After virtually attending the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing (see BioNews 1183), it was refreshing to revisit some of its most interesting parts in an episode from the Economist's podcast, Babbage.
Babbage reports on all manner of scientific and technological news, as well as the relationship between science and culture, and there really isn't a better event to showcase the intersection of these ideas than the International Summit on Human Genome Editing. Originally developed to bring the scientific community together to discuss a range of genetic ideas and concerns, the Third Summit was tasked with addressing issues of equity and ethicality, as well as life in the scientific world after the Second Summit – and it was these issues that Alok Jha, the episode's host, chose to focus on during his report.
Jha hosts the episode from the Summit itself, held at the Francis Crick Institute in London, and the episode features a good balance of interviews with guests attending the Summit and narration explaining certain topics and technologies. Right off the bat, Jha begins the episode by briefly discussing the events of the Second Summit and the infamous Chinese scientist, Dr He Jiankui, who made it so controversial (see BioNews 977 and 1029).
While it is necessary to contextualise this Third Summit with its history, I imagine the event organisers may feel somewhat overshadowed by the past when interviewers are interested in discussing Dr He. In saying that, however, Jha did ask a wide range of questions about the controversy, which prompted different insights and opinions from each interviewee. This provided a well-rounded perspective on the Summit's history and was interesting to listen to, even as someone who is already familiar with the event.
The episode's structure, interview and narration, felt very natural and gave Jha the opportunity to explain different ideas at a steady pace, rather than bombarding the listener with a large amount of information all at once. The range of interviewees was also very good, with each person offering expertise on different subjects so that, by the end of the episode, the listener had a solid understanding of the purpose and importance of the Summit.
The organiser of the Third Summit, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, research group leader at the Francis Crick Institute and PET's chair of trustees, gave a good firsthand account of the controversy and also considered the scientific and technological developments that have occurred in the years since. We then heard from Professor Claire Booth, from University College London, whose work focuses on gene therapy and paediatric immunology, about how different genome editing techniques work, differ from each other and are already helping people with genetic diseases.
As a bioethics student myself, I was most interested in the interview with bioethicist, Professor Kelly Ormond, from ETH Zürich, Switzerland, who discussed a wide range of ethical issues with Jha. The Third Summit was very much focused on questions of equity and ethicality, with several presentations during the three-day event dedicated to analysing these issues. Professor Ormond started her interview with the thought-provoking question: 'What does disease or illness really mean for people, how does it impact your life and when is it worth trying to treat it or cure it?'
Following this, she also addressed the ethicality of using genetic technology designed as treatments for enhancement purposes by challenging our conception of disease and illness. The idea of providing people with diseases or disabilities with accommodations rather than treatment was also considered, as was the current lack of education about disease and disability for children in school. I really enjoyed this segment, as I believe these questions are essential within any discourse about scientific development and should be considered alongside the development of genetic treatments and technologies.
We also heard from Dr Filippa Lentzos, a biosecurity social scientist from King's College London, who provided a very holistic overview of some of the threats advancements in genetic technology could lead to. While listing some ideas, like genetically enhanced soldiers, Dr Lentzos was also very clear about the way conversations about biosecurity should be conducted: 'We need to be careful and responsible […] but it is equally important to be raising an awareness […]'.
Natasha Loder, the Economist's health editor, also spoke with Jha, and was particularly excited to have heard the presentation from Victoria Gray, the first patient to have been treated using CRISPR genome editing for sickle cell disease. Loder recalled that, at the First Summit, it was 'just a dream' to have patients able to give presentations about their experience.
Jha and Loder also reflected on the way COVID-19 may have inspired scientists to focus more heavily on issues of equity and equal access, with Loder stating, 'If you're a researcher in genetics and you think you've done the science to develop a cure, it isn't really a cure if people can't get it.' Knowing that the Third Summit had equity as a running theme, it was rather empowering to hear the issue of equal access asserted in such a straightforward manner. The episode ended with Loder suggesting that the next Summit might feature more research on the editing of sperm and egg cells, as well as epigenetic editing.
Overall, I'd say that this episode of Babbage was pretty solid, with a great range of interviewees, topics and a good balance of explanation and discussion. If you attended the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing, it's a great refresher for reflection, and if you didn't, it gives you a very well-rounded understanding of the event.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.