Question

Societal Aspects of Gene Drives in Wild Populations. In the article by Zimmer (2017), Kevin Esvelt says that he made a huge mistake by championing the application of a technology that he now says is far too dangerous to actually deploy. In a post of about 125 words, address the following:

(a) What is the technology that he championed? What does it consist of and why does he think it’s too risky to use outside the lab?

(b) In your opinion, what sorts of laws and regulations, if any, should society put into place to regulate the technology that Esvelt regrets championing?

ARTICLE: Zimmer, C. (2017, November 16). 'Gene drives' are too risky for field trials, scientists say. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/science/gene-drives-crispr.html?_r=0

Answer 1

Kevin Esvelt used Crispr, a gene editing tool to save endangered wildlife from extinction by modifying its genetic makeup by implanting a fertility-reducing gene in say invasive animals like weasles. This process is called gene drive.. When gene altered animals are released back into the wild, the fertility-reducing gene spreads across through the population which then eradicates the pests. However, the risks lies in the fact that the modified gene could spread to unknown places where the particular species is not at all invasive and might eventually be wiped off.

There needs to be strictly controlled trials and regulations and serious efforts needs to be taken to truly understand the dynamics and the various factors which contribute to transfer of genes in the population.