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

Rachel Ruysch’s Lush (Still) Life

Now on display at the Museum of Fine Arts, a Dutch painter’s art proved a treasure trove for scientists.

A Flu Vaccine That Actually Works

Next-gen vaccines delivered directly to the site of infection are far more effective than existing shots.

What Happens When Infections Stop Responding to Antibiotics?

Harvard Medical School experts discuss the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance.

Most popular

What Trump Means for John Roberts’s Legacy

Executive power is on the docket at the Supreme Court.

Harvard’s New Playbook for Teaching with AI

Faculty across Harvard are rethinking assignments to integrate AI. 

How Maga Went Mainstream at Harvard

Trump, TikTok, and the pandemic are reshaping Gen Z politics.

Explore More From Current Issue

Three book covers arranged in a row on a beige background with a red border.

Must-Read Harvard Books Winter 2025

From aphorisms to art heists to democracy’s necessary conditions 

A vibrant composition of flowers, a bird, and butterflies with a distant manor under a moody sky.

Rachel Ruysch’s Lush (Still) Life

Now on display at the Museum of Fine Arts, a Dutch painter’s art proved a treasure trove for scientists.

An illustrative portrait of Justice Roberts in a black robe, resting his chin on his hand.

What Trump Means for John Roberts’s Legacy

Executive power is on the docket at the Supreme Court.