The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race

by Walter Isaacson

Doudna and Church wrote back-to-back pieces in Nature presenting their perspectives on making inheritable gene edits. Although their positions conflicted to some extent, they reinforced the case that scientists were dealing with the issues seriously and did not require new government regulations. “Opinion on the use of human-germline engineering varies widely,” Doudna wrote. “In my view, a complete ban might prevent research that could lead to future therapies, and it is also impractical given the widespread accessibility and ease of use of CRISPR-Cas9. Instead, solid agreement on an appropriate middle ground is desirable.”13 Church was more forceful in arguing that research, even in editing the human germline, should continue. “Rather than talk about the possibility of banning alteration of the human germline, we should instead be discussing how to stimulate ways to improve its safety and efficacy,” he wrote. “Banning human-germline editing could put a damper on the best medical research and instead drive the practice underground to black markets and uncontrolled medical tourism.”