We are on the verge of an extraordinary breakthrough in synthetic biology. CRISPR-Cas9, a genome editing technology discovered in 2014, is at the forefront of this breakthrough. We are promised to solve problems with nutrition, disease, genetics and - most interestingly - to modify the human genome for the better. To make us better, faster, stronger, smarter: this is a chance to remake us faster than natural selection and evolution come to their senses.
Of course, many experts warn about the dangers of these new opportunities. A huge stream of money is pouring into biotech startups, and the race to the top can cut sharp corners. In 2017, scientists resurrected an extinct strain of the deadly equine virus. CRISPR can help create covert biological weapons like smallpox, or improve existing diseases like Ebola, making them a nightmare for epidemiologists.
With breakthroughs that seem like science fiction, the task of distinguishing hype from reality can seem overwhelming. But this must be done, especially by people far from science. How to realistically assess the potential risks and benefits? New research from US and UK scientists recently published in eLifeSciences sheds light on at least 20 bioengineering issues.
The researchers analyzed 20 directions of development in different time horizons: the next five years, the next ten years, and more than ten years. A breakthrough in artificial photosynthesis is expected in the next five years. Since plants can convert carbon dioxide into fuel, artificial photosynthesis could be critical to the energy crisis and the fight against climate change. While any scheme to remove carbon dioxide in the fight against the climate will be huge, recent research has shown that artificial photosynthesis can reduce CO2 more efficiently than plants and convert it to methanol for fuel.
We are running out of agricultural land as the world's population continues to grow; a new Green Revolution is needed to feed the world. The answer is to improve natural photosynthesis through genetic modification, like the C4 gene was activated in rice. It increased the rice harvest by 50%, and since rice is a colossal source of calories, this is a very powerful breakthrough.
Researchers also expect some serious controversy to begin in the next five years. The first concerns the ethics of gene manipulation, which leads to the emergence of a population with new characteristics. Among insects like mosquitoes, these genes spread very quickly, and people plan to use them to render mosquitoes infertile. This can damage ecosystems and lead to unintended consequences. Can we find a way to reverse the gene-editing decision before it spreads to generations? Skeptics doubt it.
Another controversy will unfold in the next five years: how convenient will it be to edit the human genome? Scientists note that our ability to edit the human genome has surpassed our understanding of the functions of these genes. Previous research essentially looked at the statistical correlations between genetic conditions and the inheritance of certain genes. Perhaps careful editing will allow us to conduct experiments that reveal the secrets of our own DNA; in the end, we learned how to rid the mice of Huntington's disease.
But it just so happens that experimenting with people brings with it a unique set of ethical problems, and scientists note that world governments are not particularly in a hurry to deal with them - and China completely neglects.
Promotional video:
In the medium term, scientists are concerned about the emergence of increasingly sophisticated bioengineering methods. Perhaps in five to ten years, we will be able to create entire replacement organs by experimenting with genes. Over the past few years, tissue engineering has already learned how to create or grow bladders, hips, vaginas, trachea, veins, arteries, ears, skin, knee meniscus, and heart patches.
Repairing a broken heart may sound like the ideal use of biotechnology, and since animal testing continues to show that the tissues created can be very successfully implanted, the prospect is more than real. However, it is unlikely to be cheap. Also, wouldn't this exacerbate the already existing health gap, where rich people can extend their lives by replacing organs while others cannot?
These methods can have a particular impact on the production of drugs. Vaccines are a shining example. Many vaccines are now made using chicken eggs, just like they were 70 years ago. As expected, this old method has its limitations; the most important strains of the virus need to be found months before they actually spread, because it also takes several months to produce a vaccine. DARPA is sponsoring a company that tries to produce tens of millions of flu vaccines every month. If we try to overtake another pandemic - one that could claim the lives of millions - we simply must work on the technologies that will enable us to do this.
But the more people there are, the more risks appear. Bioengineering can produce illegal drugs. Worse, the prospect of a bioengineered supervirus, created intentionally or unintentionally. Genetic information could be the new currency; just as an algorithm today can cost millions or cause chaos, the genes of tomorrow will have to be protected by all means. The consequences of a hacked computer can be frustrating; the consequences of hacking a person can be much worse.
Ilya Khel
