GENE EDITING ISN'T PREDICTABLE

            You've no doubt heard the hoopla about Crispr gene-editing technology that has promised to do everything but drink your coffee for  you.  The promises are identical to the ones that accompanied the genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 

             Remember how they were going to eliminate diseases, increase crop production and be as close to magic as you can imagine?  Well, GMOs haven't done any of that.  In trial after trial it turns out they are less productive; they mutate, their cousins like Roundup make adapted super-weeds and they sure haven't eliminated any diseases.

             So along comes Crispr, making the same promises except even more sci-fi oriented.  Scientists promised no more birth defects, edited human embryos.  I suppose they can create a half dozen Einsteins.  Perhaps another Sean Connery.   Wouldn't that be nice?  Another Milton Friedman would be cool.

             Did you know there is already a Crispr Journal as a trade publication?  But wait,  "scientists . . . using the technology in human embryos to try to repair a gene that causes hereditary blindness found it made unintended and unwanted changes, frequently eliminating an entire chromosome or large sections of it" according to Amy Marcus writing in The Wall Street Journal Oct. 30.

             This is exactly what's happened with GMOs and now it's happening with Crispr.   The new study, published first in the journal Cell, focused on twin girls born using Crispr technology as part of 40 human embryos from one sperm from a man known to have the EYS blindness gene located on chromosome 6.  Wow, we know so much, and yet so little.

             It reminds me that we've only named 10 percent of the micro-organisms in soil.  How smart are we? 

             Interestingly, this manipulative technology--both GMO and Crispr--is completely different than stem cell therapies.  With stem cells, the quadrillions of informational exchanges going on in the cells are respected and recognized as having more wisdom than us.  We let the natural patterns and decisions develop, spontaneously and dynamically. 

             Given a habitat of healing, nature tends toward wellness.  It tends toward sickness when the habitat (terrain) breaks down.  Stem cells re-create a habitat of wellness wherein nature's own tendency toward healing gets a launch pad and our own intellect takes a back seat. 

             People like me get accused routinely of being anti-technology, as if technology has no cost and no moral dimension and propensity to cause more harm than good.  Technology is not a stand-alone thing; it's held up by all sorts of props from ethics to nature's own desires. 

             I would suggest that technology comes in many dimensions, just like education, economies, social constructs and other things.  Just because I don't like the construct of communism doesn't mean I dislike communing with people.  Technology is like that; some is good and some is bad.  I'm for good technology.

             What's your favorite good technology and what's your most despised bad technology?