Genetic modification might
 seem like a recent development
but it has been around for ages.
Even 8000 years ago it was used to modify sweet potatoes.
Since then the possibilities have only increased.
In the United States 80% of food
 is already genetically modified.
But the applications are not limited to food
because human DNA can also be modified.
CRISPR was chosen as the most effective and simple method of genetic modification.
Clinical trials are already underway for the treatment of cancer with CRISPR.
But how does it work?
Revolutions are usually
 inspired by new ideas.
Just look at the invention of telecommunication in 1860.
Or the invention of the computer in 1945.
These technologies are still commonly used.
But nobody could have imagined how much they would be used.
Life was alright before these inventions, right?
But still we are currently very
 dependent on these technologies.
Similarly, in the medical and biomedical fields there have been many breakthroughs.
For example, it is currently possible to use in vitro fertilisation
-Better known as IVF
when a couple is infertile.
Ultrasound, magnetism and X-rays can be used to map the body to help with diagnosis.
It is also possible to zoom in to the atomic level with electron microscopy.
Most of these developments are celebrated.
However, some developments like the genetic modification of food
or the selection of embryos in IVF
people are uncomfortable about the possible consequences.
This is because these techniques can select or modify the genes of humans, animals or plants.
This can be done for good things like curing or preventing diseases.
But also for bad things
 like causing bad traits to be expressed.
People are focused more on the possible bad uses of this technology.
Even though this technique has been in use for thousands of years.
For example, by crossbreeding animals to select for good traits and looks
or by plant breeding to
 increase the yields of crops.
This is done done to promote the expression of beneficial traits in plants and animals
A new technique which has been in use for a couple of years is CRISPR.
CRISPR is the abbreviation of  
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.
CRISPR has a few advantages over other genetic modification techniques.
It is precise, cheap, fast and relatively easy to use.
CRISPR is part of the CRISPR-Cas9 complex
It is found bacteria.
Bacteria use it as a defense
 mechanism against viruses.
Viruses hunt bacteria and cause that their DNA become part of the bacteria.
This way viruses can use bacteria as a factory.
If a bacterium protects itself and survives
it will store a piece of that DNA and stores it in archive, namely CRISPR.
When that virus attacks again then the archive is given to a special protein.
Namely Cas9.
Cas9 searches the DNA of the bacterium which matches the archive exactly.
If it finds a complete match then Cas9 cuts that piece of DNA out, saving the bacterium.
Researches have found that this CRISPR-Cas9 complex is programmable.
This means that that DNA can be modified or researched in every organism imaginable.
With modified CRISPR it is possible to research the parts of DNA which have
an unknown function much more efficiently than ever before.
And this is accounts for a very large portion of all DNA, namely 90%.
Additionally, it can be used
to modify immune cells to target and destroy tumour cells more effectively.
In fields where researchers have
 been working for years with
genetic modification, CRISPR can be revolutionary too.
This is because it can be used to target genes that cause unwanted traits.
Of course many more
 applications will be thought of.
Like gene modification of embryos.
-Initially, to target disease and disability.
And maybe at a late stage
 as an upgrade tool for humans.
But, possibly it can even be used to extend the lifespans of people
by targeting the genetic changes caused by aging.
Now that we know how CRISPR works we're of course curious how it can be used.
Will it be used on food, animals or even humans.
Where do we draw the line?
When talking about CRISPR, instead of making it seem like a monster
we should take a look at
 the scientists working on it.
What do they want?
 What are they trying to achieve?
CRISPR-Cas has an
 unimaginable number of applications.
As a research method...
Yeah, the sky is the limit.
There are religious people that have problems with it
but those arguments aren't based on religion
they're based on their own
 economic self-interest.
It is important to remember when applying new techniques...
I could imagine that we as a society could decide to say that we could be going to far.
We won't do this.
In medical ethics it's
impossible for me to decide what we can and cannot do at this moment.
It really depends on what society wants.
A politician never goes...
The politician only can do as much the electorate wants them to do.
So there's a lot of unknowns about CRISPR.
How should we approach it?
To learn more we spoke with an ethicist
who can explain the ethical considerations surrounding CRISPR.
There is a very famous novel called Frankenstein.
The novel is not so much about the monster,
it's about Dr. Frankenstein.
When we're talking about technologies like CRISPR
then we have to focus on the researchers and the society working on it.
When you read Mary Shelley's novel...
At least what struck me was the loneliness of the monster
when he is abandoned by his creator.
Which leads to him acting out.
When talking about CRISPR, instead of making it seem like a monster
we should take a look at
 the researchers working on it.
What do they want?
 What are they trying to achieve?
I think initially it can only be used by a very select number of people.
I can't really find myself in the premise:
'Well if people can pay for it
 then they should just do it.'
Disappointingly, in our world,
thanks to certain economic systems, it is reality on a regular basis.
If you spend enough money
everything is possible.
But I think that we, as a society, are responsible to make sure that these technologies
are only used to improve the lives of those who have a disability.
That's where this technology should be used.
Citizens should start thinking about what kind of society they want.
A question that comes up regularly:
'Do we want a society with perfect humans?'
I personally would say that
 this would be very boring.
Diversity is beautiful.
And I don't think it is possible for us to create a perfect society.
Other than asking ourselves in what kind of society we want to live
it is also important to look at the scientists.
How far are we? and 
What do the scientists wish to achieve?
I'm Marianne Rots and I'm the Professor of Epigenetics at the UMCG.
CRISPR-Cas has an
 unimaginable number of applications.
As a research method...
Yeah, the sky is the limit.
Diseases which don't have any cure or
 treatment can now be treated at the source.
I'm so enthusiastic because theoretically there's so much possible now.
But we have to be careful that we don't give the wrong image about
how practical it is and what the timeline is before it can be used in the clinic.
That's because those things
 are very hard to predict.
One of the things I'm worried about personally is that it is very cheap.
You can just order it online
and DNA sequences are easily found on the internet.
There are people in the US
 and probably here too who just order it
and start experimenting in their garage.
That way an innocent little weed can undergo a gigantic transformation
which gives it an advantage that prevents us from destroying it.
That is a very scary thought. 
It would make a great film.
With the problem that it could fall in the wrong hands
or if it is used for the wrong goals.
Then CRISPR as a technique could get on a slipery slope of very unethical situations.
Everybody who wants to,
 can use CRISPR.
But scientists can't just do what they want
they are regulated by politics.
So, the next step is to find out what someone in politics think about it.
I would not say that
CRISPR is not a very heavily-discussed subject in politics right now.
This attention immediately comes when
it is part of a law, an experiment
 or financing of research.
In medical ethics it's
impossible for me to decide what we can and cannot do at this moment.
It really depends on what society wants.
A politician never goes...
The politician only can do as much the electorate wants them to do.
If something is possible and
 if we think it should be used
then I think everybody should be able to use it.
You don't have to use this technology.
You can use this technology.
In the Netherlands we have a democracy where the majority decides the direction of the country
and if you can do that in a way that minorities still feel enfranchised
then I think we're on the right track.
So that means that there always should be the opportunity to not use such a technology.
And they should not have to explain themselves
they should not even have the feeling that they should explain themselves.
Even if CRISPR is accessible for all it should not mean that they have to use it.
You could choose because of, for example religion, not to use it.
We are curious what a priest thinks about all this.
I am Pater Elias.
I am a brother of the Community of St. John and I work as program director at Radio Maria.
I know that the scientists
 that work with the Church
approached genetic modification from the point of view of vegetables...
There might be economic concerns or social concerns but there are no religious concerns.
We are of course working on genetic modification for years...
And I'm saying modification because manipulation sounds very negative
you've basically already decided.
There are religious people that have problems with it
but those arguments aren't based on religion they're based on their own economic self-interest.
The line we can't cross is of course...
If it's used to prevent disease or suffering then of course it should be used.
The line is if there are victims.
So if you have to kill to develop your technique
or to perfect your technique.
That's the first point.
If you do that then you get scenarios like the concentration camps.
That's the first one, very important.
The other one might be a bit more subtle.
If you have a certain ideal about humanity and want to actuate that.
For example, like some kind of alien
to make an invincible fighting machine.
Then there lacks a moral justification for the genetic modification of a human.
You're basically creating people with an immortal soul, with a consciousness and free will
who know that they haven't been accepted by other people but have been made by them.
And if a human becomes a product then
they get a completely different view on life, existence and the universe.
A product has to prove themselves.
I think a Catholic
wants to not have cancer
 as much as the perfect heathen.
Of course we want that.
Humanity seems to completely dominate matter
and could play God in a world where they don't have to think about the immaterial world.
That's the same for the atom bomb
and nuclear energy, both very tempting.
It makes us feel very powerful.
And we have to cope with that somehow, and in that we don't differ from our ancestors.
But, for sure it can be used for good.
I look with great fascination at pictures from Mars
but I don't get the people who want to live there.
We now know that CRISPR creates a lot of opportunities.
And we know that we will probably come into a lot of contact with CRISPR.
But what does somebody who works with genetic modification think about it?
The oldest IVF child is only
I think something like 40.
So we know very little about
 the long term effects of IVF.
Genetic manipulation in food has very clear advantages.
It's a bit arbitrary to say that we're not allowed to 'because we're changing genetic code'.
Since the early days of plant breeding we have been doing that all long.
These things are principally not that different.
It is important to remember when applying new techniques...
I could imagine that we as a society could decide to say that we could be going to far.
We won't do this.
But I personally would draw the line at manipulating characteristics
that are unrelated to disease.
But I realise that this is very personal
for others there might be arguments
 that it should be used.
But I think that that is going one step too far.
The slippery slope of 'if it's possible
that it can be misused,
 so we should not look into it.'
I don't think that's a good idea.
I think you should use it for those things which 
everybody can agree on that it should be used for.
And if it is safe, then you should just do it.
All other things should be regulated.
As the ethicist and politician said, it is important to consider what kind of society we want.
That's why personal opinions about CRISPR are very imporant.
Would you use CRISPR?
Would you use it on one of your children?
What does an expecting mother think?
I'm Madison and I'm 24 years old.
I'm studying physical therapy and work in a children's clothing store.
And I'm 24 weeks pregnant.
If something was wrong what would you have thought about it?
Depends on what.
If we're talking spina bifida
then it depends on how bad it is and what could be done about it.
If it had been a very serious physical disability we would have decided against continuing the pregnancy.
You just talked about the scenario that if there was a serious physical disability
and if there's no way to solve it.
What if there was a way to solve it?
I really don't know.
I really hadn't thought about it.
Maybe I would have thought about it if there was a genetic disorder in the family
which you really wouldn't want your child to have.
Then I can imagine wanting to manipulate that.
But for now, I don't know if I would have done that. I actually don't think so.
It might sound weird but if there's something wrong with the child I think I would just accept it.
I wouldn't do it myself, but I do understand if others want to do it.
I think it might be a big procedure which carries a lot of risks.
I don't know if I would do it.
Now we're interested in your opinion.
After seeing the documentary you might have some ideas about CRISPR.
So we're inviting you to share your opinions.
