Isaacson W. (2021) The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race. Simon & Schuster.
Erich von Dietze
Looking for some light reading, I stumbled on this book through my local library and was hooked from the first chapter to the last.
Sooner or later, most HREC members will find themselves reviewing research which involves or depends on some level of genetic work (DNA, RNA etc). Scientific and technical members of HRECs are generally well equipped to review this research but lay members and those from other disciplines can frequently feel out of their depth. While written for an entirely different purpose, this book assists to fill some important gaps of understanding without attempting to turn those HREC members into professional scientists.
Isaacson is a professor of history and has written several books including contemporary histories of science and technology. He writes in a punchy, direct, style which educates his reader about the field he is investigating and maintains interest along the entire journey.
This book is based on many hours of active interviews with the key characters as well as their students and staff, access to laboratories and attendance at conferences and events. Isaacson immersed himself in the field to enable him to impart a clear and concise understanding to his reader and was clearly present during some of the recent applications of the CRISPR technology (used for gene editing), even learning the laboratory techniques for himself. The book also advances our understanding of the key contribution of women to science in this particular field.
The core focus of the book is on Jennifer Doudna and her collaborators who through scientific curiosity developed CRISPR as gene editing tool. The book traces their intrigue to their childhood and Isaacson explores the importance of their development as researchers. This eventually leads to the development of the CRISPR technology which the book explains sufficiently for the lay person to understand along with its potential applications. Spoiler alert – Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier were awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize for their discovery and the development of gene editing technology.
There is some wonderful examination of the competitive and political nature of research – who is awarded funding, how research progresses, who publishes and when. There is also insight into the personal drive required to succeed at this level of research. It is insightful to see science lived rather than told as though the outcomes were a foregone conclusion. Conferences and meetings are personalised, with insights into the interactions between and after the day’s formal sessions.
The tool developed by Doudna, Charpentier and others has become so accessible that its components are now available on the internet relatively cheaply. It has opened a new world of medical advances which are still in early stages of development. It has led to the notion of ‘bio-hackers’ working in cooperation with researchers in a similar manner to which hackers may collaborate with IT professionals.
In some ways, the coronavirus pandemic is the start of the story as it provides a widespread practical application of this technology which may otherwise have remained in the more theoretical domains for some time. CRISPR was utilised as a primary tool in helping to create some of the vaccines which we now rely on, and with a rapidity that would previously have been unimaginable. Isaacson argues that this technology creates the start of a new life-science revolution in which studying genetic coding will become equally important to the study of digital coding.
HREC members will find the underlying focus on scientific and research integrity helpful and the section on specific ethical questions particularly helpful. Isaacson devotes significant space to a genuine exploration of key perspectives on ethics and argues how some of the outcomes of the CRISPR technology should be pursued while others would only be pursued with caution or not at all. These discussions are led through case examples where we meet people who have been affected by the condition or illness being discussed, and the ethical questions are put into context through this.
- Should we use our new evolution-hacking ability to make us less susceptible to viruses?
- What if the technology were used to improve the abilities of athletes or soldiers, or even if it were weaponised?
Isaacson succeeds in showing that nationality and culture, background and education, funding and resources can all impact ethical decision-making. In some cases (such as sickle cell anaemia or Huntingdon’s disease) he argues that it would be unethical not to develop new cures based on gene editing technology. Whereas in other instances (such as impacting deafness, physical ability or attributes, or even creating genetic changes which can be passed on to the next generation) he argues that the ethical lines are more blurred. We need, he argues, to be careful of the enhancements (as opposed to treatments) we might make to humans. We need to have careful discussions about how to approach conditions driven by multiple genes where any genetic based ‘treatments’ could have substantial unknown impacts. So, who decides what will be pursued? Isaacson shows the depth of thinking many of the scientists in the story have given to the ethical implications of their work, even to the point of deciding that some areas of research would be avoided due to the ethical dilemmas which could be created. Will this technology take us into a “brave new world” or could it have us “playing God”? Isaacson addresses these themes with care and insight, though experts will need to take the conversations significantly deeper.
If I had any criticism of the book, it is that there are probably many more ‘ordinary’ scientific researchers left out of the story. Also, that the developments of the COVID vaccines were supported by researchers from many other disciplines, without whom the end results may not have been as smooth. But that is the problem of telling history in such a relatable way; much gets left out.
I commend this book to HREC members as one way to obtain helpful insights, so that when next faced with a complex scientific review the consideration can be even more nuanced and questions clearly directed.
This post may be cited as:
von Dietze, E. (14 September 2022) The Code Breaker book review. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/the-code-breaker-book-review/