Divided Opinions about CRISPR-cas Gene Editing

Image by Nathan Devery, via Shutterstock

With the Chinese scientist’s gene editing scandal that shook the world in November, 2018, the Organising Committee of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing were forced to revise their human genome editing international ethical guidelines. This involves legalising CRISPR-Cas9 technology (“CRISPR”) on humans and embryos with use restricted to when there is an absence of ‘reasonable alternatives’.

With this step forward, an increasing number of researchers began to jump onboard to further test this technology in a flurry of human trials, particularly in US and Russia. This has widely been hit with unease from the public – “after that unethical issue with that scientist, why are scientists seemingly more motivated to perform gene-editing?”


Let’s first start with explaining the incident:

Image of He Jiankui by Animalparty, via Wikimedia Commons

He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist responsible for this global uproar, used CRISPR to perform gene editing on multiple human embryos, the first one leading to the birth of twin daughters with HIV resistance.

CRISPR is still a fairly new technology, having first been repurposed from the original bacterial immune defence systems into eukaryotic systems for gene editing in 2013, for human and mouse cells.

The main concern is that this recent technology, although used extensively in both cell and animal models since its introduction, has not been used in humans, let alone embryos. This is a huge safety issue, especially considering what we know about CRISPR.


What’s wrong with CRISPR?

CRISPR is considered as the gene editing technique with the most precision, yet a common issue is that some cells may escape gene modification. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg, and is not the main problem which makes this technology so controversial.

One of the major complications of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology is off-target snipping, responsible for editing errors.

What results from these editing errors? Not a Frankenstein’s monster, and also not a Winter Soldier. Rather, off-target mutations can cause vulnerabilities in those DNA sequences, and can predispose the person to cancer.

However, this issue has now been targeted for improvement, via this just-as-major breakthrough. Not that He Jiankui had access to this when he performed his experiments on human embryos. This new version involves the addition of another RNA sequence to the guide RNA-CRISPR molecule to enhance precise targeting and cleavage of DNA by the Cas9 enzyme, improving the accuracy of this technology – and hence lowering the chance of off-target mutations.


Image by Pixabay, via pexels


The other major complication? The effect of successfully editing the targeted gene.

Although there have been many studies involving gene editing in cells and in other species, the interplay between genes in humans are not completely understood. We understand some direct links between gene and causation quite well in some instances, but indirect links are less understood.

Editing of one gene, such as CCR5 in this 2018 case, may confer innate immunity against some forms of HIV, however, there is current controversy about how this predisposes the twins to be more susceptible to the flu. This further leads to greater public concern about the safety and ethics of CRISPR.


Image by Jelleke Vanooteghem, via Unsplash

But on the other side of the coin of the public’s negative perspectives of gene editing, is a whole different story for the people requesting for it.

In the eyes of these cancer patients which CRISPR is currently being trialled on in America, they have hopes that this technique would be successful, and hence cure their cancer and prolong their lifespan.

Even in the eyes of the Chinese parents whose twin daughters were the experimental results of the scandalous Chinese researcher, they were thankful, as the father had HIV which he did not want to pass onto their children. Not only were the couple offered free IVF and sperm washing to remove the HIV virus, their daughters who were gene edited at the CCR5 gene are now immune against the most common form of HIV. Furthermore, He Jiankui claims that the parents themselves chose the option of implanting the gene edited embryos rather than the unedited embryos.


So what do you think about this technology? Do you support it or are you against it now that you know the facts about it? Or would you rather place your hopes in the newly found alternative which targets RNA instead of DNA, called ‘LEAPER’?


A great video about CRISPR trials for cancer patients beginning in US (requires LinkedIn login) is:

On the other hand, if you want to read about the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s point of view which I didn’t mention, this is a really short and simple read:

8 Responses to “Divided Opinions about CRISPR-cas Gene Editing”

  1. Katie Loi says:

    Hi Lau Li Ken, I don’t know why your comment only popped up now, so sorry for the late reply! Thank you for reading my blog post and enjoying it. I’m glad you found it educational, and also startling to an extent too. And yeah, I did try for the image, but I couldn’t find images of the actual twins (I don’t think there are any), so I substituted with another photo of twin babies.
    Personally, I think that although CRISPR technology is a big thing now amongst the world (scientists and non-scientists included), especially after the Chinese scientist scandal, many other alternative gene editing technologies are not so well known. But perhaps it might actually be a better idea for other people to know that these alternatives are out there, rather than just immediately labelling all gene-editing technology as some sort of forbidden dark magic that shouldn’t be dabbled in.

  2. loik says:

    Hi Kye Kudo! Thank you for reading and enjoying my blog post.
    I definitely agree with you. I also think that CRISPR-Cas9 technology is useful mainly for genetic modification of organisms to further our knowledge, but just not in humans. In particular, for the cancer context there’s a new treatment for leukemia using CAR-T cell therapy – I’m not sure if you’ve heard of it? But I think that that method is definitely safer to use, and hopefully they’ll find a way to use it in other cancers!
    If you haven’t heard about CAR-T cell therapy, here’s a nice webpage from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre to watch/read a summary of it: https://www.petermac.org/car-t

  3. Kye Kudo says:

    Great blog post Katrina!

    CRISPR-Cas9 technology is so awesome and can be an advantageous tool used to increase our knowledge of genetics and biology. But, I defiantly don’t believe it should be used in human genome editing.

  4. loik says:

    Hi Zhao Yuan, thank you for your comment! I didn’t hear about that tidbit of news, perhaps I missed it. But that’s an interesting to point out – and this further supports the fact that CRISPR is still a risky technology to use in both the clinic, and especially in embryos.

  5. loik says:

    Thank you elarsson for enjoying my post!

  6. Lau Li Ken says:

    Hello! This was a fascinating read. I’ve learnt quite a bit more about CRISPR-Cas9 now, including the potential side effects. You caught me off guard when “successfully editing the target gene” was also one of the downsides, which was cleverly counterintuitive but worked out fine.

    The use of images was good too, which facilitated the rather long blog post and made it that much more comprehensive (two babies, much like the two twins?) LEAPER technology was quite new to me, and the inclusion of this aside was well done.

  7. Zhao Yuan says:

    This is really interesting. I heard about this event back when it happened, it was explosive news. But I didn’t know that the academic world had done so many discussion after that. It’s quite inspiring to see so many different sides of opinions. One little detail though, as you mentioned ‘…leading to the birth of twin daughters with HIV resistance.’ if I remembered it correctly, in China, our version of news pointed out specifically that only one of the twin sisters achieved HIV immunity, the other one wasn’t so lucky. And that is exactly what shows the unpredictably of this technology and caused a lot of trouble, ending in the leading researcher mentioned in this article investigated by our government and forced out of his academic career.

  8. elarsson says:

    This was such an interesting post! Really comprehensive!