"I bet you won't": The science-society wager on gene editing techniques.

Abstract

A clear indication that a development in the life sciences has attracted public attention is when it adorns the cover of one of the world's leading news magazines. On August 2015, the Economist published an extensive headline report on gene editing with a special focus on CRISPR. The magazine invoked a new “age of the red pen” with the prospect of “editing humanity” and “genetic enhancement”. The Economist is not alone in its enthusiasm: Some observers are even calling CRISPR a “game changer” for genetics research since PCR [1]. If indeed it is a “game”, it began with the publication of CRISPR/Cas experiments on non‐viable human embryos, which raised the very real prospect of germ line modification [2], and it has evoked strong and unforeseeable responses from the public. The stakes were further raised with a call from various scientists for a moratorium on CRISPR/Cas editing of germ line cells, leading to the International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington, DC, USA, in December 2015. But what exactly is the game about? The story about CRISPR/Cas is not primarily a scientific competition about the best methods or the most promising approaches to editing genomes. In fact, as with other emerging biotechnologies, the debate on gene editing is located at the interface between science, technology, and society [3]. This has important implications for the focus, conduct, and possible outcomes of the discussion. First, it means that gene editing technologies, similar to other emerging biotechnologies, offer tremendous potential to generate new ideas, methods, and—in the long run—applications to meet urgent societal challenges and needs. Second, these techniques are perceived as having the potential to challenge and sometimes blur attitudes, social …