CRISPR EDITING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

 Today's NYT has a brief interview with the woman who discovered (developed?) gene editing, for which she was awarded a Nobel prize. (The prize named for the discoverer of dynamite.)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/15/magazine/jennifer-doudna-crispr-interview.html?smid=url-share

Dr Doudna is aware of the potential dangers of the technology,  but suggests in the interview that a gradual process of exploration will lead to useful modifications of the genome in plants, animals, and humans.  She gives an example of a CRISPR tomato about to  be approved in Japan,  while ignoring the already intense controversy over GMO by more ordinary techniques.  Her views on the potential benefits for food production must be weighed against the trend in for profit companies to manufacture GMO designed for profitability and control of use,  as much as for value in production.  And the long term health effects of these products remain unclear because there is no requirement for research funding in the 5+ year range (not to mention the 70+ years of a human life).  She talks about the potential for modifying disease carrying mosquitoes,  and some non-reproducing species are already being released,  but these organisms are part of complex food chains with birds and other animals,  and prioritizing the danger to humans ignores these other ecological consequences.  She suggests the potential benefit for modifying the genes for cardiovascular disease (or cancer?) illustrating the basic problem of medical genetic thinking:  There are no (few?) genes for diseases.  Viewing them in this way is an artifact of medical research.  Evolution selects genes for adaptation,  and multiple genes combine to provide adaptive capacity in a given environment.  The "negative" health consequences are the result of balanced effects that are positive,  and interaction with life behaviors, diet, etc.  "Eliminating" specific genes may give one benefit while creating other major problems,  like the negative muscle effects of statin drugs in many individuals.

Genetic manipulation by intentional human decision has been occurring for thousands of years in selection of plants, and cross breeding,  long before Mendel described the patterns.  As the process becomes a more direct modification of specific loci,  the need to understand the complex effects becomes more urgent.  As the organisms involved have longer lifespans,  the accumulated consequences must be studied and understood.  In the current climate of financially driven research,  this more objective, long term perspective is harder to fund and maintain, with dire consequences.  The problem is not CRISPR,  the problem is that making ROI (return on investment) the basis for genetic evolutionary modifications is not a good idea.

ENVIRONMENT: PARTICIPATING IN THE CHALLENGE

Reality is always distorted by politics,  and the discussion of solutions to the changes in earth's climate are a good example.

The climate is changing.  The overall temperature of the earth is getting warmer,  and rapidly.  This is not happening in a year,  but over decades.  The measurements are statistical but the trend seems clear and dramatic.  

Why is this happening? In the 1970s,  an ozone depletion theory was the proposed answer,  still considered by some  https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/why-warming-stopped/  https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/15/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/   This theory has generally been replaced by the proposal that fossil fuel changes in the atmosphere create a "greenhouse effect".    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts    https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports   It is important to understand that this is a theory, an explanation of the changes based on observations, correlations, and assumptions.  Are properties of the earth a factor?  Does climate shift in this way due to variations in solar energy,  or cycles of ice formation,  etc?  Opponents can find indications and data that do not support this theory.  That is inevitable in scientific discovery. 

But this is not just about proving a scientific theory.  The changes in the earth's temperature and related changes in climate are altering the distribution of plants and animals,  the location of arable land suitable for growing food,  and the distribution of water supplies.  These are measurable changes in the earth, whether or not they are the consequence of the use of fossil fuels.  The test of the importance of the role of fossil fuels would be the dramatic reduction in atmospheric changes and an associated change in climate.  This is unlikely to be possible.  Use of fossil fuels is directly related to economic development,  and sustained economic advantage.  It does not appear that any country with significant fossil fuel resources will forego use for the sake of the survival of the earth.  Statements by oil companies, etc.  to the contrary are marketing distractions to confuse consumers.  And it may not work!  The climate changes may have progressed too far,  and cyclical shifts are already occurring.  Or the reversals may occur but be much slower to reset the climate.  Human experience is generational roughly 20-40 years,  and so is political thinking.  So these climate changes are too slow for normal human thought processes.  COMMITTING TO THE  CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERE BASED ON FOSSIL FUEL AND OTHER POLLUTION IS A TRANS-GENERATIONAL COMMITMENT.  This is very difficult to accomplish in political terms.

Instead the focus in reporting and promoting is on natural disasters and animal extinction. Problems in the distribution of food and water have already given rise to migrations toward regions with more opportunity (though not always with regard to future climate issues).  Natural disasters are another source of confusion.  Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and fires are recurring natural events that may be exaggerated by changes in climate. (The data to assert this is incomplete.)  But the reality is always the same:  When humans build dwellings in regions of high risk for natural disasters the dwellings are damaged or destroyed and the lives are altered.  The location of the disasters is statistically predictable,  yet humans return to the same sites to rebuild despite knowing the damage will return.  The fantasy of owning a piece of the earth interferes with the reality of recurring destruction from natural disasters.  The emphasis on animal extinctions is another example, to be considered in another blog.

Humans have relatively little political or personal control over climate change and natural disasters. By contrast we have a significant ability to manage the pollution of the earth and sea with toxic substances,  avoid living in disaster prone areas, and set aside regions of territory for maintaining some persistence of the previous environmental patterns (i.e. "wilderness" whatever that means).

To participate effectively in the future of the earth,  more thoughtful reflection is needed,  and less poorly thought out, and stupidly motivated political action.  No amount of Tesla production, or other electric vehicle use will offset fossil fuel and the need to generate power to reverse climate change.  It is an example of false marketing of climate change for economic purposes.

ENVIRONMENT: ON THE EXTINCTION OF GRIZZLY BEARS

The earth is in trouble.

There are too many people. 

The earth's population is approaching 8 billion.  And its rate of growth is linear.  There are still many places with very few people,  but the concentration  in giant cities with massive populations is increasing.  Where humans are highly concentrated,  they drive out other life and create changes in the environment which have given rise to the name for the emerging era: anthropocene:  the age of humans.  To address this problem it is necessary to limit the birth rate of the species to some  survivable limit. This is very difficult to accomplish because it involves coordinating across nations  to regulate an activity considered outside the range of legislation in most countries.

It is getting too hot. 

Despite denial by the current American government, most other governments and scientists agree that there is a dramatic warming of the planet.  The evidence for the warming is unequivocal and human activities likely play a significant role in at least accelerating,  if not causing the changes.  The scientific explanation has been that there is increased C02 which allows the heat to stay "trapped" in the atmosphere in a "green house" effect.  Whether this factor or some other astronomical issues are also involved is unknown.  But the evidence is clear that the earth is warming  in the contraction of ice packs in polar regions and changes in ocean water temperature,  and rising average atmospheric temperatures.

The world is becoming toxic and polluted.

This piece in the New Yorker last year describes a so far unsucessful effort

New Yorker: The Widening Gyre to clear-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch

We are running out of drinking water.

The human and animal species depend on non-salinated water for survival,  and this water is not evenly distributed over the earth's surface.  Fresh water depends on rainfall,  snow pack,  location of streams and rivers,  preservation of unpolluted sources,  and a balance between use and replenishment.  All these factors are out of balance in specific regions posing challenges for the human survival in those areas.  Plants also depend on water supply and so crops are lost in the same regions, compromising the food supply.

And animal and plant species are going extinct.

The distinguished biologist E. O. Wilson has written a book about conservation.  His proposal is clear and unachievable:  set aside roughly 50% of the earth as protected,  to be allowed to continue to function without excessive human incursion.  The regions he proposes are ones with some of the highest levels of biodiversity,  and his stated aim is to preserve diversity and present the extensive loss of species through extinction currently in progress.   As a biologist-zoologist,  he has great respect for the genetic store of information in different species and the need to preserve this "information" for future generations.  This includes the genome of plant species as well,  though he gives that less emphasis.  The first 3/4 of the book details the extent to which human development is rapidly depleting regions of the "natural world" and replacing them with human settlements.  These have mostly human genomes,  extinction for most animal species around them,  and has given rise to the term "anthropocene" to describe  the earth's  transformation by human activity.  Why is this happening?  There are two clear reasons:
1) Human reproduction is expanding rapidly,  and human mortality decreasing by various modes,  so the life expectancy is extending,  ergo more people around. 
2) The economic value of extracting natural resources and developing land is clearly defined,  while the economic or other significance of genomic diversity is not.  Economic considerations now dominate all others.

The geologic record suggests that the earth has seen two or three dramatic extinctions of most creatures and out of these new life forms have evolved to populate the remaining earth.  Insects and some plants are especially gifted at survival,  and this suggests that an alternative solution would be to allow the earth to be catastrophically destroyed and repopulated by other species.  This is not likely to be a favorable solution for humans who have a strong attachment to their survival and importance as a species.  Indeed,  one of Wilson's major points is that humans don't know that much about how to live with other species,  apparently because we don't care.  This is less true for "primitive" cultures who did and to some extent do coexist with other species.  But the"developed" world of Eurocentric and American culture is organized around isolation from other creatures and destroying their intrusion into our lives.  Especially insects!

Given the interdependent issues involved,  the issue that gets the most attention is:  Developing Renewable Energy  All human activities require energy,  much of it provided in parts of the world by the energy mechanisms within the body,  food,  and atmospheric oxygen.  But in the increasingly technical world,  the role of energy is to power devices for transportation,  manufacturing,  and communication.

The Real Solution Is  to manage human population growth,  and balance it with the rest of the natural environment.  This requires a major change in the evolutionary view of certain  species.  How to engineer that?

TRUMP AND THE WIZARD OF OZ

Many years ago,  the United States was struck by a great economic catastrophe.  There was no work,  people were hungry and the country was in disarray.  In the middle of this disaster,  a story captured the imagination of the people:  the three characters needed a heart, a brain, and courage,  or something, and followed the yellow brick road to see the wizard who said he would fix them.   In the story,  the characters learn that they have the power they seek within themselves,  and they learn this by recognizing that the wizard of oz is an illusionist:  someone who pretends to have power and control the world,  but who really is just manipulating the scenery of a great stage.

In 2001 the United States was struck by another catastrophe.   And in 2008 a second economic distress.  Many people were out of work, and hungry and angry.  They went seeking help from their leaders to fix the problems.  The leaders attempted to solve the outward problem,  but never fixed the basic one: Americans feel powerless,  controlled by a wizard in a distant city.  It makes no difference that the people choose this wizard every four years.  When Obama was chosen,  it was  his job to solve all the failures of the African American (and other) minority groups.  Of course he could not do that by himself, and did not get much support from congress to help.

Fear and disappointment in those eight years enabled Trump to be elected, barely.   It was his job to fix the  the oil industry's declining fortunes, rebuild the rust belt,  and resolve the conflicts of moral values in the society.  He had no experience in any aspect of government,  and a history of failing in business,   rebuilding his personal finances as they were depleting.   He made many "executive order" proclamations  to address the challenges the country faced,  without benefit except to himself.  Three quarters of the way through his term,  the country was faced with a new catastrophe,  a covid pandemic, more serious potentially than any recent event.  A moment when real leadership is tested.

In the story of Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz,  Dorothy and her companions wander off to find a wizard who will solve their problems.  They encounter many false choices along the way.  In the same way,  Americans have been offered a swamp of fake solutions and fantasy conspiracies intended to explain our problems and why one group of leaders or another cannot be trusted.   People seek solutions everywhere when they feel helpless and inadequate to solve the problems together.  This is why dictatorships follow economic deterioration and social crises.  Someone,  in this case Trump, is happy to come forward and promise he will fix everything, for everyone, well almost everyone,  not those who are causing the problem.  And there must always be a group to blame.

The message of the book and movie is that the wizard's power is an illusion.  The wizard uses the machinery of public relations and propaganda,  by radio, television, and now internet to gather support and take control.  The wizard of oz is able to control when the people believe that he alone will solve their problems, they must give themselves up to him, and then everything will be all right.  But the more convincing and sophisticated the wizard is, and the more desperate the people,  the more likely that he will fail.  The wizard is the power of one person,  limited by the structure of government,  and the broader limitations of society.  His power comes from the belief in his rescue, a passive inability to solve the problems they are facing.  The real power is in the people, so, for the wizard to succeed,  the people must recognize that he is a sham,  and they must find their own solution.  The current president has all the qualifications to be a successful wizard by failing in his leadership,  and needs no attacks from the Liberal establishment for this.   His failure is the potential success of Americans to recognize their own power to solve the problems they are facing.  At this point,   those who don't want to solve problems, but be rescued, must get out of the way. 

Each  individual  must find the missing part he or she seeks from leaders by looking within.  Liberals are convinced that their intelligence  insures the ability to solve the problems,  but are missing a heart,  an ability to empathize with the other side and understand their human struggles.  The extreme right fears the dangers around them, they are afraid, and seek the courage to face their fears in leaders, not themselves.   The middle of the political spectrum needs more thinking about the problems to be solved, and each person's role in solving them,  to assert their commitment to a balanced inclusive democratic process that does not gerrymander,  exclude,  or otherwise manipulate the electorate.  They must find the courage to stand up to both extremes.  The more activated and engaged the electorate becomes,  the better chance we have to end the OZ problem.  But it is not just a matter of being active:  each must rediscover the missing part  in order to engage in meaningful dialog with the others.