for Equality into the AI Era

Radcliffe Institute conference tackles bias, fairness, inclusivity in AI development.

Research on Hold

Funding freeze halts Harvard projects overnight.

Most popular

The New Gender Gaps

What to do as men and boys fall behind

Danielle Allen Debates Far-Right Blogger Curtis Yarvin

Popular monarchist debates Allen on democracy.

Harvard President Responds to Secretary of Education

Alan Garber outlines steps the University has taken, and emphasizes compliance with the law.

Explore More From Current Issue

Lawrence Bacow on the Auschwitz Memorial

President Lawrence S. Bacow reflects on the liberation of Auschwitz

Chinese Immigrants in Early America

Michael Luo ’98 on the first great wave of immigration—and of nativist anti-immigrant reaction

Jessica Shand—Math and Music at Harvard

Jessica Shand blends math and music.