The Inner World of DNA: How CRISPR is Transforming Science

Humanity has long ceased adapting to nature; instead, it tries to dictate its own rules. Test-tube babies, perfect humans, an antidote against mutations — all of this has become our reality. In the race to solve humanity’s growing problems, it is crucial not to lose our humanity in the process. We are not gods, and it is not for us to decide what a chicken should hatch. However, each of us has the power to decide who we want to be. As the saying goes, “True responsibility can only be personal.”

We all know about X and Y chromosomes, about height, eye color, and hair color. But alongside these visible traits, there is something invisible that can influence the course of a person’s life.

In the 1940s, scientists were fully focused on studying proteins, believing that DNA played a secondary role, sitting in the background of the “smart molecules.” Oh, how wrong they were!

Science would have remained in the dark if not for a fortunate accident during an experiment with pneumococcal bacteria. It was discovered that DNA could transfer information and serve as a physical carrier of heredity. This revelation came, as they say, “by sheer luck.”

The thing is, harmful pneumococcal bacteria can convert harmless bacteria to their “harmful faith,” even after they are dead. Three scientists decided to investigate how this happens, so they sequentially removed different components from the bacterial cell until they reached DNA. It turned out that destroying the DNA stopped the recruitment of harmful bacteria, proving that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the carrier of genetic information.

The discovery sent shockwaves through the scientific community, and after going through all the stages of acceptance, scientists finally granted DNA the prestigious title of the “Prima Donna of Biology.”

In the 1970s, after learning to read DNA like an open book, scientists became deeply immersed in the search for the genetic basis of processes occurring in the human body. By the 1990s, genes and mutations responsible for various diseases had been identified. Scientists then began exploring solutions to human genetic defects through genetic engineering modifications.

This led to the emergence of plasmids.

Instead of tampering with the cell nucleus, which contains the primary genetic information, scientists can utilize plasmids.

Plasmids are crucial for transmitting beneficial mutations, such as conveying information about antibiotic resistance. The key reason for using plasmids in humans is their natural tendency to degrade over time after being introduced into a cell. This ensures their safety in the human body, as they do not interfere with the cell’s main genetic machinery.

In simple terms, artificial plasmids are used as vectors in DNA cloning. With a few manipulations, the desired gene or protein is inserted into these “carriers” — the plasmids. These plasmids are then introduced into bacterial cells. The bacteria that successfully incorporate the plasmids are selected, allowing them to multiply and create numerous copies of the desired component.

Based on this discovery, one could propose a wild theory: fungi that receive plasmids with human genes might eventually acquire the ability to influence humans by releasing spores that could control the human mind. There is already a legendary example in nature — Cordyceps, a genus of parasitic fungi known to control the behavior of certain insect species, essentially turning them into zombies.

Despite sounding unbelievable, the growing concern among doctors and scientists is justified. The number of people affected by severe fungal infections has been steadily increasing in recent years. To prevent a situation where the most vulnerable populations are at risk, efforts to develop antifungal drugs and vaccines have already begun.

If only it were that simple! Mother Nature does not take kindly to such drastic interventions, and cows whose DNA was modified while still in the womb were born without tails or did not survive at all. A few calves managed to survive, and now scientists are waiting for them to grow up and produce offspring, hoping that they will finally provide the desired milk.

But we are more interested in how to reprogram ourselves, not a cow named Daisy.

Genetic engineering did not stop at creating perfect food products — scientists moved on to the idea of modifying not only plants and animals but also humans. To address issues such as “mutated genes” and “hereditary diseases,” research institutes began searching for solutions through editing the genetic code.

The work intensified, and through trial and error, several gene therapy options were developed. By 2013, only five gene therapy drugs were approved worldwide. Among them were three cancer treatments, Glybera — a treatment for hereditary lipoprotein lipase deficiency — and Neovasculgen.

Neovasculgen is a plasmid-based drug; it does not edit the cell’s genome but instead delivers plasmids into the cell, which, unfortunately, work for a limited time.

Over time, the science of genetics has evolved. By introducing a missing gene into spinal neurons, scientists have been able to save children suffering from a fatal hereditary neuromuscular disease.

In China, scientists successfully genetically modified embryos to make them resistant to HIV, resulting in the birth of two beautiful twin girls named Nana and Lulu. We can only imagine what it feels like to be born as an experiment, but if such an experiment leads to a breakthrough and truly saves many lives, then the birth of the twins will be justified.

The CRISPR/Cas9 technology, based on the “cut and paste” method, allows for the automatic editing of genes using bacteria according to set criteria. However, unfortunately, it has yet to gain full trust due to its less-than-perfect results.

CRISPR is essentially the immune memory of bacteria, which stores information about viruses the organism has encountered.

It is worth mentioning that thanks to fermented cabbage, or rather the lactic acid bacteria that ferment it, scientists have proven that bacteria resistant to viruses can incorporate parts of their DNA. So, even those far from genetic technologies have likely encountered CRISPR when buying cheese or yogurt.

Scientists take an ordinary bacterium, insert a “modification” into it, and then the bacteria carrying the necessary element damage the cell. The cell begins to repair itself, and instead of the second chromosome, an introduced DNA fragment is used for repair. The cell fixes the break by incorporating what it was provided with. For example, scientists have created a mosquito with completely malaria-resistant DNA. No disease — no spread.

However, in July of this year, scientists discovered that CRISPR/Cas9 causes mutations and genomic rearrangements at the sites of manipulation. Therefore, it cannot yet be considered a “magic pill.” Nevertheless, it is fair to recognize that this technology is indeed a major breakthrough in the field of genetic engineering.

If CRISPR/Cas9 improves technology and can eliminate all risks of mutations or incorrect genome rearrangement, this technology will save many lives. We will be able to get rid of HIV, cancer, we will be able to save embryos with defective genes. It already looks like a happy future.

It would be great to solve all issues with gene defects by injecting a drug that would be unmistakably effective. After all, our gene pool is accumulating more and more genetic diseases that were once considered incurable. Humans have learned how to save offspring, and now scientists will have to learn how to eliminate the defective genomes left in the rescued.

A little bit of Angelina Jolie’s cheekbones, Kate Middleton’s legs, and Brad Pitt’s hair. Add Albert Einstein’s brain to the mix. Input the desired settings, and voilà — an ideal human. But who’s to say the desires of this perfect individual will align with the expectations of their creators?

— Why can’t I genetically modify myself to become more advanced? I’ve even chosen my future field!
— Go do your homework, Engineer.

Slowly but surely, the future is approaching, where it will be easier for people to modify their DNA to become someone special rather than striving to become the best version of themselves. We can already imagine a world filled with resilient athletes with superhuman abilities, singers with extraordinary voices, and super-personalities with unmatched skills. The rest of the work will be left to a class of people who have rejected the idea of “perfect humanity.” All because the meticulous concept of an ideal generation has infected the minds of those in power.

Doctors will begin correcting defects in embryos at the request of parents, but not all genetically adjusted children will accept these choices. Then, forcibly gene-modified individuals may start organizing sabotage. And all of this will seem eerily familiar. Dreams of creating perfect humans have never ended well.

A person receives a set of genes from both parents in various combinations and proportions. Moreover, a child can resemble their grandmother or great-grandfather. So don’t be surprised if you see yourself in a 19th-century photograph. How does this happen?

The randomness of genetics. It just so happens that a child’s gene combination may replicate that of a distant relative. However, assuming that a person will completely or partially repeat their ancestor’s fate is absurd. While the genetic component is indeed present in everything, other environmental factors also play a role in shaping personality as a whole.

Heredity is what we inherit from our parents, while genetic traits can also be shaped by the individual themselves.

The global scientific community was shocked when researchers proposed that behavior could be determined by the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. Soon after, genetics became a catch-all explanation for any human trait.

Believing in the unconditional inheritance of both negative and positive traits is a mistake. No single gene can define a complete model of human behavior. Heredity is influenced by the external environment, and the environment, in turn, is much harder to control.

Thus, scientists began searching for the intersection points between DNA, heredity, and environmental influences.

In the 1960s, psychologist Albert Bandura conducted an experiment to determine whether children imitate aggressive behavior from adults. The children were divided into two groups. One group was shown “aggressive” behavior, while the other was exposed to “calm” behavior. The experiment proved that children mimic adult behavior models, demonstrating that negative traits are acquired rather than inherited.

In the 1940s, the scientific community suggested that stuttering was an innate disorder caused by genetic factors and physiological characteristics of the speech apparatus. However, American psychologist Wendell Johnson took a radically opposite stance.

To test his hypothesis, Johnson, together with his graduate student Mary Tudor, conducted an experiment in the United States in 1939 involving orphaned children. The children were divided into two groups. The first group received “positive” speech therapy—children were praised for fluent speech and encouraged for even minor successes. The second group endured “negative” therapy — they were constantly criticized for stuttering, humiliated, and their flaws were highlighted.

The experiment showed that children from the second group, who previously had no speech problems, became extremely withdrawn and uncommunicative. Almost all of them developed severe anxiety, which made them overly self-conscious about their speech. Previously healthy children suffered significant damage to their self-esteem and mental health, and Johnson’s theory was ultimately not confirmed.

Living in fear that the genome of a parent with destructive behavior will catch up with you at the worst possible moment is not worth it. Scientists promise that soon there will be no such gene that cannot be altered. However, when it comes to character, core beliefs, and value systems — those will have to be changed by ourselves, without shifting responsibility onto DNA.

Perhaps all the mutations that occur in our bodies are merely humanity’s way of adapting to natural changes. By genetically modifying ourselves, are we depriving humanity of its right to survive in the future? One would like to think that this is just the imagination of an author who had genetically modified tomatoes for lunch.