A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution

这段视频展示了沃尔特·艾萨克森与詹妮弗·杜德娜之间的对话。杜德娜是《创造的裂痕》的合著者，也是CRISPR-Cas9基因编辑技术发展中的关键人物。对话探讨了CRISPR背后的科学原理、其潜在应用以及编辑人类基因组所涉及的伦理影响。 杜德娜回忆起她早期对分子科学的兴趣，这兴趣是由詹姆斯·沃森的《双螺旋》这本书激发的，以及她随后对RNA的研究。她解释了RNA在调节细胞中遗传信息利用方式中的关键作用，从而促使她参与了CRISPR的研究。她强调了与吉尔·班菲尔德和埃玛纽埃尔·沙尔庞捷的合作，并强调以好奇心驱动的研究和国际合作是科学突破的关键。 讨论深入探讨了CRISPR-Cas9的机制，描述了它如何像“分子剪刀”一样精确地剪切和粘贴DNA序列。杜德娜用文字处理来比喻，强调了这项技术在进行定向基因改变方面的准确性。 艾萨克森和杜德娜随后探讨了基因编辑在动物中的应用，提到了诸如为器官捐赠而改造的猪和为抵抗病毒而改造的蚊子等例子。他们还讨论了中国如何在基因技术方面领先于美国，因为中国在该领域投入了更多的资金。 对话随后转向了更复杂的人类基因编辑问题，特别是种系编辑，这将导致可遗传的改变传递给后代。杜德娜强调了体细胞编辑（对个体细胞的改变，不会传递给后代）和种系编辑之间的区别，种系编辑从根本上改变了物种的进化。虽然她支持体细胞编辑用于治疗镰状细胞贫血等疾病，但她对种系编辑表示谨慎，认为在进行之前需要广泛的社会共识和更多安全数据。 他们接着讨论了CRISPR的商业化方面，通过一个假设的故事，揭示了当硅谷企业家想要将基因工程商业化时，社会所面临的挑战。讨论扩展到审查基因编辑的伦理复杂性，包括修改种系。杜德娜分享了她自己对种系编辑的看法是如何演变的，受到了与面临毁灭性遗传疾病的患者和家庭对话的影响。她和艾萨克森探讨了潜在的道德界限，讨论了纠正疾病和增强特征之间的区别，以及这取决于不同司法管辖区的决定。杜德娜强调了参与国际讨论和教育公众关于CRISPR的可能性和挑战的重要性。 最后，杜德娜讨论了资助基础科学研究的重要性，并指出CRISPR技术本身源于对细菌免疫系统以好奇心驱动的调查。她表示，削减美国对基础研究的资助将使像中国这样的其他国家主导该领域，这令人担忧。她承认了竞争，但也承认了与从事类似工作的其他科学家的合作和公平。

The video features a discussion between Walter Isaacson and Jennifer Doudna, co-author of "Crack in Creation" and a key figure in the development of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology. The conversation explores the science behind CRISPR, its potential applications, and the ethical implications of editing the human genome. Doudna recounts her early interest in molecular science sparked by James Watson's book "The Double Helix" and her subsequent research on RNA. She explains RNA's crucial role in regulating how genetic information is used in cells, leading to her involvement with CRISPR. She highlights the collaboration with Jill Banfield and Emmanuelle Charpentier, emphasizing that curiosity-driven research and international collaboration are key to scientific breakthroughs. The discussion delves into the mechanics of CRISPR-Cas9, describing how it acts like "molecular scissors" to precisely cut and paste DNA sequences. Doudna uses the analogy of word processing, emphasizing the technology's accuracy in making targeted genetic changes. Isaacson and Doudna then explore the implications of gene editing in animals, mentioning examples like pigs engineered for organ donation and mosquitoes modified to resist viruses. They also discussed how China is way ahead of the United States because it's investing more in genetic technology. The conversation then shifts to the more complex issue of human gene editing, particularly germline editing, which would result in heritable changes passed down to future generations. Doudna emphasizes the difference between somatic cell editing (changes in an individual's cells that aren't passed on) and germline editing, which fundamentally alters the evolution of a species. While she supports somatic cell editing for curing diseases like sickle cell anemia, she expresses caution regarding germline editing, stating that it requires broad societal consensus and more safety data before proceeding. They then discuss the commercial aspects of CRISPR, discussing a hypothetical story, it shows the challenge society faces when Silicon Valley entrepreneurs want to commercialize genetic engineering. The discussion expands to examine the ethical complexities of gene editing, including modifying the germline. Doudna shares how her own views on germline editing have evolved, influenced by conversations with patients and families facing devastating genetic diseases. She and Isaacson explore potential moral lines, discussing the distinction between correcting diseases and enhancing traits, and how it is up to different jurisdictions to decided. Doudna emphasizes the importance of engaging in international discussions and educating the public about CRISPR's possibilities and challenges. Finally, Doudna discusses the importance of funding basic scientific research, noting that the CRISPR technology itself emerged from curiosity-driven investigations into bacterial immune systems. She expressed concern that cutting funding for basic research in the U.S. will allow other countries like China to dominate the field. She acknowledged the competitiveness but also the collaboration and fairness with other scientists doing similar work.