On November 29th, 2018, Antonio Regaldo wrote an article for the MIT Technology Review entitled, Despite CRISPR baby controversy, Harvard University will begin gene-editing sperm,” wherein he describes the scandal surrounding China’s scientist, He Jiankui, and Harvard’s decision to move forward with CRISPR studies in spite of He’s poor practices. He Jiankui used CRISPR — Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, which is the basis for genome editing technology — to create twin girls that were at a lowered risk for HIV infection through unethical practices that were not described in the article. Dean of Harvard Medical School, George Daley, acknowledged the faults in He’s experiments at “a gene-editing summit in Hong Kong on Wednesday, November 28th,” (Regaldo) and announced that Harvard would begin experimenting with CRISPR on embryos — no babies are being made — to try and reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s. The article then described the backlash of this announcement. Scott Gottlieb, the head of the FDA, tweeted, “certain uses of science should be judged intolerable, and cause scientists to be cast out. The use of CRISPR to edit human embryos or germ line cells should fall into that bucket.” Outside of Gottlieb, however, the article noted that most folks are in favor of the research: “With Boston [In Vitro Fertilization],” a doctor and scientist at Harvard’s Stem Cell Institute, Werner Neuhausser, “has been carrying out a survey of doctors and hundreds of patients about what they think. ‘for treating or preventing disease, pretty much everyone agrees,’ he says — that is, they are for it.” (Regaldo) The article closes by discussing the benefits of CRISPR usage; specifically, by mentioning how having the technology ready to use could be beneficial if a plague broke out, similar to Ebola or the bubonic plague. Through the article, it was clear that Regaldo was in favor of CRISPR usage.

This article was tweeted by MIT Technology Review’s twitter account with a brief summarization of the article on November 30th, 2018. At the time I investigated (December 21st, 2018), the post had 206 likes, 164 Retweets, and 16 comments. It’s impossible to determine whether the likes or Retweets reflect a positive or negative view of the article — they only show that the tweet was noticed by a few hundred people. The comments, however, proved to be insightful, sparking mini-debates deep into the thread. I will briefly investigate 4 comments.

@Nolaan_boy wrote the most recent comment and, possibly, the most telling in regards to how social media misconstrues scientific news. He wrote: “This week : USA blames China for CRISPR BABY / Also this week: USA is proud to announce half CRISPR babies”. The hypocrisy that @Nolaan_boy’s comment stands on is a false equivalency. He Jianhui was secretive in his experiments and did not behold himself to ethical standards, whereas Harvard intends to be transparent in its research while using ethical practices. He Jianhui’s secretiveness was a large part of his problem — he didn’t allow for the public to give informed approval. Harvard cites the IVF polls conducted by Neuhausser, showing that Boston — at the very least — was okay with CRISPR usage if it’s used to prevent diseases. The USA’s issue with China is less that they made a, “CRISPR baby,” which is a problematic simplification in itself, but that they did so without public response or with ethical practices. @Nolaan_boy’s comment is emblematic of the simplification of large scientific issues that do not lend themselves to simple summarizations.

@BennyJacobs8 and @Nlitsardopoulos brought up tangential arguments that aren’t provable but are nonetheless a part of the debate. @BennJacobs8 tweeted: “Editing DNA is forbidden by the Bible. You can’t play God and think God is ok with it,’ and @Nlitsardopoulos tweeted: “I think Harvard is trying to hold from its pants since losing top spot,” meaning that they’re trying to save face. These two considerations will affect the public’s opinion towards the issue, despite their legitimacy. I personally disagree with both.

Lastly, @Spencer_mood brought up a question that spurs a necessary conversation, but obviates the point of the article: “Has anybody thought of the potential ramifications? / Is it ethical to do this to babies? What if they are unable to procreate later in life due to unforeseen mutations? / There is so much more to be said on this.” Without dismissing @Spencer_mood’s comment, I think it’s important to reassert that Harvard will not be experimenting on babies. They do not plan on implementing what they discover in the laboratory — they’re only conducting research. If their use of CRISPR allows them to lower the risk for certain diseases, then we’ll have a public debate — hopefully — on whether or not it is ethical to implement it. The argument for how far CRISPR usage goes, assuming it reaches its intended results, is a debate worth having; but Harvard’s officials say that they want to lower risk of disease, not alter physical features such as height and eye color or a similar tangential goal, which would be an entirely separate end. An end that, it seems, no one is interested in. To say that testing CRISPR on embryos will lead to physical alterations is an unverified leap.

After investigating the comments, I found that my opinion didn’t shift. Certainly, I hold my own biases, but I hope they aren’t so strong they that keep me from actively listening. Nevertheless, I thought that some comments, like @Spencer_mood’s brought up important subjects surrounding CRISPR usage.

@HolladieWaldf18 tweeted in response to @Spencer_mood’s comment: “Yes, but you must consider, if [implementing the result’s of CRISPR studies] is worth it…where do we stop and which diseases are worth the risk [of experimentation]?” Although this comment doesn’t directly relate to the article at hand, it’s the comment that has stuck with me, one I will think about when considering the subject in the future.