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

From Jellyfish to Digital Hearts

How Harvard researchers are helping to build a virtual model of the human heart

Creepy Crawlies and Sticky Murder Weapons at Harvard

In the shadows of Singapore’s forests, an ancient predator lies in wait—the velvet worm.

Five Questions with Andrew Knoll

A paleontologist on how to understand Earth’s biggest extinction event

Most popular

Harvard Divinity School Sets New Priorities

After two years of turmoil, Dean Marla Frederick describes a more pluralistic future for the institution’s culture and curriculum.

Sound as Ever

Gram Parsons and Harvard’s hand in country rock

What Trump Means for John Roberts’s Legacy

Executive power is on the docket at the Supreme Court.

Explore More From Current Issue

Students in purple jackets seated on chairs, facing away in a grassy area.

A New Prescription for Youth Mental Health

Kenyan entrepreneur Tom Osborn ’20 reimagines care for a global crisis.

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.