Great minds think different: Preserving cognitive diversity in an age of gene editing

Unexplored power of CRISPR-Cas9 in neuroscience, a multi-OMICs review

The neuroscience and neurobiology of gene editing to enhance learning and memory is of paramount interest to the scientific community. The advancements of CRISPR system have created avenues to treat neurological disorders by means of versatile modalities varying from expression to suppression of genes and proteins. Neurodegenerative disorders have also been attributed to non-canonical DNA secondary structures by affecting neuron activity through controlling gene expression, nucleosome shape, transcription, translation, replication, and recombination. Changing DNA regulatory elements which could contribute to the fate and function of neurons are thoroughly discussed in this review. This study presents the ability of CRISPR system to boost learning power and memory, treat or cure genetically-based neurological disorders, and alleviate psychiatric diseases by altering the activity and the irritability of the neurons at the synaptic cleft through DNA manipulation, and also, epigenetic modifications using Cas9. We explore and examine how each different OMIC techniques can come useful when altering DNA sequences. Such insight into the underlying relationship between OMICs and cellular behaviors leads us to better neurological and psychiatric therapeutics by intelligently designing and utilizing the CRISPR/Cas9 technology.

Can 'eugenics' be defended?

In recent years, bioethical discourse around the topic of 'genetic enhancement' has become increasingly politicized. We fear there is too much focus on the semantic question of whether we should call particular practices and emerging bio-technologies such as CRISPR 'eugenics', rather than the more important question of how we should view them from the perspective of ethics and policy. Here, we address the question of whether 'eugenics' can be defended and how proponents and critics of enhancement should engage with each other.

Great minds think different: Preserving cognitive diversity in an age of gene editing

It is likely that gene editing technologies will become viable in the current century. As scientists uncover the genetic contribution to personality traits and cognitive styles, parents will face hard choices. Some of these choices will involve trade-offs from the standpoint of the individual's welfare, while others will involve trade-offs between what is best for each and what is good for all. Although we think we should generally defer to the informed choices of parents about what kinds of children to create, we argue that decisions to manipulate polygenic psychological traits will be much more ethically complicated than choosing Mendelian traits like blood type. We end by defending the principle of regulatory parsimony, which holds that when legislation is necessary to prevent serious harms, we should aim for simple rules that apply to all, rather than micro-managing parental choices that shape the traits of their children. While we focus on embryo selection and gene editing, our arguments apply to all powerful technologies which influence the development of children.

Screening Human Embryos for Polygenic Traits Has Limited Utility

The increasing proportion of variance in human complex traits explained by polygenic scores, along with progress in preimplantation genetic diagnosis, suggests the possibility of screening embryos for traits such as height or cognitive ability. However, the expected outcomes of embryo screening are unclear, which undermines discussion of associated ethical concerns. Here, we use theory, simulations, and real data to evaluate the potential gain of embryo screening, defined as the difference in trait value between the top-scoring embryo and the average embryo. The gain increases very slowly with the number of embryos but more rapidly with the variance explained by the score. Given current technology, the average gain due to screening would be ≈2.5 cm for height and ≈2.5 IQ points for cognitive ability. These mean values are accompanied by wide prediction intervals, and indeed, in large nuclear families, the majority of children top-scoring for height are not the tallest.