User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 4/Truth/Gene Editing

International Interdisciplinary Observatory on Gene Editing (Opinions)

Sheila Jasanoff and Benjamin Hurlbut have called for an international interdisciplinary observatory for gene editing. You have been selected to be part of the observatory. What disciplinary perspectives are you bringing to the table on the topic of gene editing? What are their truths and how would you make sure that these truths work together in a dynamic way?

Gene editing :

The modification of the DNA of a human being adresses several disciplines, essentially science and progress.

When referring to progress, medical technology must be developed by active search. However, gene editing is an important milestone for a society. In other words, it confronts ethic and law. Indeed, it can be considered an alteration to the nature of being. In that way, truth about medicine is reconsidered as it does not have the same purpose as initially ; it has a direct effect on human by changing its nature and can be see as a negative finality (which is the opposite of medicine). Furthermore, the essence of ethics prevents such practices ; truth about science and ethic clashes.

Appart from the difficult question of combining medical changes to ethic, science and technology work together in order to ameliorate human being which shows that their truths can create a dynamic dialogue. They follow the same "goal" : progress in our modern world. Following that aim, how can law adapt to gene editing ? At what point is not ethic taken into account ? To what extent is progress allowed for the society's opinion ?

International interdisciplinary observatory for gene editing

“Genome editing (also called gene editing) is a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to change an organism's DNA. These technologies allow genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome.”

During this International Interdisciplinary Observatory on Gene Editing, it is important to bring together scientific disciplines and ethical ones. In fact, scientists working in genetic engineering will explain the scientific advances in gene editing and it is essential. We will also need to talk about technologies as the "use of the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 [...] has opened up new frontiers in genetic medicine". At the same time, disciplines like philosophy, bioethics and law are necessary because they raise awareness on the consequences of gene editing on the society and question the power of science.

However, bringing together science and humanities could seem difficult because they approach truth and knowledge differently. On one hand, science relies on facts. Thus, truth is mainly seen as empirical and positive: scientists make measurements, observe them and draw conclusions. On the other hand, the humanities fields, such as bioethics and law, truth is discussed as normative: this means that values are a key point and that they focus on how a phenomenon will affect people and its consequences over the society.

Thus, how could science and humanities work together in a dynamic way? First, there should have a discussion in which they (researchers in science and in humanities) express their ideas and researches, in an understandable language -explanation of technical vocabulary for example. Scientists could argue that gene editing helps to understand genetic diseases and could treat them. It can also improve the yield of crops and have an impact on livestock. The researchers working in bioethics could express their apprehension regarding gene editing and its consequences on society and future. Indeed, if scientists were allowed to alter reproductive cells, it could lead to eugenics because parents could choose their children and embryo judged as abnormal in the society could be eliminated.

Then, they need to understand that they are complementary. “It makes little sense to treat the questions raised by genome editing as if they belonged to a single field […]. [It] should be addressed as part of different technology convergences […] which also includes political technologies (regulation, legislation, etc.)”.

In order to work together, they need to agree on the issue(s) that gene editing raises and need to have a “conversation about the limits and directions of research”. In conclusion, despite the difference of truths, dialogue and cooperation can help to work together and find a solution.  

Broadening the conversation surrounding gene editing

From the paper calling for previously unheard voices to enter the conversation about gene editing, Sheila Jasanoff and Benjamin Hurlbut are looking for conversations with disciplines other than science, technology, law and ethics. Gene editing transcends academia into real life, and so a rounded conversation involves broad questions with the public, generalists and specialists.

Beyond the four broad disciplinary areas stated in the paper (science, technology, law and ethics), the 'discipline', or area of thought, untouched is culture.

1. the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
2. the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.

The understanding and representation of culture (arts and humanities) changes individual and societal attitudes towards all areas of human life. Questions of individual belonging are constantly asked by visual, written and performance art. Challenges to the audience's perspective are also posed, allowing and encouraging a search for complex understanding of other's interpretive truth, though the lease of the audience's personal interpretive truth.

A key aim of Jasanoff and Hurlbut is to involve more people in the debate, and thus broaden the conversation. Taking science related ethical questions into diverse cultures, such as religious sects, less-wealthy and rural areas in an accessible, artistic way would give a platform to voices not yet heard. If everyone's individual interpretive truth, with different biases from their surroundings, are heard and discussed, different cultures may challenge each other's perspectives, posing new questions to those with power. Asking less represented groups, through accessible arts ie drama, participatory workshops, street artists in schools, hospitals would involve a broader spectrum of society and culture, taking the debate from positivist science to real life ethics. If the discussion and decision of power and boundaries is going to be decided by many, in a law court style 'jury', it is important that the whole of society is consulted. Art provides a way to access interpretive truth after being presented with data. The selection and presentation of data is inherently bias, and would require a large discussion in order to eliminate individual and discipline bias.

Gene editing through the lens of Agriculture:

Over time humans have used different genetic techniques in agriculture to increase yield. One of these technics is hybridization, which is the genetic crossing of two different plant species. Hybridization created new plant varieties that had the desirable agronomic characteristics from both initial plant species. Recently, due to progress in science, new genetic engineering techniques have been developed. Through mutagenesis, humans can now inhibit the expression of a particular gene of the plant’s genome. Humans can also add one or multiple genes to a plant’s genome by using transgenesis. In transgenesis, the used genes come from another plant species’ genomes. Transgenesis creates a new genetically modified plant variety, called a genetically modified organism (GMO).

When it comes to food production, genetic engineering is very controversial. Many call it dangerous or unnatural. People are especially skeptical towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because of the ambiguity surrounding GMOs and the unknown risks they may pose.

However, GMOs have many benefits. First, GMOs can nourish the growing population without further destroying the environment. Indeed, adding a gene for immunity to a plant’s genome can reduce the need for pesticides and insecticides, which can be harmful to human health and the environment. In addition, GMOs can help farmers enhance food security. For example, some genetically modified rice can withstand the effects of flooding. These varieties will become especially valuable in the near future when floods will become more frequent because of climate change.

To summarize, in agriculture, gene editing has many advantages such as enhancing food security and sustainability.

Gene editing

Technology and biochemistry (science) have positivist and empirical truths relying on objective facts and quantitative tests which show how gene editing can be used and why it should be used. Genetic editing is when DNA is modified, altered or deleted in a living organism. Common methods include using ‘molecular scissors’ to cut genomes and replace them. The aim is to change inheritance patters and increase the chance of desired sequences. These will be inherited in offspring and so can eradicate some fatal genetic diseases. New technologies have made gene editing easier for example CRISPR. CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) are DNA sequences in genomes found in bacteria. Researchers can easily alter DNA sequences with this which can treat/prevent diseases. This suggests that if gene editing is easy and can benefit society, there should be no limits to it.

Ethics and Law can often have a subjective truth on the matter of gene editing. The obvious truth in the area of law and ethics is that when using technologies such as CRISPR, bioethics and legal regulations should be put in place to ensure there is no misuse of such a powerful technology. For example, human testing which could have unpredictable results has been created controversy. Gene editing on a human embryo in China in 2018 produced gene-edited twin girls. This led to a global moratorium being issued and pushed for all clinical activities surrounding gene editing to be banned until ethical frameworks are put in place. Although this is the view of many in ethical fields, some researchers have a different approach of increasing human trails and using gene editing technology to a greater extent in the hopes to alleviate pain and suffering caused by diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. In other words, restricting the use of technologies such as CRISPR would be more unethical.

Medicine lies between a positivist and interpretive truth. Gene editing especially CRISPR will most definitely find clinical use because of its improvement in areas such as sensitivity, reliability and efficiency of nucleic acid measurement. Gene editing is a tool in the fight against disease. About 6% of all births have a serious birth defect which is caused genetically/part genetically. – about 8 million children could benefit from gene editing.

How would they work in a dynamic way? Ethical perspective helps to show that the process would affect the person as a whole not just one strand of DNA – showing the bigger picture. Medicine as a discipline helps to bridge these truths as it looks at the scientific positivist approach as well as thinking of human/ animal wellbeing and the ethical challenges of gene editing. Additionally, all disciplines seem to be working for a common objective, to reduce painful and fatal disease and conditions. references: Wang, W., Hou, J., Zheng, N. et al. Cell Biol Toxicol (2019) 35: 285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10565-019-09480-w Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T. et al. Protein Cell (2015) 6: 476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-015-0184-y

Gene editing through various disciplines and the importance of the interdisciplinary view

When looking at the concept or method of gene editing, we have to look at it from several perspectives in order to understand all its complexity and its potential impact, its "truth".

For example, we can look at it from purely scientific point of view, drawing our "truth" from disciplines such as biology, chemistry, or more specifically genetics and ecology, in order to understand what is gene editing as a biological/chemical process, how it works, how it affects living organisms and their environment (benefits and drawbacks) and more.

Furthermore, we can look at it from the standpoint of social sciences, such as economics (closely connected with agriculture), ethics, sociology or politics. Gene editing has a great impact in all these disciplines - with this new technology, where we can produce more efficiently at lower cost, there will be many implications on the economy of food production, its price on the market, etc. This goes hand with hand with agriculture, since this is the discipline that is concerned with production of food, ways of farming (methods, usage of this new technology), etc. In addition, these implications and changes in fields of econimics and agriculture, will most definitely affect government policies and laws, that will be introduced as a response to these changes - for example, government might limit the production, impose additional taxes, or encourage production by investing in the technology and giving certain advantages to the producers. What kind of policies and laws will be introduced is directly connected with first, scientific findings of usage of that method - for example, ecology might argue that gene editing and therefore genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can have serious negative consequences on the environment and ecosystem (the endangerment of other species, degradation of environment, etc.) - and second, with ethics - from a certain moral standpoint, is it acceptible to modify organisms? Which organisms should we modify and to what degree? What should we take in consideration when gene editing?

We can see, that if we try to truly understand a process as complex and as impactful as gene editing, we have to perceive it from different perspectives, from different disciplines that are concerned with different, but nevertheless important, implications of this process on different spheres of our natural and social world. Despite of different "truths" that disciplines propose, they are in fact all merely a part of a bigger picture, of the whole truth, and they therefore not necessary contradict one another. If there are certain contradictions between these truths that is merely a difference in opinion (that is indeed based and justified on the said truths) on how we should act, which actions should be taken in regard to this process. It is merely the difference in concerns and in focus of the disciplines, in other words, what disciplines perceive as the most important aspect, impact of the process. We can therefore conclude that each discipline provides us with different perspective, different truth, which is just a part of a bigger truth, rather than an alternative whole truth of the process. If we can see and give importance to all these little parts of the truth, we will be able to see the bigger picture and gain a deeper understanding of the process.

In addition, to make sure these truths work together in a dynamic way, we have to see and understand not only individual elements (in our case different truths) of a bigger system (gene editing), but also to seek to detect and analyse complex interections and relationships between them. Many truths are dependent or were derived from one another - for example, "truth" in ethics and economics can strongly influence "truth" in politics - and therefore political actions in terms of taxes, policies, etc., "truth" in genetics can have a great impact on how the "truth" in ecology is formulated, etc. The point is that eventhough disciplinary truths are different, not only that they are parts of a greater, interdisciplinary truth, they are also extremely interconnected and interdependent from one another, making it easier to (try to) more deeply comprehend the process in question.

Approaching Gene Editing Through Different Disciplines Gene editing can be approached and viewed from various different perspectives and through various disciplines. Of course, for gene editing to be performed scientific disciplines are necessary. Here, the truth of gene editing seems quite clear, as from a purely scientific perspective the question may only be to what extent gene editing is possible. Therefore, the scientific truth can be objectively established, only being limited by technological advancements. To what extent gene editing is actually implemented, however, cannot be decided simply through scientific disciplines. It directly affects living organisms, and therefore needs to be considered through disciplines within the humanities such as politics, law and ethics. But as it is an idea that only really arose as an issue in this past century, it becomes challenging to use whatever ethical perspectives already existed to create new laws or new truths. Furthermore, it is questionable if politicians could make such laws suitably, without sufficient interaction with experts of the field itself, but also with representatives of disciplines/fields that will be affected by such laws. In gene editing of plants and crops, one needs to consider the discipline of Agriculture, which is of course closely related to Economics. Additionally, Health experts would need to investigate any effects of consuming genetically modified plants. Opinions would also vary greatly depending on cultural background, as this can have an impact on how much one thinks it to be responsible to interfere with nature – especially when going beyond plants and considering animals. If a small group of experts – perhaps all from the same country or cultural background - makes a decision for a people of a different country or cultural background, this could very quickly become problematic. Therefore it would not only be necessary to bring together representatives of a variety of disciplines, but also of a variety of cultures, to bring together their views or truths on the subject into one law.

Different discipline approaches to gene editing:

Philosophy - ‘Truth’ is found through using reason to make theories

• Moral philosophy - application of philosophical theories to real-world moral issues

• Focus on whether gene editing is intrinsically ‘good’ and ‘bad’, alongside discussion of consequences

• Absolutism vs relativism etc...

• Can be used alongside scientific research and evidence on the mechanism and possible consequences of gene editing to support/debate

Biology - scientific objectivity

• ‘truth’ in natural science is found through hypothesis and experiment

• Search for objective truth - can limit capacity to discuss ethics of both application of science and research involved

• Research on gene editing is valuable to expanding our scientific knowledge and understanding of the world and human capability (Needs discussion with philosophy on what it means to be human? Why we see this understanding as valuable ...)

Economics

• Social science - mix of philosophy’s truth using reason and building ‘scientific models’ to understand society

• Based on the truth of humans reacting to incentives - market structure

• Fixes the debate on gene editing in the real world ◦ Brings philosophy down from abstract theorising ◦ Discussion of how scientific research and the impact of commercialised gene editing will affect the economy and overall market structure ‣ E.g. inequality of access considered

gene editing in ethics, religion and art

CRISPR CAS9 is a tool that edits human genome. According to the Oxford dictionary definition, the genome is “the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism ». It is inexpensive and was created in order to cure genetic illnesses such as HIV. Its use conveys a lot of controversy and raises ethical and moral questions. Should we be able to modify humans? How far can it go? Will it be used unethically? One of the first and loudest opponents to gene editing is religion, especially Catholicism. The catholic church is against the suffering of humans and their modification. The French catholic newspaper “La Croix” states that “it is not morally acceptable to edit genes as the risks are too big and could modify the progeny”. It also says the the catholic church is not only against gene editing but also in vitro fecundation. Last year, I asked a class of 12 students in a catholic school in Paris called Alma what they thought about bioethics and gene editing. These were their answers: out of twelve, only three students, which means 25% of the group, were against the use of gene editing to cure genetic illnesses. However, 92% of students, so eleven out twelve, were against the use of gene editing to modify human characteristics. These numbers show subjective truth which means that since we do not know the exact consequences of gene editing, there can not be an objective truth, only people's subjective perception of the truth. Moreover, with faith, catholics have a certain perception on this matter. They believe what the church tells them.

The question of ethics in gene editing was also raised when a few Chinese scientists used CRISPR CAS9 on embryos in 2016. It was the first time gene editing was used on human embryos. Although these embryos weren’t going to go through live birth, they were still developing. The team of scientists used gene editing on 86 embryos which caused a worldwide outrage. Out of 86, 71 survived and only 28 embryos were successfully modified. The experiment stopped as it was judged as risky and dangerous. In most parts of the world it is forbidden to use this tool on humans as we do not yet know the consequences, there is no "objective truth" on the matter right now. However, with medicinal research, the truth in medicine changes all the time. What we might consider true today might vary tomorrow. The French law forbids the human’s specie modification. In The article 16.4 in its civil code proves it: “No one may infringe upon the integrity of mankind. Any eugenic practice which aims at organizing the selection of persons is forbidden. Any medical procedure whose purpose is to cause the birth of a child genetically identical to another person alive or dead is forbidden. Without prejudice to any research that aims at preventing and treating genetic diseases, there may be no transformation of genes in order to alter the descent of a person.”

We can also see how art relates to gene editing. The “being human” exhibition at the Wellcome Collection showcases a box of CRISPR tools to show how easy it is to obtain them. It also explains how people use them. The point of this collection is to observe the relationship between the visitors, humans, and their health and how gene editing makes them feel. The whole exhibition aims to “challenge how we all think and feel about health”. It has an interdisciplinary approach, as the gallery combines health and art, as well as science and medicine. Art shows gene editing to raise questions about the ethical truth in the matter. How can we know if it is ethically correct to use gene editing tools? Does this only depend on our subjective truth?