For geneticist Radman Miroslav, achievements in the field of genetics for changing embryos are good luck for humanity. He advocates a "beautiful vision" of a disease-free future.
Advances in genetics are talked about less than advances in artificial intelligence. However, they are paving the way for a future revolution that is at least as important, if not more important. In the future, a person may be able to get rid of all rare and incurable diseases and become stronger, taller, smarter and - why not - will be able to "kill death."
These are long-standing "dreams" that are becoming more and more probable, thanks in part to the development of a revolutionary French technique called CRISPR-Cas9, a kind of "molecular scissors" that allows you to change the genome of a person or animal. The latest application of this technique by scientists in the United States, for example, allowed changes to be made in human embryos while they were carriers of an inherited disease.
These are promising works, even if they are still at a very preliminary stage, which also raise many ethical, moral and philosophical questions that Radman Miroslav, a geneticist and professor of cell biology, is trying to answer.
Why is CRISPR-Cas9 revolutionary?
Radman Miroslav: CRISPR-Cas9 allows you to very accurately mark at the DNA level the segments that need to be cut, for example, because there is a mutation or because a mutation needs to be introduced. Recovery then takes place thanks to a kind of genetic "patches" that replace the removed segment. These "patches" can be modified, for example, so that they no longer have the mutation that is responsible for the disease. By itself, this technique [replacing a piece of DNA] is not entirely new. New for CRISPR-Cas9 is accuracy, which means the efficiency with which it can be done. And above all with very low costs, almost negligible. A person with the necessary knowledge needs only a few hundred euros of equipment to implement this method.
Promotional video:
What are the problems and questions raised by this method?
CRISPR-Cas9 is the most accurate method today. But is it enough? How reliable will the changes made to DNA be? Will there be collateral damage after genetic modification? As a preoccupied person with human freedom, I am not comfortable with prohibitions. I think the only way to know this is to allow research and experimentation.
The alternative would be to refuse. And consent to live potentially with thousands of syndromes and diseases. However, if we can get out of genetic slavery, that is, get rid of the defects in our genes, do we need to give up this method? Should you be a slave to the arbitrariness of nature? Is this fair?
This can lead to a rebellion against natural terror, genetic terror. So I think it's a matter of time before we start using genetic modification. Can you imagine that in 100 years we will be abandoning human embryo change, although there is nothing wrong with parents wanting their child to be in good health?
But this technique allows not only to destroy the disease. If she fulfills all her promises, then she can also allow people to be “made” larger, smarter … And even immortal! Is there a risk of ending the defects, characteristics and differences of the human race?
No, this is not about trying to get everyone to have the same genetic sequence. It's not about creating an army of clones. There are 10 to 30 million differences between you and me at the DNA nucleotide level. We will not touch everything. If we remove one DNA difference among 10-30 million others and this will get rid of the disease, then I don't see how bad it is. I don't see any danger.
And I don’t know if we should be afraid or rejoice at an increased human ability to be better. This is no different than opening fire. It can burn an entire country - and we see it this summer - but it can also be controlled, which allows us to move forward.
My vision, as genetics, of developing this method in the long term is a wonderful vision: that one day we will get rid of all the mutations in the genome that cause or predispose to so much disease and suffering. This vision delights and encourages me. Because it seems to me that this search, this research is humanistic in every sense.
The question to be resolved is whether or not human embryos can be modified. How to regulate this technology?
I don’t know, it is necessary for this to be a global project. And we need people who answer these questions to be as informed as possible. And it will be the role of scientists to inform them. Then you need to ask the right questions through democratic processes.
When and how will we apply this knowledge? This is a more practical issue that should be resolved by "a committee of specialists, with the participation of a committee of patients, since they are the first to whom it concerns." One thing is certain: advanced knowledge should not be discouraged, either for ideological or religious reasons.
