“I’m on the optimistic side as a scientist. But I try to temper my optimism, again, trying to be more neutral. But I’m very optimistic, because I see the potential benefit. I am hopeful that benefit will always outweigh the risk. It may not. But I’m hopeful.”
Some of us still believe in the transformative power of science — its ability to inspire wonder while finding a way to solve problems. COVID-19 is a stark reminder of the role science plays in our everyday lives, whether we choose to believe in it or, sigh, not.
PBS Nova returns with a new season tonight, with the extended 90-minute documentary Human Nature, a new look at technological breakthroughs in gene manipulation and whether, just because we can shape DNA to our ends, we should.
Human Nature examines the moral, ethical and sociological implications of a new gene-editing tool called CRISPR.
Last month, program participants Robin Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at University of Wisconsin (Madison) and Tshaka Cunningham, executive director of the Faith Based Genetic Research Institute and co-founder of TruGenomix, were on a panel of experts — including a teenager afflicted with sickle cell disease who’s undergoing gene therapy — to answer reporters’ questions about whether any of this is a good idea, all issues that are raised in the Nova program.
Hints about the future to come are often evident in the past, provided we’re alert enough — and curious enough — to look for them at the time, bioethicist Charo asserted.
“Sure, we’re moving very quickly now, but let's keep in mind how disruptive some of the earlier technologies were,” she told reporters. “In the 1970s we had amniocentesis, and suddenly people had to decide whether or not they would have an abortion if they knew the child was going to develop Down syndrome.
“That’s where I began my career, in a Down syndrome lab. We moved from there to in vitro fertilization, and suddenly we had the ability to choose which embryo we were going to put back. Indeed, by the 1990s you could diagnose the embryos to decide which ones you would put back, and which ones you wouldn’t, and whether you would donate to research based on their genetic characteristics.
“We have been watching this kind of thing happening for quite a long time. We’ve seen cloning, the possibility of trying to make copies, so that you can have multiples of the same embryo, the same eggs being used.
“And, every time, we have had exactly this conversation.”
“This new technology (CRISPR) is less than a decade old,” Cunningham said. “The fascination with being able to change genes has always lended itself to science fiction, but now it is science fact. We can do it. It’s going to be interesting to see how closely (science fiction of the past) aligns with our real experience. During the space race, for example, we had rocket ships, but we didn't have Star Wars yet.
“We are in the early stages of genetics. You might have some interesting, imaginary ideas now, but in the next 10, 20, 30 years, we’re going to be facing real things we are really going to have to grapple with. It’ll be really interesting to see how life imitates art here.”
Charo again: “The U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have actually acknowledged the value of seeing science played out in science fiction, so that people can try to imagine how it might affect the future. A single change, people being able to vary from male to female during their own lifetime in a science-fiction book many years ago, has led to all kinds of changes in our notion of parenthood, the workplace and how we organize our lives.
“They have something called the Entertainment Science Exchange, where they try to get scientists together with Hollywood people to insert real science into their stories, and then see what happens to the plots.”
The world is in trouble — the climate emergency, populist politics, species extinction, growing indications of a worldwide economic crisis, the prospect of global food insecurity — but Charo insists there is cause to be optimistic. To a point. She sees herself as a “bio-optimist.”
“I have never tried to do a mathematically rigorous study of my predictions and what actually happens, but I do generally feel like we’re seeing progress in science — not fast enough and not enough of it, and with tremendous inequities in terms of who gets to benefit from scientific progress, around the world. But I do feel we’re seeing progress.
“But that might be because I’m getting old now.”
PBS Nova: Human Nature debuts tonight, Wednesday, on PBS at 8E/7C.
©Chokniti Khongchum-Pixabay