Embryo DNA Experiments Hold Lessons For Tech - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
IT Life
Commentary
4/24/2015
12:30 PM
David Wagner
David Wagner
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
100%
0%

Embryo DNA Experiments Hold Lessons For Tech

Western scientists are up in arms about a new experiment to alter the DNA of an embryo. The real issue isn't ethics, however. It is whether it is the smart path to be taking in the first place.

These 8 Technologies Could Make Robots Better
These 8 Technologies Could Make Robots Better
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

Researchers in China had the audacity (or immorality?) to try to alter the DNA of a human embryo in an attempt to cure it of a disease. The paper came out in the journal Protein and Cell today, and many Western scientists have gone literally bonkers.

Western scientists have called it immoral, irresponsible, and dangerous -- and those are the kind words. Before we all get too crazy, I'd like to inject a little IT logic into this debate and think about it the way we would any new technology.

For a minute let's put aside the moral argument and talk about what it is these scientists actually did.

The researchers at the Sun Yat-sen University took 86 nonviable human embryos and tried to alter their DNA through a process called CRISPR/Cas9. Specifically, they wanted to remove a gene which causes a sometimes fatal blood disorder without disturbing any other genes. Only 71 embryos survived the process at all. Only 28 removed the gene in question. And in all 28 where it was removed, other genes were unintentionally altered.

Let's be clear. This is not like last week's SpaceX near miss. This was an epic failure on the way to trying to do something which is likely still decades or centuries away. Even had it been a rip-roaring success, none of these embryos would have been people.

(Image: Duncan Hull via Flickr)

(Image: Duncan Hull via Flickr)

The general complaint is that this kind of thing has been off-limits in Western science because some people -- mostly Westerners -- find it unethical. We don't want to mess with our species. We don't know what unplanned harm we will do. It has societal and religious implications that clearly require some debate. Fine. But I'd like to point out a few things:

Just because Western scientists have qualms about this doesn't mean Chinese scientists have to. They are not injuring anyone. They are not experimenting with potential people -- none of these embryos are viable. They had no intentions of allowing these embryos to grow to be people. Let's not get crazy when we say they are messing with our species just yet.

Learning to do something, and then doing it for fun and profit, is a different thing. US scientists know how to destroy the Earth in hundreds of ways, but they don't. Studying small pox doesn't mean you plan on unleashing it.

Why it is that Western scientists thinks they have a monopoly on what is ethical?

It smacks of racism, or at least a kind of patronizing intolerance of research coming from a new competitor. The not-so-subtle implication is that Western scientists don't trust Chinese scientists to take the precautions they do. They assume Chinese scientists don't mind messing with the species. It seems unfair at best.

Altering the DNA of embryos might be unethical. It might not be. I think a debate is a great idea. I suspect that debate would quickly degenerate into a religious war, which I'd rather not invite on the pages of InformationWeek. Instead I'd like to inject a little of what we do into this debate, and look at it the way we look at any startup.

Is this the best way to do this?

The goal of the Chinese researchers is clearly laudable. They want to cure a disease before it even starts. If they could cure beta thalassemia, the blood disease they were experimenting with, they could save thousands of people from needing constant blood transfusions, and from growth problems, anemia, and possibly death.

When we look at, for example, Amazon drone delivery, we ask ourselves the same question: Is this the best way to do this? Clearly drone delivery is cool. But is it the optimal way to move packages, or just the coolest way to move packages? The jury is still out, but experts think the drone may not be the best choice because of the expense and other issues. If you were investing in drones or other shipping methods, you might not pick drones.

[Want more on drone delivery? Read Drone Study Shows Consumers Are Ready.]

So, is treating a disease at the embryo the best way to do this? I'm no geneticist, but I'm making an educated guess that this is going to take decades to pull off, decades longer to prove medically successful, and decades more to make economically viable. Think about it. We just took our first steps down this road, and it failed. When was the last time we've seen this kind of basic change to the way we think of medicine go any faster? If this was the equivalent of the moon landing, these researchers are the Wright Brothers.

When you bet on a new technology, you don't just bet on whether it will work, but whether someone else can do the same thing faster and better. With any given disease, which is more likely to happen -- we learn to eradicate it at the embryo stage or we develop a drug to at least treat the symptoms? Granted, there are thousands of diseases we are nowhere near controlling, many of them genetic. And it is possible that running around developing an individual pill for each one will be slower than a single gene-editing trick.

But there's also the slightly more responsible path of genetic research around editing adult genes. Last year, scientists edited a specific gene in lab mice to successfully cure a liver disease. They believe they can begin human trials in a few years. The technique they used, called Crispr, can already target a single genetic mutation without causing unwanted changes to other genes, unlike what happened in the Chinese attempt.

So look at it this way. Forget the ethics. Down that road, there be dragons. Which horse do you back if you are investing in a startup? Drug therapies or altering genes? You might pick gene altering. But would you pick a method that has already shown success and is nearly ready for clinical trial, or would you pick the one fraught with ethical fears that hasn't worked so far, and might take decades for people to learn to do?

My advice to scientists and people up in arms about this: Save your time on the moral outrage. Back the horse that is going to win. Research dollars go to the most viable technology. Eventually, we'll learn to alter the genes of embryos, slowly, and with deliberate care. In the meantime, my money for the bulk of the research is going to be on a much less controversial and more advanced existing technology. If this really is a wrong move, it is the economics of technology that will show that it is, not an ethics class.

Interop Las Vegas, taking place April 27-May 1 at Mandalay Bay Resort, is the leading independent technology conference and expo series dedicated to providing technology professionals the unbiased information they need to thrive as new technologies transform the enterprise. IT Pros come to Interop to see the future of technology, the outlook for IT, and the possibilities of what it means to be in IT.

David has been writing on business and technology for over 10 years and was most recently Managing Editor at Enterpriseefficiency.com. Before that he was an Assistant Editor at MIT Sloan Management Review, where he covered a wide range of business topics including IT, ... View Full Bio
We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
David Wagner
100%
0%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
4/24/2015 | 1:19:10 PM
Re: Good Stuff
@TerryB- Thanks. the thing that really chaps me is that MIT is one of the larger sources of complaints about altering embryo DNA but they are the ones altering adult DNA. It strikes me as a perfect example of someone complaining more about competition than anything. 

Granted, i'm no scieintist. There is a difference. But you know who are scientists? The Chinese researchers. I trust them as much as the folks at MIT to take the right precautions. 

Either way, whether it is a law in Indiana, a hot new startup, or new science research, we know the money follows the best idea and the one society can tolerate the most. This will work itself out.
InformationWeek Is Getting an Upgrade!

Find out more about our plans to improve the look, functionality, and performance of the InformationWeek site in the coming months.

News
Becoming a Self-Taught Cybersecurity Pro
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  6/9/2021
News
Ancestry's DevOps Strategy to Control Its CI/CD Pipeline
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  6/4/2021
Slideshows
IT Leadership: 10 Ways to Unleash Enterprise Innovation
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  6/8/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
2021 State of ITOps and SecOps Report
2021 State of ITOps and SecOps Report
This new report from InformationWeek explores what we've learned over the past year, critical trends around ITOps and SecOps, and where leaders are focusing their time and efforts to support a growing digital economy. Download it today!
Video
Current Issue
Planning Your Digital Transformation Roadmap
Download this report to learn about the latest technologies and best practices or ensuring a successful transition from outdated business transformation tactics.
Slideshows
Flash Poll