Gene-editing regulations "urgently needed"
Scientists and policy makers are pushing for "urgent regulation" of gene editing technologies, in the face of ecological risks that are "real and poorly understood". Encoding genes to ensure all of a species end up male could be an attractive method of pest control, at least initially, but could have unknowable effects on the widedr ecosystem. We need to incentivise research into the risks associated with gene editing, with less than 1% of synthetic biology funding going to risk research. Currently, there is debate over which US governmental arm assumes responsibility for gene editing, with the FDA overseeing some aspects, and the Department of Agriculture others. Lastly, a public debate over the risks we are willing to take to further research and development is necessary. An interview with gene-editing technology pioneer, Jennifer Doudna, also in the New York Times argues that although sci-fi technologies such as embryo editing are realistically a long way off, we should still be ahead of the game in developing a regulatory framework to deal with the ethical quandary that may arise. Recalling a hypothetical discussion with peers, Mrs Doudna commented "There may come a time when, ethically, we can’t not do this."

These new tools are much more precise and easy to use than past versions. Researchers can cut and paste DNA into just about any animal, plant or fungus. Whereas modified genes were once likely to be stamped out if by chance they made it into the wild, today’s technologies can supercharge a genetic chain reaction: A technique called “gene drive” ensures a modified gene will be inherited with nearly 100 percent success. This is valuable in making sure that a desirable new gene, like one resistant to the malaria parasite, spreads once introduced into a mosquito population. It also means a mistake can’t easily be taken back.

As scientists, policy makers and citizens, we need to start debating how much genetic tinkering we should allow in the wild and what regulations need to be in place. On the one hand, these new tools could help us cope with many risks to humans and animals, including climate change. Coral could be buffered against warming ocean water through the introduction of heat-tolerant genes. Genes from successful species could be used to help rescue imperiled ones. The method could be used as a form of molecular CPR, helping species adjust to our changed planet more quickly than they could on their own.

But the ecological risks of these manipulations are real and poorly understood. We can’t fully predict the consequences of releasing self-propagating genes into the wild. Encoding a self-destruct gene, for example by altering sex-determining genes so the population eventually ends up entirely male, could be a way to battle invasive species like zebra mussels or coral-destroying sea stars. But such genes could potentially leak to places where these species actually play important ecological roles — and could even jump to other species through interbreeding. Re-engineered genes that escape from crop weeds and spread as a result of gene drive could devastate other ecosystems. Moreover, our understanding of how genomes function is still far from the point where we can change genes and be certain we aren’t creating bigger unintended consequences.

Just about everyone agrees that regulation is urgently needed, but no one has much of an idea what it should look like. A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on the nonhuman impact of gene drive is expected next spring. In the meantime, two actions could vastly improve prospects for successful and balanced regulation.