Rebrikov steadfastly quotes a line from Lenin about the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power in 1917: “Yesterday was early, tomorrow will be late. Power must be taken today.”38 Speaking of power, the Vorontsova connection raised the tantalizing idea that the Russian president could yet have a say. Putin has toured Rebrikov’s institute and publicly demonstrated his familiarity with CRISPR. During a televised town hall at the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi, Putin, unscripted, said:
Mankind has become capable of interfering with the genetic code created by nature or, according to religious people, created by God. What are the practical consequences of that? One can almost imagine that people will be able to create human beings with specific characteristics. This person could be a mathematical genius or a brilliant musician, but also be a soldier—an individual capable of fighting without fear or compassion, without mercy or even pain. You see, humanity can enter, and most likely will enter, in the near future, a very difficult period of its development and existence, a period demanding great responsibility. And what I have just described may be more terrifying than a nuclear bomb. Whenever we do something, and whatever it is that we do, we should never forget about the ethical and moral foundations behind our actions. Whatever we do should benefit people. Make them stronger, not destroy them.39
Putin is informed and apparently enamored by the possibility of conceiving a few more Tchaikovskys or Rachmaninovs in the next century, though the prospect of super soldiers would have more practical utility. And let’s face it, the bit about “ethical and moral foundations” was a nice touch.
Following JK’s disappearance and incarceration, the aftershocks continue to ripple through the scientific community. How should scientists respond? Should there be a worldwide ban or moratorium on germline editing research? And who would police the research community to ensure that no violations occurred? In March 2019, a group of eighteen leading scientists marshaled by Eric Lander called for a temporary global moratorium on germline editing research.40 The signatories included Zhang and Liu, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Keith Joung, bioethicist Françoise Baylis, and Nobel laureate Paul Berg. For Lander, it was his first major pronouncement on genome editing since his notorious “Heroes of CRISPR” review three years earlier.41
While there were some disagreements among Lander’s coauthors on the merits of heritable editing, there was agreement on the need for a temporary moratorium rather than a permanent ban. Under the proposal, nations kept the right to make their own decisions, but committed to suspend any use of clinical germline editing unless certain conditions are met. During the moratorium—Lander thought five years sounded about right—“no clinical uses of germline editing whatsoever are allowed.” After that, countries could set their own policies so long as they provided public notice of any germline editing plans; allowed debate of all the medical, technical, and ethical issues during a consultation period; and ensured societal consensus supporting the application.
Future decisions about germline editing should be made by a broad group of stakeholders, “not by scientists, physicians, hospitals or companies, nor the scientific or medical community acting as a whole.” And importantly, the moratorium would not hamper clinical research in somatic gene therapy. Lander didn’t think an international treaty was plausible: there is no genome editing Thunderbirds task force that can physically stop a rogue actor or government. On the other hand, it would “place major speed bumps in front of the most adventurous plans to re-engineer the human species.” The risks of turning a blind eye, potentially hurting patients and eroding public trust, were much worse.
Lander’s call was immediately seconded by Francis Collins, who said the community needed a period of reflection and “a substantive debate about benefits and risks that provides opportunities for multiple segments of the world’s diverse population to take part.”42 A month later, some sixty researchers and ethicists made a similar plea in a letter to the director of the Department of Health and Human Services. Human genetic manipulation should be unacceptable, they wrote, calling for “a binding global moratorium” until serious scientific, societal, and ethical concerns are addressed.43 The letter was cosigned by many gene therapy pioneers, including Jean Bennett, Jim Wilson, and Feng Zhang.
Conspicuously absent from joining the moratorium movement was Doudna, even though she’d been invited by Zhang to cosign Lander’s article. “This is effectively just rehashing what’s been going on for several years,” she said. “I don’t want to drive others underground with this [moratorium]. I would rather they feel that they can discuss it openly. Gene editing, it’s not gone, it’s not going away, it’s not going to end.”44 George Daley felt that a moratorium raised too many questions, including how long should it last? How is it enforced? And who decides when to rescind it?45 Church was less diplomatic. Without an enforcement mechanism, he said, “just calling for another moratorium is posturing.” Why not crank up the penalties for practicing medicine without FDA approval?46
Doudna addressed the issue again on the one-year anniversary of the CRISPR babies. Writing in Science, she reiterated that moratoria were not sufficiently strong countermeasures. “The temptation to tinker with the human germ line is not going away,” she said. Violators should face loss of funding and publication privileges. “Ensuring responsible use of genome editing will enable CRISPR technology to improve the well-being of millions of people and fulfill its revolutionary potential.”47
During remarks delivered at Harvard shortly after the commentary came out,48 Lander assailed the critics with a mixture of disdain and bemusement. His call for a temporary moratorium was “flamingly obvious because in effect we have a moratorium” right now. The definition of a moratorium is “temporary prohibition,” yet some commentators were “squeamish about even using the dictionary word.” Lander thought this was fascinating, as if invoking the M word had some magical talismanic properties.
To critics who said a moratorium might be hard to lift? “It lifts!” Lander insisted. For those who said using the M word would discourage people from entering the field? Lander wanted to get people’s attention, “otherwise people wouldn’t have read any further.” And for those who claimed his proposal would not have prevented the actions of a rogue actor like JK? Lander pleaded no contest. “It wouldn’t—that wasn’t the point of it!” Lander insisted. Criminal acts occur: people murder each other despite laws prohibiting it. The proposal was not about preventing the actions of certain individuals but about “what countries should choose to do.” JK’s actions were China’s responsibility. In the United States, it’s the government’s responsibility.II And to folks who might have reservations about the concept of international consultation such as “the Brits,” Lander exhaled: “Duh, that’s the point! If you don’t have the courage of your convictions after that consultation, then you shouldn’t be doing it.”
JK’s experiment was “utterly irresponsible,” a “complete screw up” that can happen when work is conducted in complete secrecy. And yet, members of the community knew his intentions and did nothing. “That’s not exactly what an upstander does, it’s a bystander.” Lander wished someone had called the press, but nobody did. “That’s really interesting and more disturbing maybe than that he did it.” Ultimately, Lander and colleagues felt a moratorium was the most prudent path forward. “I want our kids to be proud that we thought about this carefully,” he said.