The ethical dilemma of GM crops

Gene editing is a strange topic.  

On the one hand, we could use this technology to cure diseases before they even happen. On the other, we could soon be living in a world where editing the sacred unknown of a human embryo is barely a second thought.  

Still, we’re not quite at the ‘designer babies’ stage yet, as much as some people might want you to think. In fact, the regulations surrounding the use of gene-editing tool CRISPR in alteration of crops for human consumption are still incredibly strict.  

This project aims to assess the performance of the low asparagine wheat plants in the field and measure the concentration of asparagine in the grain produced under field conditions.

 Professor Nigel Halford, Project Leader of the GMO trial

If you are unfamiliar with the basic science behind CRISPR-Cas9 (otherwise known simply as ‘CRISPR’) then I would highly recommend checking out my previous article ‘The rise of CRISPR’ available at theboar.org to give a rudimentary overview.  

To put it simply, compared to our older techniques, CRISPR is both cheaper and easier to use as well as being highly versatile and adaptable to various organisms and cell types. It has broader applications, high scalability, and easier delivery compared with traditional methods, with the only possible drawback being that it has lower precision and subject to off-target effects.  

Part of why this technology is exciting (at least for me anyway), is because this September we will hear about the results of a five-year GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) trial that is currently taking place in Hertfordshire (for those of you less familiar with UK geography like me, all you need to know is that it’s just north of London).   

This trial is the first of its kind anywhere in Europe; the aim is to produce wheat with ‘ultra-low asparagine’ – a compound which is converted into probable carcinogen acrylamide when bread is baked or toasted.  

When asked about the long-term goals of the field trial, project leader Professor Nigel Halford said: “We believe that asparagine levels can be reduced substantially without compromising grain quality. This would benefit consumers by reducing their exposure to acrylamide from their diet, and food businesses by enabling them to comply with regulations on the presence of acrylamide in their products.” 

He said that: “This project aims to assess the performance of the low asparagine wheat plants in the field and measure the concentration of asparagine in the grain produced under field conditions.” 

Where is the line that we draw between what we can do and what we should do?

And whilst this is all deeply fascinating, I think it’s also important to discuss the ethical implications of this developing technology in the light of these new field trials. For the lucky majority of your who do not have to go to regular lectures on this topic, ethics itself is defined as the practice and examination of our moral standards; what we define as being right or wrong. And as I’m sure many of you know by now, there are many ethical issues surrounding the use of genetically edited or modified crops. The most common ethical concerns concerning CRISPR as well as genetic modification in general are as follows: 

• Safety and unintended consequences 

• Impact of monoculture on biodiversity 

• Unequal access and injustice 

• Risks to vulnerable populations 

• Naturalness and our relationship to nature 

• Decisions making and ‘playing God’ 

Now, I certainly don’t have the word count to dissect all these issues (as they deserve), so instead I will be choosing to discuss what I think is the most divisive issue: should we really be ‘playing God’?  

The side of the debate I prescribe to is, I think, best summed up Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park: “[Scientists] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Now obviously Jurassic Park is fiction, but the ethical point being made here is a very real concern. Where is the line that we draw between what we can do and what we should do? 

The key takeaway from this discussion is that nothing to do with genetic editing is as simple as it seems. It is a multifactorial issue that every person no doubt has their own take on. So, should we leave the decision making up to just the technical experts and bioethicists, ask community and spiritual leaders, or perhaps even the general public?  

When looking at human history, we can know for certain that our views of ethics will always change over time, will vary between cultures and even between individuals within these cultures. All we can do as a society is to ensure that as we expand our knowledge, we do so safely and responsibly via thorough policy making and strict regulation.