A Prediction about Genetic Engineering

One of the fascinating developments in biology over the past decade has been the discovery of what's called CRISPR gene editing.

Pronounced "Crisper," this technology works something like the cut and paste function on your computer and, the expectation is, it will eventually be used to actually edit the human genome, by cutting out certain genes and replacing them with others.

William Dembski has an interesting piece on this at Evolution News in which he describes how CRISPR would work and the uses to which it could be put. He issues both a caution and a prediction.

First, the caution. He bases it on the difference between therapeutic applications of gene editing and the enhancement of traits and functions that are otherwise normal:

Such changes would give biologists the power to direct human destiny. Heady stuff. But the power to play God has dangers. Such changes could become permanent, locked into the human germ line. That may not seem like a bad thing for therapeutics and prevention, as in eliminating sickle cell disease or Huntington’s disease, where the genetic mistakes are clear and correctible.

But that would only be the beginning, not the end.

What about gene edits designed not to eliminate disease but rather to enhance existing traits and functions? Such traits and functions would be perfectly normal and yet might be preferred in an enhanced form, such as height or intelligence. Therapy/prevention is one thing, but enhancement is another....

Yet the line between therapeutics and enhancement can be blurry: is a male who would be 4 feet 10 inches without some sort of genetic intervention being cured of a disease-like condition or being enhanced by adding six inches to his stature? What about someone who is 5 feet 6 inches getting an extra 6 inches? What about someone who is 6 feet 2 inches getting an extra 6 inches?

Given the human impulse to control nature with technology (an impulse especially evident in our age), it’s hard to imagine CRISPR not being used to produce enhancements in humans (consider militaries who want more effective soldiers, parents who want smarter and more beautiful children, governments who want more pliable citizens, etc.)...

. These concerns aren't the only dangers involved in trying to manipulate the genome, however. Many genes code for more than one trait and are partially involved in the functioning of other genes. What effect would changing a gene have on other traits in the body? This question underlies Dembski's prediction:

The big question, then, is whether CRISPR gene editing will allow for huge improvements of human and other animal forms via genetic enhancements. My prediction is that it won’t. Specifically, I predict that attempted enhancements of the human germ line using CRISPR gene editing will (1) quickly hit an “enhancement boundary” beyond which enhancements are no longer feasible and (2) prove self-canceling in the sense that intended benefits will be undone by unintended deficits.

The genome is a highly complex, highly integrated system. Changing any part of it could cause an unforeseeable catastrophe somewhere else. Dembski asks rhetorically,

[W]hat if adding 6 inches to height leads to circulatory problems or a lack of coordination? What if increasing intelligence (if genes that make for greater intelligence even exist or can be identified) leads to greater obsessive-compulsiveness? What if improving creativity leads to bipolarity?

I’m not saying that, in nature, increased height is correlated with increased pulmonary problems or intelligence with OCD or creativity with bipolarity. I don’t know. But I am saying that when we monkey with nature by doing CRISPR gene editing, we may see such correlations so that one step forward here leads to one step backward there. This is the prediction, and we’ll see.

Also, I’m not saying anything about the societal impact of CRISPR changing the distribution of traits in the human population, which may also lead to unexpected and unhappy consequences (immediately, perhaps, because CRISPR enhancements will first go to the rich, exacerbating concerns over inequality and privilege).

I therefore frankly doubt that CRISPR gene editing (and indeed all gene editing technologies) in the hands of humans will lead to benefits unhampered by deficits.... when designs are implemented by intelligent agents, they almost always involve multiple coordinated changes.

There's much more on this at the link. Dembski concludes his article with this summation:

To sum up, from an intelligent design perspective, there is no compelling reason to think that CRISPR gene editing will constitute an enhancement tool for building superior humans. Quite the opposite: there are compelling reasons to think that CRISPR gene editing will fail as an enhancement technology.

Leaving off clear genetic defects, which can be viewed as genetic accidents that occurred over the course of natural history, I predict that CRISPR-based genetic enhancements will backfire, with deficits counterbalancing or perhaps even outweighing benefits, so that people at the end of the day will avoid them because of the uncertainty and ill effects they bring.

One question this all raises is how will the preliminary experiments on editing human enhancements be conducted without posing serious risks to human beings. Suppose it were discovered, for example, that enhancing human intelligence also correlatively enhances an inclination to anti-social or violent behavior in adults.

Tragically and cruelly, the discovery would come a little late in the day for those affected by the genetic manipulation.