Principle of Precaution

On June 21, a biosafety and ethical panel in the US approved the first clinical study using a genome-editing technology called CRISPR-Cas9.  The study aims to create genetically altered immune cells to attack three kinds of cancer. Patients with multiple myeloma, melanoma, and sarcoma will be enrolled and treated with genetically modified T cells that, infused back into them, are expected to target and destroy tumor cells.

Genome editing technology is in the limelight and quite a number of articles in newsmagazines and newspapers have been published to inform the public of this new promising technology. It is difficult to say what messages have been really conveyed, apart from a generic wonder related to any new technology, notably in the field of life science.

The discovery of anti-CRISPR genes – which block the activity of specific CRISPR/Cas systems – in diverse groups of bacterial species has been almost ignored by general media. Yet, it is an important detail to understand the biological meaning of CRISPR systems.  CRISPR and anti-CRISPR genes are part of the same host-parasite co-evolution and both participate in the rich and complex strategy of non-sexual genetic recombination. Changes are that the most important immediate consequences of studies on CRISPR systems could be in the microbiological field. 

Scientific discoveries should be put  in perspective in order to be understood. If one wants to convey the right message to the public, it is paramount to identify the landscape of a piece of new information, its context, and its relations with other scientific discoveries. Most journalists' comments on CRISPR are completely out of context, they seem to be fascinated only by science fictional potentialities, such as the theoretical possibility to edit human genes to eliminate "dangerous" genes and to improve human constitution. 

Not only such a possibility is still remote – not the least because the relationship between phenotypes and  genotypes is much more weak and nuanced that most "lay" people suppose -  but the very concept of"human improvement" or "augmentation" is rather controversial. At the end of the day, overemphasizing genetic discoveries risks to produce false expectations and hopes, together with paranoid fantasies. 

Experts and policy makers  frequently advocate the adoption of a "principle of precaution" in relation with new genetic technologies.  Maybe we should start using such a principle also when we inform the public.