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

AI Outperforms Doctors in Emergency Room Tasks, New Harvard Study Shows

Researchers say the technology could help physicians with triage, diagnosis.

The Artemis II Mission Included a Harvard Space Medicine Experiment

Wyss Institute researchers are observing how human bone marrow responds to radiation and microgravity.

Discoveries

Short takes on cutting-edge research

Most popular

Harvard Alumni and Faculty Win Six Pulitzer Prizes

Winners include Jill Lepore, Bess Wohl, Pablo Torre, and Hannah Natanson.

Harvard Faculty Approve a Cap on A Grades

Reforms to reduce grade inflation will take effect in the fall of 2027.

Meet Harvard’s 2026 Student Commencement Speakers

Two undergraduates and a Ph.D. candidate will address the graduating class on May 28.

Explore More From Current Issue

A man holding a revolver and lantern, wearing a hat and coat, appears to be walking cautiously.

Scoundrels, Then and Now

On con men, Mark Twain, and the powers of the Harvard name

A glowing orange sun with a star and a trailing gas cloud in space.

A Harvard Astrophysicist Explains the Bizarre Behavior of a Supergiant Star

The dimming and rapid rotation of Betelgeuse may be caused by a hidden companion.

Portrait of a man with white hair, wearing a black coat, arms crossed, thoughtful expression.

The Framer Who Refused to Sign the Constitution

Harvard’s Elbridge Gerry helped draft the U.S. Constitution, but worried it might create a new monarch.