Category Archives: Technology

Editing the Human Germline: Groundbreaking Science and Mind-numbing Sentiment.

by Kenneth W. Krause.

Kenneth W. Krause is a contributing editor and “Science Watch” columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer.  Formerly a contributing editor and books columnist for the Humanist, Kenneth contributes frequently to Skeptic as well. He can be contracted at

The CRISPR Complex at work.

Should biologists use new gene-editing technology to modify or “correct” the human germline? Will our methods soon prove sufficiently safe and efficient and, if so, for what purposes?  Much-celebrated CRISPR pioneer, Jennifer Doudna, recently recalled her initial trepidations over that very prospect:

Humans had never before had a tool like CRISPR, and it had the potential to turn not only living people’s genomes but also all future genomes into a collective palimpsest upon which any bit of genetic code could be erased and overwritten depending on the whims of the generation doing the writing…. Somebody was inevitably going to use CRISPR in a human embryo … and it might well change the course of our species’ history in the long run, in ways that were impossible to foretell.

(Doudna and Sternberg 2017). And it didn’t take long.  Just one month after Doudna and others called for a moratorium on human germline editing in the clinical setting, scientists in Junjiu Huang’s lab at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China published a paper describing their exclusively in vitro use of CRISPR on eighty-six human embryos (Liang et al. 2015).  Huang’s goal was to edit mutated beta-globin genes that would otherwise trigger a debilitating blood disorder called beta-thalassemia.

But the outcomes were mixed, at best.  After injecting each embryo with a CRISPR complex composed of a guide RNA molecule, a gene-slicing Cas-9 enzyme, a synthetic repair DNA template, and a “glow-in-the-dark” jellyfish gene that allows investigators to track their results as cells continue to divide, Huang’s team delivered a paltry five percent efficiency rate.  Some embryos displayed unintended, “off-target” editing.  In others, cells ignored the repair template and used the related delta-globin gene as a model instead.  A third group of embryos turned mosaic, containing cells with an untidy jumble of editions.  Part of the problem was that CRISPR had initiated only after the fertilized egg had begun to divide.

By using non-viable triploid embryos containing three sets of chromosomes, instead of the usual two, Huang avoided objections that he had destroyed potential human lives.  Nevertheless, both Science and Nature rejected his manuscript based in part on ethical concerns.  Several scientific agencies also promptly reemphasized their stances against human germline modification in viable embryos, and, in the US, the Obama Administration announced its position that the human germline should not be altered at that time for clinical purposes.  Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, emphasized that the US government would not fund any experiments involving the editing of human embryos.  And finally, earlier this year, a committee of the US National Academies of Sciences and Medicine decreed that clinical use of germline editing would be allowed only when prospective parents had no other opportunities to birth healthy children.

Meanwhile, experimentation continued in China, with similarly grim results. But this past August, an international team based in the US—this time led by embryologist Shoukhrat Mitalipov at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland—demonstrated that, under certain circumstances, genetic defects in human embryos can, in fact, be efficiently and safely repaired (Ma et al. 2017).

Embyologist Shoukhrat Mitalipov.

Mitalipov’s group attempted to correct an autosomal dominant mutation—where a single copy of a mutated gene results in disease symptoms—of the MYBPC3 gene.  Crucially, such mutations are responsible for an estimated forty percent of all genetic defects causing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), along with ample portions of other inherited cardiomyopathies.  Afflicting one in every 500 adults, HCM cannot be cured, and remains the most common cause of heart failure and sudden death among otherwise healthy young athletes.  These mutations have escaped the pressures of natural selection, unfortunately, due to the disorder’s typically late onset—that is, following reproductive maturity.

Prospective parents can, however, prevent HCM in their children during the in vitro fertilization/preimplantation genetic diagnosis (IVF/PGD) process.  Where only one parent carries a heterozygous mutation, fifty percent of the resulting embryos can be diagnosed as healthy contenders for implantation.  The remaining unhealthy fifty percent will be discarded.  As such, correction of mutated MYBPC3 alleles would not only rescue the latter group of embryos, but improve pregnancy rates and save prospective mothers—especially older women with high aneuploidy rates and fewer viable eggs—from risks associated with increasing numbers of IVF/PGD cycles as well

With these critical facts in mind, Mitalipov and colleagues employed a CRISPR complex generally similar to that used by Huang.  It included a guide RNA sequence, a Cas-9 endonuclease, and a synthetic repair template.  In one phase of their investigation, the team fertilized fifty-four human oocytes (from twelve healthy donors) with unhealthy sperm carrying the MYBPC3 mutation (from a single donor), and injected the resulting embryos eighteen hours later with the CRISPR complex.  The result? Thirteen treated embryos became jumbled mosaics.

Mitalipov changed things up considerably, however, in the study’s second phase by delivering the complex much earlier than he and others had done in previous experiments—indeed, at the very brink fertilization. More precisely, his colleagues injected the CRISPR components along with the mutated sperm cells into fifty-eight healthy, “wild-type” oocytes during metaphase of the second meiotic division.  Here, the results were impressive, to say the least.  Forty-two treated embryos were normalized, carrying two copies of the healthy MYBPC3 allele—a seventy-two percent rate of efficiency, no “off-target effects” were detected, and only one embryo turned mosaic.

Mosaicism and Off-target Effects.

Mitalipov’s team achieved a genuine breakthrough in terms of both efficacy and safety.  Perhaps nearly as interesting—and, in fact, the study’s primary finding, according to the authors—is that, in both experimental phases, the embryos consistently ignored Mitalipov’s synthetic repair template and turned instead to the healthy maternal allele as their model.  Such is not the case when CRISPR is used to edit somatic (body) cells, for example.  Apparently, the team surmised, human embryos evolved an alternative, germline-specific DNA repair mechanism, perhaps to afford the germline special protection.

The clinical implications of this repair preference are profound and, at least arguably, very unfortunate.  First, with present methods, it now appears unlikely that scientists could engineer so-called “designer babies” endowed with trait enhancements.  Second, it seems nearly as doubtful that CRISPR can be used to repair homozygous disease mutations where both alleles are mutant.  Nevertheless, Mitalipov’s method could be applied to more than 10,000 diseases, including breast and ovarian cancers linked to BRCA gene mutations, Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, and even some cases of early-onset Alzheimer’s.

At least in theory.  As of this writing, Mitalipov’s results have yet to be replicated, and even he warns that, despite the new safety assurances and the remarkable targeting efficiencies furnished by his most recent work, gene-editing techniques must be “further optimized before clinical application of germline correction can be considered.” According to stem-cell biologist George Daley of Boston Children’s Hospital, Mitalipov’s experiments have proven that CRISPR is “likely to be operative,” but “still very premature” (Ledford 2017).  And while Doudna characterized the results as “one giant leap for (hu)mankind,” she also expressed discomfort with the new research’s unmistakable inclination toward clinical applications (Belluck 2017).

Indeed, within a single day of Mitalipov’s report, eleven scientific and medical organizations, including the American Society of Human Genetics, published a position statement outlining their recommendations regarding the human germline (Ormond et al. 2017).  Therein, the authors appeared to encourage not only in vitro research but public funding as well.  Although they advised against any contemporary gene-editing process intended to culminate in human pregnancy, but also suggested that clinical applications might proceed in the future subject to a compelling medical rationale, a sufficient evidence base, an ethical justification, and a transparent and public process to solicit input.

And of course researchers like Mitalipov will be forced to contend with those who claim that, regardless of purpose, the creation and destruction of human embryos is always ethically akin to murder (Mitalipov destroyed his embryos within days of their creation).  But others have lately expressed even less forward-thinking and, frankly, even more irrational and dangerous sentiments.

For example, a thoroughly galling article I can describe further only as “pro-disability” (In stark contrast to “pro-disabled”) was recently published, surprisingly to me, in one of the world’s most prestigious science publications (Hayden 2017).  It begins by describing a basketball game in which a nine-year-old girl, legally blind due to genetic albinism, scored not only the winning basket, but, evidently—through sheer determination—all of her team’s points.  Odd, perhaps, but great!  So far.

But the story quickly turns sour, to the girl’s father who apparently had asked the child, first, whether she wished she would have been born with normal sight, and, second (excruciatingly), whether she would ever help her own children achieve normal sight through genetic correction. Unsurprisingly, the nine-year-old is said to have echoed what we then learn to be her father’s heartfelt but nonetheless bizarre conviction: “Changing her disability … would have made us and her different in a way we would have regretted,” which to him, would be “scary.”

To be fair, the article very briefly appends counsel from a man with Huntington’s, for instance, who suggests that “[a]nyone who has to actually face the reality … is not going to have a remote compunction about thinking there is any moral issue at all.”  But the narrative quickly circles back to a linguist, for example, who describes deaf parents who deny both their and their children’s disabilities and have even selected for deafness in their children through IVF/PGD, and a literary scholar who believes that disabilities have brought people closer together to create a more inclusive world (much as some claim Western terrorism has).  The author then laments the fact that, due to modern reproductive technology, fewer children are being born with Down’s syndrome.

To summarize, according to one disabilities historian, “There are some good things that come from having a genetic illness.”  Uh-huh.  In other words, disabilities are actually beneficial because they provide people with challenges to overcome—as if relatively healthy people are incapable of voluntarily and thoughtfully designing both mental and physical challenges for themselves and their kids.

I think not. Disabilities, by definition, are bad.  And, as even a minimally compassionate people, if we possess a safe and efficient technological means of preventing blindness, deafness, or any other debilitating disease in any child or in any child’s progeny, we also necessarily have an urgent ethical obligation to use them.



Belluck, P. 2017. In breakthrough, scientists edit a dangerous mutation from genes in human embryos. Available online at; accessed August 9, 2017.

Doudna, J.A., and S.H. Sternberg. 2017. A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hayden, E.C. 2017. Tomorrow’s children. Nature 530:402-05.

Ledford, H. 2017. CRISPR fixes embryo error. Science 548:13-14.

Liang, P., Y. Xu, X. Zhang, et al. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein and Cell 6(5):363-72.

Ma, H., N. Marti-Gutierrez, S. Park, et al. 2017. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature DOI:10.1038/nature23305.

Ormond, K.E., D.P. Mortlock, D.T. Scholes, et al. 2017. Human germline genome editing. The American Journal of Human Genetics 101:167-76.


CRISPR-Cas9: Not Just Another Scientific Revolution (Special Report).

by Kenneth W. Krause.

Kenneth W. Krause is a contributing editor and “Science Watch” columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer.  Formerly a contributing editor and books columnist for the Humanist, he writes regularly for Skeptic magazine as well.  He may be contacted at

Poised to transform the world as we know it, a new gene-editing system has bioethicists wringing their hands, physicians champing at the bit, and researchers dueling with demons.


Is it possible to overstate the potential of a new technology that efficiently and cheaply permits deliberate, specific, and multiple genomic modifications to almost anything biological? What if that technology was also capable of altering untold future generations of nearly any given species—including the one responsible for creating it?  And what if it could be used, for better or worse, to rapidly exterminate entire species?

Certain experts have no intention of veiling their enthusiasm, or their unease. Consider, for example, biologist David Baltimore, who recently chaired an international summit dedicated primarily to the technology’s much-disputed ethical implications.  “The unthinkable has become conceivable,” he warned his audience in early December.  Powerful new gene-editing techniques, he added, have placed us “on the cusp of a new era in human history.”

If so, it might seem somewhat anticlimactic to note that Science magazine has dubbed this technology its “Breakthrough of the Year” for 2015, or that its primary developers are widely considered shoo-ins for a Nobel Prize—in addition, that is, to the US$3 million Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences already earned by two such researchers.  All of which might sound trifling compared to the billions up for grabs following imminent resolution of a now-vicious patent dispute.

Although no gene-editing tool has ever inspired so much drama, the new technology’s promise as a practical remedy for a host of dreadful diseases, including cancer, remains foremost in researchers’ minds. Eager to move beyond in vitro and animal model applications to the clinical setting, geneticists across the globe are quickly developing improved molecular components and methods to increase the technology’s accuracy.  In case you haven’t heard, a truly profound scientific insurrection is well underway.

Adapting CRISPR-Cas9.

Think about a film strip. You see a particular segment of the film that you want to replace.  And if you had a film splicer, you would go in and literally cut it out and piece it back together—maybe with a new clip.  Imagine being able to do that in the genetic code, the code of life.—biochemist Jennifer Doudna (CBS News 2015).

Genetic manipulation is nothing new, of course. Classic gene therapy, for example, typically employs a vector, often a virus, to somewhat haphazardly deliver a healthy allele somewhere in the patient’s genome, hopefully to perform its desired function wherever it settles.  Alternatively, RNA interference selects specific messenger RNA molecules for destruction, thus changing the way one’s DNA is transcribed.  Interference occurs, however, only so long as the damaging agent remains within the cell.

Contemporary editing techniques, on the other hand, allow biologists to actually alter DNA—the “code of life,” as Doudna suggests—and to do so with specific target sequences in mind.  The three major techniques have much in common.  Each involves an enzyme called a programmable nuclease, for example, which is guided to a particular nucleotide sequence to cleave it.

Then, in each case, the cell’s machinery quickly repairs the double-stranded break in one of two ways. Non-homologous end joining for gene “knock out” results when reconstruction, usually involving small, random nucleotide deletions or insertions, is performed only by the cell.  Here, the gene’s function is typically undermined.  By contrast, homology-directed repair for gene “knock in” occurs when the cell copies a researcher’s DNA repair template delivered along with the nuclease.  In this case, the cleaved gene can be corrected or a new gene or genes can be inserted (Corbyn 2015).

But in other ways, the three editing techniques are very distinct. Developed in the late 1990s and first used in human cells in 2005, zinc-finger nucleases (ZFN) attach cutting domains derived from the prokaryote Flavobacterium okeanokoites to proteins called zinc fingers that can be customized to recognize certain three-base-pair DNA codes.  Devised in 2010, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) fuse the same cutting domains to different proteins called TAL effectors.  For both ZFN and TALENs, two cutting domains are necessary to cleave double-stranded DNA (Maxmen 2015).

The third and most revolutionary editing technique, and subject of this paper, consists of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and a CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease (Cas9). Introduced as an exceptionally precise editing technique in 2012 by Doudna at the University of California, Berkeley, and microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin, CRISPR-Cas9 is actually the bacterium Streptococcus pyogenes’ adaptive immune system that confers resistance to foreign elements, like phages and plasmids.


CRISPR thus refers to short bits of DNA seized from invading viruses and stored in the bacterium’s own genome for future reference, and Cas9 is the enzyme S. pyogenes uses to cleave a subsequent invader’s double helix.  In other words, in its native setting, CRISPR-Cas9 is the system a certain bacterium uses to recognize and disable common biological threats.  Unlike ZFN and TALENs, CRISPR-Cas9 does not rely on the F. okeanoites cutting domain and, as such, can cleave both strands of an interloper’s double helix simultaneously with a single Cas9 enzyme.

But what makes the CRISPR system so special, in part, and so adaptable to the important task of gene-editing, is its relative simplicity. Only three components are required to achieve site-specific DNA recognition and cleavage.  Both a CRISPR RNA (crRNA) and a trans-activating crRNA (tracrRNA) are needed to guide the Cas9 enzyme to its target sequence.  What Doudna and Charpentier revealed six years ago, however, were the seminal facts that an even simpler, two-component system could be developed by combining the crRNA and tracrRNA into a synthetic single guide RNA (sgRNA), and that researchers could readily modify a sgRNA’s code to redirect the Cas9 enzyme to almost any preferred sequence (Jinek et al. 2012).  Today, a biologist wanting to edit a specific sequence in an organism’s genome can quickly and cheaply design a sgRNA to match that sequence, order it from a competitive manufacturer for US$65 or less, and have it delivered in the mail (Petherick 2015).

None of which is to suggest that a CRISPR system is always the best tool for the gene-editing job, at least not yet. Critically, CRISPR-Cas9 is relatively easy to program and remains the only technique allowing researchers to “multiplex,” or edit several genomic sites simultaneously.  But TALENs have the longest DNA recognition domains and, thus, tend so far to result in the fewest “off-target effects,” which occur when nucleotide sequences identical or similar to the target are cut unintentionally.  And ZFNs are much smaller than either TALENs or CRISPR-Cas9, especially the most popular version derived from S. pyogenes, and are therefore more likely to fit into the tight confines of an adeno-associated virus (AAV)—currently the most promising vector for the delivery of gene-editing therapies.

Even so, CRISPR research continues to progress at breakneck speed. In 2014, the number of gene-editing kits ordered from Addgene, a supplier based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for research using ZFN and TALENs totaled less than 1000 and less than 2000, respectively.  During that same year—only two years after the new technology was introduced, the number of kits ordered for CRISPR research totaled almost 20,000 (Corbyn 2015).  More importantly, rapidly increasing orders seem to have translated into significant results.  As 2015 ended and a new year began, new studies announcing the creation of smaller guide RNAs and, especially, the reduction of off-target effects began to dominate science headlines.

Building a Better Mousetrap.

At some point everyone needs to decide how specific is specific enough. The idea that you would make a tool that has absolutely no off-target effects is a little too utopian.—bioengineer Charles Gersbach (Ledford 2016).

It’s cheap, easy to use, and remarkably efficient, but CRISPR-Cas9 is not perfect. In early experiments, in fact, pathologist Keith Joung at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discovered that his enzymes were cutting unintended as often as targeted sequences (Servick 2016).  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to announce requirements for clinical use of the new technology.  But to help future clinicians safely repair defective, disease-causing genes, for example, researchers are exploring various means of reducing off-target effects that could harm patients in any number of ways, including through uncontrolled cellular growth and cancer.

A CRISPR-Cas9 system “licenses” a DNA sequence for cleavage through a two-stage recognition process (Bolukbasi et al. 2016). Even the most basic details are somewhat technical, of course, but very illuminating.  First, a Cas9-sgRNA complex will attach and remain attached to a DNA sequence only if an appropriate protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) is nearby.  PAM sequences are very short, often only a few base-pairs long.  In the case of an S. pyogenes Cas9, an NGG PAM is much-preferred, but NAG and NGA PAMs are sometimes inefficiently recognized (“N” represents any nucleobase followed by two guanine, or “G” nucleobases).


Second, and only if an appropriate PAM is recognized, the sgRNA will interrogate the neighboring DNA sequence through Watson-Crick base pairing in a 3′-to-5′ direction. For an S. pyogenes Cas9, the guide sequence will measure twenty nucleotides long.  If the 3′ end of the programmed guide sequence is complementary to the DNA sequence near the PAM element, “R-loop” formation is initiated.  In zipper-like fashion, further complementarity of the DNA is assessed through extension of the R-loop.  If a complete target sequence is confirmed, allosteric activation of the Cas9 enzyme—actually, activation of Cas9’s two nuclease domains, RuvC and HNH—will result in dual cleavage and, accordingly, a complete double-stranded break in the target sequence.

Unsurprisingly, then, the specificity of a CRISPR-Cas9 system is determined in two ways. In large part, off-target effects are managed through careful design of the sgRNA.  Ideally, the guide sequence would match the target sequence perfectly, and show no homology elsewhere in the genome.  More realistically, however, at least partial homology will often occur at other genomic sites where, unfortunately, off-target cleavage could ensue.  Researchers have developed algorithms that help predict sufficient homology, but have yet to clearly and comprehensively define how closely guide and DNA sequences must harmonize before licensing occurs.  Nevertheless, nuclease activity has been observed at off-target sites displaying up to four or five nucleotide mismatches.

So, careful design of the sgRNA is critical. But one team of researchers, including Joung, recently confirmed that truncating the guide sequence can also help (Fu et al. 2014).  Shortening their guides to as few as seventeen nucleotides, instead of the usual twenty, Joung’s group was able to not only decrease nuclease activity at many off-target sites, but to preserve nearly thorough activity at the majority of intended sites as well.

Other groups have achieved similar success by inactivating one of the two nuclease domains, thus creating a “nickase” that cleaves only one strand of the target sequence (Ran et al. 2013). Here, a double-stranded break can still be achieved by joining two Cas9 nickases with two different sgRNAs targeting adjacent sites on opposing DNA strands.  Importantly, the obligatory use of two active nickases decreases the likelihood of off-target cleavage.

Perhaps the latest and most significant progress in this area, however, has been achieved through modification of the unaltered, or “wild-type,” Cas9 nuclease. Last December, for example, synthetic biologist Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University announced that he and his colleagues had engineered the Cas9 to render it less likely to act at genomic sites presenting mismatches between RNA guides and DNA targets (Slaymaker et al. 2015).  Appropriately, Zhang dubbed his new enzyme an “enhanced specificity” S. pyogenes Cas9, or eSpCas9 for short.

Feng Zhang

Feng Zhang

Knowing that negatively charged DNA binds to a positively charged groove in the Cas9 enzyme, Zhang’s team predicted that by replacing only a few among the 1400 or so positively charged amino acids with neutral equivalents they could temper the wild-type Cas9’s enthusiasm for binding to and cutting off-target sites. They created and tested several new versions of enzyme that reportedly reduced unintended activity at least tenfold, while maintaining robust on-target cleavage.

Earlier this year, however, Joung and colleagues claimed to have bested Zhang’s results by bringing “off-target-effects to levels where we can no longer detect them, even with the most sensitive methods” (McGreevey 2016). Like Zhang, Joung focused on points of interaction between Cas9 and DNA sequences.  His team created fifteen new enzyme variants by replacing up to four long amino acid side-chains that bind to DNA with shorter chains that do not (Kleinstiver et al. 2016).

Joung then tested each of his Cas9 variants in human cells, and found that one three-substitution and one four-substitution version rejected mismatched sites while maintaining full on-target activity. The latter variant, subsequently named SpCas9-HF1—“HF” denoting “high-fidelity,” induced targeted activity as reliably as a wild-type Cas9 when deployed with eighty-five percent of the thirty-seven different guide RNAs tested.  Similarly, SpCas9-HF1 generated no detectable off-target mutations with six of seven guide RNAs (and only one mutation with the seventh) compared to twenty-five such effects produced by the wild-type Cas9.

Keith Joung

Keith Joung

Joung’s group also tested their hi-fi creations at less typical genomic locations that are particularly difficult to control for off-target effects due to the inclusion of repeat sequences. But even there, his supplemental variants, since designated HF2, HF3, and HF4, appeared to eliminate off-target activity that tended to persist following use of the HF1 version.

It’s too early to judge which of these innovations will prove most valuable or, in fact, whether all of them will soon be superseded by modifications or entirely different systems yet to be introduced. But much progress has already been made and, importantly, at this point, many of the foregoing strategies and designs can be used in concert to bring us closer yet to the day when CRISPR gene-editing becomes a clinical convention.

Breaking Barriers.

This is now the most powerful system we have in biology. Any biological process we care about now, we can get the comprehensive set of genes that underlie that process. That was just not possible before.—biochemist David Sabatini (Yong 2015).

CRISPR-Cas9, of course, is only one among many prokaryotic CRISPR systems that could, at some point, prove useful for any number of human purposes. Use of Cas9 variations, however, has already resulted in successes far too numerous to review liberally here.  Even so, two recent applications in particular reveal the extraordinary, yet strikingly simple, means by which researchers have achieved previously unattainable outcomes.

In the first, three different teams confronted Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a terrifying disease that affects about one in every 3500 boys in the U.S. alone (Long et al. 2015, Nelson et al. 2015, and Tabebordbar et al. 2015). DMD typically stems from defects in a gene containing seventy-nine protein-coding exons.  If even a single exon suffers a debilitating mutation, the gene can be rendered incapable of producing dystrophin, a vital protein that protects muscle fibers.  Absent sufficient dystrophin, both skeletal and heart muscle will deteriorate.  Patients usually end up confined to wheelchairs and dead before the age of thirty.


Traditional gene therapy, stem cell treatments, and drugs have proven mostly ineffective against DMD. Scientists have corrected diseased cells in vitro, or in a single organ—the liver.  But treating muscle cells throughout the body, including the heart, is a far more daunting task, because they can’t all be removed, treated in isolation, and then replaced.  And given current ethical concerns, most researchers are prohibited from even considering the possibility of editing human embryos for clinical purposes.

As such, researchers here decided to employ CRISPR-Cas9 technology to excise faulty dystrophin gene exons in both adult and neonatal mice by delivering it directly into their muscles and bloodstreams using non-pathogenic adeno-associated viruses. AAVs, however, are too small to accommodate the relatively large S. pyogenes Cas9, so each team opted instead to deploy a more petite Cas9 enzyme found in Staphylococcus aureus.

Neither group’s interventions resulted in complete cures. But dystrophin production and muscle strength was restored, and little evidence of off-target effects was observed, in treated mice.  One lead researcher later suggested that, although clinical trials could be years away, up to eighty percent of human DMD victims could benefit from defective exon removal (Kaiser 2015).

Remarkably, each of the three teams obtained results comparable to those of the others. Perhaps most impressively, however, these experiments marked the very first instances of using CRISPR to successfully treat genetic disorders in fully-developed living mammals.

But an ever-growing population needs to protect its agricultural products too. Plant DNA viruses, for example, can cause devastating crop damage and economic crises worldwide, but especially in underdeveloped regions including sub-Saharan Africa.  More specifically, the tomato yellow leaf curl virus (tomato virus) is known to ravage a variety of tomato breeds, causing stunted growth, abnormal leaf development, and fruit death.


Like DMD, the tomato virus has proven an especially intractable problem. Despite previous efforts to control it through breeding, insecticides targeting the vector, and other engineering techniques, we currently know of no effective means of managing the virus.  Undeterred, another group of biologists decided to give CRISPR-Cas9-mediated viral interference a try (Ali et al. 2015).

In this study, the investigators chose to manipulate a species of tobacco plant, well-understood as a model organism, which is similarly vulnerable to tomato virus infection. The experiment was completed in two fairly predictable stages.  First, the group designed sgRNAs to target certain tomato virus coding and non-coding sequences and inserted them into different, harmless viruses of the tobacco rattle variety.  Second, they delivered the newly loaded rattle viruses into their tobacco plants.  After seven days, the plants were exposed to the tomato virus and, after ten more days, they were analyzed for symptoms of infection.

The group agreed that the CRISPR-Cas9 system had reliably cleaved and introduced mutations to the tomato viruses’ genomes. Fortuitously, every plant expressing the system had either abolished or significantly attenuated all symptoms of infection.  The investigators concluded further that the technique was capable of simultaneously targeting multiple DNA viruses with a lone sgRNA, and that other transformable plant species, including tomatoes, of course, would be similarly affected.

One can only guess, at this point, how certain interests might receive these and other types of genome-edited crops. Will nations eventually classify them as GMO or, alternatively, as organisms capable of developing in nature?  Will applicable regulations focus on the processes or products of modification?  Regardless, one can hardly ignore these commodities’ potential windfalls, especially for those in dire need.

Given recent innovations in specificity, for example, CRISPR-based disease research will likely continue to advance quickly toward clinical and other more practical applications. So long as it affects only non-reproductive somatic cells, such interventions should remain largely uncontroversial.  Human gametes and embryos, on the other hand, have once again inspired abundant debate and bitter division among experts.

Moralizing Over Science.

Genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable.—Edward Lanphier et al. (2015).

To intentionally refrain from engaging in life-saving research is to be morally responsible for the foreseeable, avoidable deaths of those who could have benefitted.—bioethicist Julian Savulescu et al. (2015).

The results of the first and, so far, last attempt to edit human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 was published by a team of Chinese scientists on April 18 of last year (Liang et al. 2015). Led by Junjiu Huang, the group chose to experiment on donated tripronuclear zygotes—non-viable early embryos containing one egg and two sperm nuclei—neither intended nor suitable for clinical use.  Their goal was to successfully edit endogenous β-globin genes that, when mutated, can cause a fatal blood disorder known as β-thalassemia.

Junjiu Huang

Junjiu Huang

By his own admission, Huang’s outcomes were less than spectacular. Eighty-six embryos were injected with the Cas9 system and a molecular template designed to affect the insertion of new DNA.  Of the seventy-one that survived, fifty-four embryos were tested.  A mere twenty-eight were successfully spliced and, of those, only four exhibited the desired additions.  Rates of off-target mutations were much higher than expected too, and the group would likely have discovered additional unintended cuts had they examined more than the protein-coding exome, which represents less than two percent of the entire human genome.

In all fairness, however, the embryos’ abnormality might have been responsible for much of the total off-target effect. And, of course, Huang was unable to take advantage of many specificity-enhancing upgrades to the CRISPR system yet to be designed at the time of his investigations.  In any case, his team acknowledged that their results “highlight the pressing need to further improve the fidelity and specificity” of the new technology, which in their opinions remained immature and unready for clinical applications.

Nevertheless, the Chinese experiment ignited a brawl among both scientists and bioethicists over the prospect of human germline modification with the most powerful and accessible editing machinery ever conceived. Similar quarrels had accompanied the proliferation of technologies involving recombinant DNA, in vitro fertilization, gene therapy, and stem cells, for example.  But never had the need to address our capacity to reroute the evolution of societies—indeed, of the entire species—seemed so real and immediate.

Leading experts, including Baltimore and Doudna, had previously met in Napa, California, on January 24, 2015 to discuss the bioethical implications of rapidly emerging technologies. In the end, they “strongly discouraged … any attempts at germline genome modification for clinical application in humans,” urged informed discussion and transparent research, and called for a prompt global summit to recommend international policies (Baltimore et al. 2015).  A surge of impassioned literature ensued.

A small group led by Sangamo BioSciences president, Edward Lanphier, was one of the first to weigh in (Lanphier et al. 2015). Calling for a “voluntary moratorium” on all human germline research, Lanphier first expressed concerns over potential off-target effects and the genetic mosaicism that could result, for instance, if a fertilized egg began dividing before all intended corrections had occurred.  He also found it difficult to “imagine a situation in which use of human embryos would offer therapeutic benefits over existing and developing methods,” suggesting as well that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were far better options than CRISPR for parents carrying the same mutation for a genetic disease.  In any case, he continued, with so many unanswered questions, clinicians remained unable to obtain truly risk-informed consent from either parents looking to modify their germlines or from affected future generations.  Finally, Lanphier implied that even the best intentions could eventually lead societies down a “slippery slope” toward non-therapeutic genetic enhancement and so-called “designer babies.”

Edward Lanphier

Edward Lanphier

Francis Collins, evangelical Christian and director of the National Institutes of Health (which currently refuses to fund human germline research), expressed similar views regarding the sufficiency of PGD and IVF, the impossibility of informed consent, and non-therapeutic enhancement (Skerrett 2015). Additionally, Collins worries that access to the technology would be denied to the economically disadvantaged and that parents might begin to conceive of their children “more like commodities than precious gifts.”  For the director, given the “paucity of compelling cases” in favor of such research, and the significance of the ethical counterarguments, “the balance of the debate leans overwhelmingly against human germline engineering.”

On the other hand, Harvard Medical School geneticist, George Church, urges us to ignore pleas for artificially imposed bans, “encourage the innovators,” and focus more on what he deems the obvious benefits of germline research (Church 2015). Responding to Lanphier and Collins, he argues as well that, without obtaining consent, parents have long exposed future generations to mutagenic forces—through chemotherapy, residence in high-altitudes, and alcohol intake, for example.  We have also consistently chosen to enhance our offspring and future generations through mate choice, among many other things.  Church also points out that PGD during the IVF procedure is incapable of offering solutions to individuals possessing two copies of a detrimental, dominant allele, or to prospective parents who both carry two copies of a harmful, recessive allele.  Moreover, in most instances, PGD cannot be used to avoid more complex polygenic diseases, including schizophrenia.   Nor can we presume that new technology costs will always create treatment or enhancement inequities.  In fact, according to Church, the price of DNA sequencing, for example, has already plummeted more than three million fold.  Finally, germline editing is probably not irreversible, Church contends, and certainly not as error-prone at this point as many have suggested.  “Senseless” bans, he concludes, would only “put a damper on the best medical research and instead drive the practice underground to black markets and uncontrolled medical tourism.”

George Church

George Church

Taking a slightly different tack, Harvard cognitive scientist, Steven Pinker, censures bioethicists generally for getting bogged down in “red-tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as ‘dignity,’ ‘sacredness,’ or ‘social justice’” (Pinker 2015a). Imploring the bioethical community to “get out of the way” of CRISPR, Pinker reminds them that, once decried as morally unacceptable, vaccinations, transfusions, artificial insemination, organ transplants, and IVF have all proven “unexceptional boons to human well-being.”  Further, the specific harms of which moratorium proponents warn, including cancer, mutations, and birth defects, “are already ruled out by a plethora of existing regulations and norms” (Pinker 2015b).  In the end, he advises, both scientists and everyday people need and deserve a well-diversified research portfolio.  “If you ban something, the probability that people will benefit is zero.  If you don’t ban it, the probability is greater than zero.”

Such were among the arguments considered by a committee of twelve biologists, physicians, and ethicists during the December, 2015 International Summit on Human Genome Editing, organized by the U.S. National Academies of Science and Medicine, the Royal Society in London, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The Summit was chaired by David Baltimore.  Doudna and Charpentier, winners of the US$3 million Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, attended with Zhang—a now much-celebrated trio considered front runners for a Nobel Prize, though also entangled through their institutions in a CRISPR patent dispute potentially worth billions of dollars.

Doudna, Charpentier, and Zhang

Doudna, Charpentier, and Zhang

After three days of discussion, the Summit’s organizing committee issued a general statement rejecting calls for a comprehensive moratorium on germline research (NAS 2015). The members did, however, advise without exception against the use of edited embryos to establish pregnancy.  “It would be irresponsible to proceed,” they added, “with any clinical use of germline editing” until safety and efficacy issues are resolved and there exists “a broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.”  In conclusion, the committee called for an “ongoing forum” to harmonize the current global patchwork of relevant regulations and guidelines and to “discourage unacceptable activities.”  This forum, the members judged, should consist not only of experts and policymakers, but of “faith leaders,” “public interest advocates,” and “members of the general public” as well.

Wasting little time, the UK’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority approved on February 1, 2016, the first attempt to edit healthy human embryos with the CRISPR-Cas9 system.  The application was filed last September by developmental biologist, Kathy Niakan, of the Francis Crick Institute in London.  Niakan intends to use CRISPR to knock out one of four different genes in a total of 120 day-old, IVF-donated embryos to investigate the roles such genes play in early development.

Kathy Niakan

Kathy Niakan

Her research could help identify genes crucial to early human growth and cell differentiation and, thus, lead to more productive IVF cultures and more informed selection practices. It could also reveal mutations that lead to miscarriages and, one day, allow parents to correct these problems through gene therapy.  Following careful observation, Niakan intends to destroy her embryos by the time they reach the blastocyst stage on the seventh day.  Under British law, experimental embryos cannot be used to establish pregnancy.

But the human germline is not the only, or even most pressing, subject of CRISPR controversy. Some, for example, warn of the creation of dangerous pathogens and biological warfare (Greely 2016).  But many others, including Doudna, urge that we quickly address “other potentially harmful applications … in non-human systems, such as the alteration of insect DNA to ‘drive’ certain genes into a population” (Doudna 2015).

Driving DNA.

Clearly, the technology described here is not to be used lightly. Given the suffering caused by some species, neither is it obviously one to be ignored.—evolutionary geneticist Austin Burt (2003).

In broad terms, a “gene drive” can be characterized as a targeted contagion intended to spread through a population with exceptional haste. Burt pioneered the technology through his study of transposable elements—“selfish” and often parasitic DNA sequences that exist merely to propagate themselves.  Importantly, transposons can circumvent the normal Mendelian rules of inheritance dictating that any given gene has a fifty percent chance of being passed from parent to offspring.

Thirteen years ago, Burt envisioned the use of a microbial transposon-like element called a “homing endonuclease” for humanity’s benefit. When inserted into one chromosome, the endonuclease would cut the matching chromosome inherited from the other parent.  The cell would then quickly repair the cut, often using the first chromosome as a template.  As such, the assailed sequence in the second chromosome would be converted to the sequence of the selfish element.  In a newly fertilized egg, the endonuclease would likewise convert the other parent’s DNA and, eventually, drive itself into the genomes of nearly one-hundred percent of the population.



Burt believes we can use gene drives to weaken or even eradicate mosquito transmitted diseases like malaria and dengue fever. If scientists engineered just one percent of a mosquito population to carry such a drive, he calculates, about ninety-nine percent would possess it in only twenty generations.  In fact, Burt announced five years ago that he had created a homing endonuclease capable of locating and cutting a mosquito gene (Windbichler 2011).  But his elements were difficult to program for precise application.

Enter CRISPR-Cas9. As we’ve seen, Cas9 is an eager endonuclease and guide RNAs are easy to program and can be quickly synthesized.  In April of last year, biologists Valentonio Gantz and Ethan Bier revealed that they had used CRISPR-Cas9 to drive color variation into Drosophila fruit flies (Gantz and Bier 2015).  Though they labeled it a “mutagenic chain reaction” at the time, it was the first gene drive ever deployed in a multicellular organism.

Today, researchers sort potential gene drives into two major groups. Replacement drives seek only to displace natural with modified populations.  Suppression drives, by contrast, attempt to reduce or even eradicate populations.  At this point, no drives have been released into the wild.  Nevertheless, researchers have lately designed one of each type to affect mosquitos carrying the deadly human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum.

The first study was led by microbiologist Anthony James, who collaborated on the project with Gantz and Bier (James et al. 2015). Focusing on the prevention of disease transmission, this group engineered Anopheles stephensi mosquitos, highly active in urban India, to carry two transgenes producing antibodies against the malaria parasite, a CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene drive, and a marker gene.  Because the very lengthy payload rendered insertion a challenging process, James was able to isolate only two drive-bearing males among 25,000 larvae.  But when mated with wild-type females, these and subsequent transgenic males spread their anti-malaria genes at an impressive rate of 99.5 percent.  Transgenic females, on the other hand, processed the drive quite differently and passed it on at near-normal Mendelian ratios.

Despite its overall success, James doesn’t imagine that his team’s replacement drive could eliminate the malaria parasite independently. Instead, he envisions its use to reduce the risk of infection and to compliment other strategies already being employed.  Even so, because such drives would not exterminate P. falciparum or its mosquito vector, they would potentially allow the parasite to one day evolve resistance to their transgene components.


The second study’s goal was quite different. Here, molecular biologist, Tony Nolan, along with Burt and others, first identified three genes in the Anopheles gambiae mosquito, active in sub-Saharan Africa, that when mutated cause recessive infertility in females (Hammond et al. 2016).  Second, they designed a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive to target and edit each gene.  Following insertion, they bred their transgenic mosquitos with wild-types and found that nearly all female offspring were born infertile.  In a subsequent experiment, Nolan released 600 vectors—half transgenic, half wild-type—into a cage.  After only four generations, seventy-five percent of the population carried the mutations, exactly what one would expect from an effective gene drive.

A suppression drive like Hammond’s could, in theory, eliminate a parasite’s primary vector. In such a scenario, the parasite might find another means of conveying the disease to humans—more than 800 species of mosquito inhabit Africa alone, for example.  But it might not.  The loss would also substantially alter the relevant ecosystem.  But despite other methods of controlling the disease, malaria still claims more than a half million lives every year, mostly among children under five.

Even in theory, no gene drive is a panacea. They function only in sexually reproducing species, and best in species that reproduce very rapidly.  Nor would their effects be permanent—most transgenes would prove especially vulnerable to evolutionary deselection, for example.   But neither would they turn out as problematic as some might imagine. They can be easily detected through genome sequencing, for instance, and are unlikely to spread accidentally into domesticated species.  And if scientists sought for whatever reason to reverse the effects of a previously released drive, they could probably do so with the release of a subsequent drive.

As Church and others have recently suggested, it “doesn’t really make sense to ask whether we should use gene drives. Rather, we’ll need to ask whether it’s a good idea to consider driving this particular change through this particular population”  (Esvelt et al. 2014).


Ali, Z., A. Abulfaraj, Ali Idris, et al. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated viral interference in plants. Genome Biology 16:238 DOI:10.1186/s13059-015-0799-6.

Baltimore, D., P. Berg, M. Botcham, et al. 2015. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348(6230):36-38.

Bolukbasi, M.F., A. Gupta, and S.A. Wolf. 2016. Creating and evaluating accurate CRISPR-Cas9 scalpels for genomic surgery. Nature Methods 13(1):41-50.

Burt, A. 2003. Site-specific selfish genes as tools for the control and genetic engineering of natural populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270:921-928.

CBS News. 2015. Could Revolutionary Gene-editing Technology End Cancer? Available online at; accessed January 25, 2016.

Church, G., 2015. Encourage the innovators. Nature 528:S7.

Corbyn, Z. 2015. Biology’s big hit. Nature 528:S4-S5.

Doudna, J. 2015. Embryo editing needs scrutiny. Nature 528:S6.

Esvelt, K., G. Church, and J. Lunshof. 2014. “Gene Drives” and CRISPR Could Revolutionize Ecosystem Management. Available online at; accessed February 6, 2016.

Fu, Y., J.D. Sander, D. Reyon, et al. 2014. Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nature Biotechnology 32:279-284.

Gantz, V.M., and E. Bier. 2015a. The mutagenic chain reaction: A method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations. Science 348(6233):442-444.

Gantz, V.M., N. Jasinskiene, O. Tatarenkova, et al. 2015. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1521077112.

Greely, H.T. 2016. Are We Ready for Genetically Modified Animals? Available online at; accessed February 3, 2016.

Hammond, A. R. Galizi, K. Kyrou, et al. 2016. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3439.

Jinek, M., K. Chylinski, I. Fonfara, et al. 2012. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337:816-821.

Kaiser, J. 2015. CRISPR Helps Heal Mice With Muscular Dystrophy. Available online at; accessed January 30, 2015.

Kleinstiver, B.P., V. Pattanayak, M.S. Prew, et al. 2016. High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529:490-495.

Lanphier, E., F. Urnov, S.E. Ehlen, et al. 2015. Don’t edit the human germline. Nature 519:410-411.

Ledford, H. 2016. Enzyme Tweak Boosts Precision of CRISPR Genome Edits. Available online at; accessed January 28, 2016.

Liang, P., Y. Xu, X. Zhang, et al. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 6(5):363-372.

Long, C., L. Amoasii, A.A. Mireault, et al. 2015. Postnatal genome editing partially restores dystrophin expression in a mouse model of muscular dystrophy. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5725.

Maxmen, A. 2015. Three technologies that changed genetics. Nature 528:S2-S3.

McGreevey, S. 2016. High-fidelity CRISPR. Available online at; accessed January 29, 2016.

National Academies of Science. 2015. International Summit Statement. Available at; accessed January 2, 2016.

Nelson, C.E., C.H. Hakim, D.G. Ousterout, et al. 2015. In vivo genome editing improves muscle function in a mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5143.

Petherick, A. 2015. Nature outlook genome editing. Nature 528:S1.

Pinker, S. 2015a. The Moral Imperative for Bioethics. Available online at; accessed February 2, 2016.

Pinker, S. 2015b. Steven Pinker Interview. Available online at; accessed February 2, 2016.

Ran, F.A., P.D. Hsu, C. Lin, et al. 2013. Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154:1380-1389.

Savulescu, J., J. Pugh, T. Douglas, et al. 2015. The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein Cell 6(7):476-479.

Servick, K. 2016. Researchers Rein In Slice-happy Gene Editor, CRISPR. Available online at; accessed January 28, 2016.

Sherkow, J.S. 2015. The CRISPR Patent Interference Showdown Is On. Available online at; accessed January 29, 2016.

Skerrett, P., 2015. First Opinion. A Debate: Should We Edit the Human Genome? Available online at; accessed February 2, 2016.

Slaymaker, I. M., L. Gao, B. Zetsche, et al. 2015. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351(6268):84-88.

Tabebordbar, M., K. Zhu, J.K.W. Cheng, et al. 2015. In vivo gene editing in dystrophic mouse and muscle stem cells. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5177.

Windbichler, N., M. Menichelli, P.A. Papathanos, et al. 2011. A synthetic homing endonuclease-based gene drive system in the human malaria mosquito. Nature 473:212-215.

Yong, E. 2015. The New Gene-editing Technique that Reveals Cancer’s Weaknesses. Available online at; accessed on January 30, 2016.

Book Review: Alan M. Herbst and George W. Hopley, Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time Has Come for the World’s Most Misunderstood Energy Source (Totem Books 2007). 230 pp.

by Kenneth W. Krause.

Kenneth W. Krause is a contributing editor and “Science Watch” columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer.  Formerly a contributing editor and books columnist for the Humanist, Kenneth contributes regularly to Skeptic as well.  He may be contacted at

The French learned precious lessons in 1956 when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, Europe’s fossil fuel lifeline from the Middle East, and again in 1973 when the Arabs imposed a global oil embargo.  Through most of the 1970s, France was a net electricity importer.  Now, 59 domestic reactors later, nuclear energy supplies 80 percent of the country’s electricity needs and, over the last decade, France has led the world by exporting 60 to 70 billion kilowatt-hours net of electricity every year.  With American technology and broad popular support, the French have constructed a safe, standardized, centrally managed nuclear industry, including international fuel reprocessing facilities, envied the world over.

Globally, nuclear generation capacity has more than tripled since 1980.  In addition to the 443 commercial units currently operating, 31 reactors are slated for operation by 2013—enough to generate 1000 megawatts each on average and power 31 million U.S. homes.  Iran and North Korea plan to build three reactors and China wants to increase nuclear generating capacity fivefold by spending between $50 and $65 billion on nuclear energy-related construction by 2020.  With 14 reactors in operation and seven under construction, India plans to boost the nuclear share of total electricity supplied from 2.8 percent in 2005 to 25 percent by 2050.

Meanwhile, the world’s most rapacious oil consumer, the United States, imports better than 60 percent of its crude, most of which originates in OPEC member countries including Ahmedinijad’s Iran, Chavez’s Venezuela, (whose?) Iraq, and, of course, Saudi Arabia.  Although Americans maintain 103 commercial reactors responsible for 10 percent of our total installed capacity and 20 percent of our generated electricity (50 percent coming from coal, another 20 percent from oil and gas), not a single new facility has been constructed in 30 years.

American nuclear plants are licensed for no longer than 40 years, with potential 20-year extensions subject to approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  The first operating license will expire in 2009; about 10 percent of the total by 2011; and 40 percent more by 2015.  Because of alleged security and proliferation concerns, U.S. policy proscribes reprocessing and, thus, all spent fuel is treated as high-level waste.  Private utilities are therefore responsible for expensive on-site storage until the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada, yet to be approved by the NRC, becomes both operational (projected to 2010) and fully receptive (projected to 2017).

At the same time, American energy consumption has increased by an average of 1.9 percent each year since 1995.  Between 2005 and 2025, commercial customers will demand 50 percent more power, according to the Department of Energy’s Information Administration (EIA).  Residential requirements will swell by 30 percent, industrial by 16 percent, during the same period.  Americans can no longer afford to ignore nuclear energy’s proven track record and unparalleled potential, say long-time energy consultant Alan Herbst and economist George Hopley.  “If the United States is to remain competitive in the twenty-first century,” they warn, “we have no choice but to aggressively construct new nuclear generation assets.”

But consider the bottom line.  To inspire an investment renaissance, nuclear energy must compete against oil, gas, and especially “king” coal (typically, the cheapest fossil fuel), and win.  A new 1000-megawatt nuclear plant costs from $1.5 to $2.0 billion and takes five years to build, compared to $1.2 billion and three to four years for a coal facility and $500 million for a combined-cycle gas plant.  Indeed, single unit start-up costs appear to favor coal and gas, according to a DOE funded University of Chicago report.  But the same study instructs as well that nuclear power can meet and beat the competition if companies choose to construct multiple units.

The EIA tracked the average operating expenses for U.S. investor-owned electric utilities from 1993 to 2004, breaking down the costs into three major categories.  Operation and maintenance has proven more expensive for nuclear (8.3 mills* per kilowatt-hour and 5.38 Mills/kWh, respectively, in 2004) than for fossil steam** generation (2.68 Mills/kWh and 2.96 Mills/kWh, respectively, in 2004), but operation costs have steadily decreased for nuclear and increased for fossil steam over the twelve year period.  By contrast, fuel expenses overwhelmingly favor the use of nuclear energy (4.58 Mills/kWh in 2004) over fossil steam (18.21 Mills/kWh in 2004), and such costs have shrunk for the former and expanded for the latter facilities over time.  In the final tally, 2004 expenses totaled 18.26 Mills/kWh for nuclear power and 23.85 Mills/kWh for fossil steam plants.  The market consensus, not so incidentally, continues to predict both escalating and volatile fossil fuel prices.

Various external costs are important as well, of course, but they are often a great deal more difficult to isolate and quantify.  Long after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, nuclear waste disposal remains a grave concern, especially in reprocessing-averse political climates. More recently, however, Americans have become increasingly conscious of carbon dioxide’s potentially disastrous and irreversible effects on the environment and on life itself.  But “when all variables are accounted for,” Herbst and Hopley conclude, “nuclear generation is extremely competitive against other fuels and has definite cost advantages in long-term operational costs due to the inexpensive nature of nuclear fuel.”

For the general public, however, safety remains the overriding concern—and understandably so.  In May of 1986, more than 160,000 persons living within a 30-kilometer radius of the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl-4 reactor were evacuated following two core explosions discharging approximately half of the reactor’s radioactive iodine and cesium and at least five percent of the remaining contaminated material.  47 first responders perished within four months.  The World Health Organization estimated that another 9000 people have died or will die of Chernobyl related cancer.  According to the authors, mismanagement, cooling system design flaws, and a blatant disregard for safety at the individual, facility, and cultural levels were to blame.

In March of 1979, a combination of mechanical failures and operator errors relating to convoluted cooling systems in particular led to a core meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island-2 facility.  Relatively minor amounts of radiation were leaked, no lives were lost, and the reactor’s concrete containment structure performed exactly as designed.  Nevertheless, the investigating Kemeny Commission chastised the plant’s operators, the entire nuclear industry, and the NRC.

But nuclear utilities and their regulating agencies have both learned from these experiences and taken full advantage of better than 20 intervening years of intense research and development.  Leading manufacturers have designed so-called “passive” core and containment cooling systems that emphasize natural, gravity-based circulation in lieu of pumps, fans, diesel engines, and other less reliable mechanisms.  Westinghouse, whose licensees own about 50 percent of the world’s largest installed base of running nuclear power plants, boasts of a new reactor line (the AP600s and AP1000s) expected to require 50 percent fewer valves, 80 percent less safety-grade piping, 35 percent fewer pumps, and 70 to 80 percent less control cable.  General Electric’s next-generation Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor will eliminate eleven complete systems and slash plant construction time and operation expenses to boot—again, all due to passive safety technology.

A more recently created venture, UniStar Nuclear, has championed a different but equally intriguing approach.  The U.S. European Pressurized Water Reactor uses four separate and redundant safety systems, yet requires 47 percent fewer valves, 16 percent less pumps, and 50 percent fewer tanks relative to a typical facility.  The U.S. EPR is also designed to accommodate recycled fuel, to use 17 percent less uranium per kilowatt-hour than current light water reactors, and to be ten percent less expensive to operate than most modern power plants.  The question remains as to which to these approaches, passive or redundant, will gain favor in America.  But clearly nuclear safety technology has advanced a great distance since Three Mile Island, and, as the authors are quick to stress, not one U.S nuclear worker has ever been killed in the plant or as a result of workplace conditions.

Herbst and Hopley do not claim that nuclear fission could ever completely replace America’s extensive fossil fuel and alternative energy assets.  To some significant extent, however, politics and prejudices must soon yield to more rational economics, more prudent foreign policy considerations, and common sense.  No doubt, diverse factions will present and interpret the numbers in different ways.  But the authors may have a point or two.  After all, the fission of a single U-235 nucleus will liberate 50 million times more energy than the combustion of a carbon atom, and one pound of uranium stores as much energy potential as approximately one million gallons of gasoline.  Maybe it’s time for Americans to redo the math.

*A mill is equal to .001 U.S. dollars.

**Fossil steam plants are dominated my coal-fired economics, but also include a much smaller proportion of gas- and oil-fired facilities.

Book Review: Richard A. Muller, Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines (Norton 2008). 380 pp.

by Kenneth W. Krause.

Kenneth W. Krause is a contributing editor and “Science Watch” columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer.  Formerly a contributing editor and books columnist for the Humanist, Kenneth contributes regularly to Skeptic as well.  He may be contacted at

Does our new president appreciate the basic science behind terrorism, energy, nuclear weapons, space exploration, and global warming?  He probably knows a lot more than the vast majority of his constituents, quite honestly, which is really why physics professor Richard Muller wrote this persistently engaging and occasionally surprising little book.  A potent distillation of his science-and-society course for non-science majors at the University of California, Berkeley, Physics for Future Presidents casts a refreshingly skeptical glance on several of the 21st century’s most sacred scientific cows.

Because Americans use about 28 percent of their fuel for transportation, electric and hydrogen powered vehicles are often either touted as the inevitable waves of the near future or bemoaned as the innocent victims of greedy oil companies.  But neither optimism nor opulence can prevail over the physical facts.  The news is “full of hyperbole” about electric cars, Muller warns, especially with regard to the new Tesla Roadster and plug-in hybrids.  He might be right.  In the September 20, 2008 issue of NewScientist, for example, Jim Giles judged that “[e]lectric cars are coming of age.”

Pound for pound, however, even the best batteries can store just one percent of the energy contained in gasoline, as Muller points out, and, of course, all batteries need to be replaced after a limited number of charges. (Even according to Giles, lithium-ion cells—found in the Roadster, for example, can withstand only 5000 recharge cycles, while nickel-metal hydride batteries—common to the Toyota Prius—can take about 3000).  Recently marketed, most Priuses will be fine for a while, and driving them will seem relatively cheap.  But owners should bank their pennies for the second battery.  “Who killed the electric car?” Muller chides.  “Expensive batteries did.”

Hydrogen, on the other hand, holds 2.6 times more energy per pound than gasoline.  Maybe that’s why some enthusiasts say that a “hydrogen revolution” is only 10 years away.  Unfortunately, because it’s so light, a pound of hydrogen fills a lot of space.  We can compress it, but then we have to store it in a heavy container.  We can liquefy it too, but even fluid hydrogen is relatively buoyant.  Solid hydrogen technology is not an option because it has yet to emerge from the laboratory.  Compressed hydrogen will give us only five miles per gallon, says Muller, and its liquid form can give us no more than ten.  So, in reality, hydrogen actually provides three times less energy than gasoline.

But, because hydrogen is less an energy source than a means of storing energy, the usable fuel must be manufactured—either through electrolysis, which breaks up water into its elemental components, or through “steam reforming,” which creates hydrogen by reacting natural gas (methane) with steam.  Either way, a great deal of energy is burned in the process.  And what about infrastructure?  To date, there are only 26 refueling stations in California and 150 worldwide.  Muller concedes that hydrogen has some potential uses, such as in ultra-light airplanes or in large vehicles like buses that can support capacious fuel tanks and stop for frequent refills.  But the physics of hydrogen, he insists, ensure that the would-be “revolution” will remain ten years away for a very long time.

And speaking of extended lags, Muller and approximately 77,000 tons of American nuclear waste have waited far too long for the government to open up Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  Fission fragments such as strontium-90 are among the most dangerous forms of nuclear litter.  Because of their short half-lives, these fragments are much more problematic than plutonium (which Muller contends should be reprocessed in the United States) and about 1000 times more radioactive than the original uranium ore.  So it will take about 10,000 years for the waste to decay back to the level of the originally mined uranium.

Even so, Muller disagrees with those who argue for 10,000 years of absolute safety.  The public discussion, he says, should take account of the physical and mathematical facts of radioactive decay.  Because the waste’s radioactivity is only 1000 times worse than that of the original uranium, our goal should be to reduce the risk of leakage to 0.1 percent (one chance in a thousand), which is equivalent to the risk of simply leaving the uranium in the ground.  But after 300 years, the fragments’ radioactivity will be only 100 times that of the uranium, so we could accede to a 1 percent chance of total leakage, Muller calculates, or a 100 percent chance of 1 percent leakage.

The Department of Energy, however, is concerned about earthquakes as well, and many contend that the discovery of a new fault under Yucca Mountain should completely disqualify the site.  But, again, the relevant standard is not absolute security.  The question is not whether any earthquake will occur during the next 10,000 years, but, rather, whether there exists a 1 percent chance of a sufficiently dangerous earthquake (causing 100 percent leakage into the groundwater) after 300 years.  Alternatively, Muller argues, we should accept a 100 percent risk that 1 percent (or a 10 percent risk that 10 percent) of the waste will escape.

If Yucca Mountain were at full capacity, and all of its waste were to leak out of its glass pellets and seep into the groundwater, the resulting problem would still be 20 times less severe than that posed by the natural uranium currently floating around in the Colorado River, which—not so incidentally—provides potable water to much of western America, including Los Angeles and San Diego.  “[W]aste leakage from Yucca Mountain is not a great danger,” Muller judges.  Instead, we should worry more about “real threats—such as…the continued burning of fossil fuels.”

Quite regrettably, “much of what the public ‘knows’ about global warming,” the author adds, “is based on distortion, exaggeration, or cherry picking.”  After scientists discovered in 2006 that Antarctica was losing 36 cubic miles of ice per year, for instance, the media widely and hastily reported the damage as compelling new evidence of global warming.  But, as the experts had noted, because warming increases oceanic evaporation and because the extra water vapor falls as snow when it reaches Antarctica, global warming would actually increase the Antarctic ice mass.

Although he by no means denies warming or its recent anthropogenic causes, Muller assails An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s popular film, with conspicuous vigor.  Gore had employed a version of Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” plot in a dramatic and memorable attempt to show that world temperatures are currently higher than they have been in at least 1000 years.  But the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences subsequently declared the plot to be seriously flawed, concluding that, at best, temperatures are now higher than they have been in about 400 years—which was already common knowledge.  Former vice president Gore, Muller scolds, won the Nobel Prize “through a combination of artistry, powerful writing, and exaggeration, mixed with some degree of distortion and a large amount of cherry picking.”

Physics for Future Presidents is anything but comprehensive, of course.  Nevertheless, Muller offers casual readers an approachable and truly delightful cornucopia of general science education. Perhaps best of all, however, the text forces us to question conventional wisdom and to wonder about all of the intriguing facts and arguments that we, as responsible Americans and citizens of the world, have been ignoring for far too long.

schroedinger's cat

Book Review: Alan Weisman, The World Without Us (Thomas Dunne 2007). 304 pp.

by Kenneth W. Krause.

Kenneth W. Krause is a contributing editor and “Science Watch” columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer.  Formerly a contributing editor and books columnist for the Humanist, Kenneth contributes regularly to Skeptic as well.  He may be contacted at

After 1600 years of astounding cultural achievement, millions of lowland Maya vanished from their Meso-American paradise during the eighth century.  Some have blamed epidemics, drought, or environmental ruin for this mysterious disaster.  Vanderbilt University’s Arthur Demarest, however, attributes the Mayan catastrophe to something much more insidious and familiar: greed.  For centuries, the Maya had settled inter-societal disputes through grisly yet limited violence.  But to satisfy an increasingly gluttonous and parasitic nobility, swelling throngs of laborer-soldiers were forced to erect new temples and fortresses and to attack and conquer neighboring city-states.  Cooperative trade was undermined and population began to concentrate in the treacherous rain forest.  Mayan peasants had no choice but to overwork diminishing farmlands ever nearer to the safety of city walls.

Undoubtedly, there are many means by which civilizations might unwittingly annihilate themselves.  But the Mayan exemplar reveals how imprudent priorities, short-term thinking, and a glaring but still common misapprehension of the tenuous relationship between societies and ecologies can result in a brisk demise for even the most advanced and powerful culture—perhaps for the entire human species.  So what might the world look like without us? asks reporter and associate professor of journalism, Alan Weisman.  How might remaining life evolve in response to both our absence and our varied legacies?

Toward the close of the Pleistocene epoch, some 13,000 years ago, tens of millions of American megafauna, including camels, mastodons, and six-ton ground sloths abruptly disappeared within a millennium—a mere micro-flash of geologic time.  Some think retreating glaciers and rising Holocene temperatures caused their extinction.  Others have blamed a sudden and short-lived Ice Age.  Paleoecologist, Paul Martin, disagrees, though, pointing out that large, mobile animals are relatively well protected from extreme temperatures, and that ancient flora—obviously immobile—seem to have fared quite successfully.  Most significant for Martin, however, are the facts that ground sloths survived 5000 years longer in Cuba, Haiti, and Puerto Rico, and that the woolly mammoths of Wrangel Island endured 7000 years longer than their southern cousins.  That such dates also correspond to evidence of the first human settlements in these remote areas suggests that, yet again, lack of self control and foresight may have sealed the unfortunate fate of not just a single, isolated culture, but of complete species numbering in the dozens.

Martin’s progressively popular “Blitzkrieg” theory posits that humans, the Clovis culture of present-day New Mexico in particular, caused the extermination of seventy-five percent of America’s late Pleistocene megafauna—plodding giants that, relative to their African and Asian counterparts, were afforded precious little time to adapt to large-brained Homo sapiens who, by 13,000 years ago, had ably hunted with fluted stone points fastened to wooden shafts and portable spear levers called atlatl.  Even so, intelligence and technology served the new Americans for only so long.  After their game disappeared, so did the Clovis people.  But if Martin is right, and if humanity continues to ignore its historical lessons, perhaps extinct megafauna, in one form or another, will return.

But return to what?  Apparently, an ocean brimming with synthetic, petroleum-based polymers—elastic, invisible, and impossibly resilient hydrocarbon molecule chains that we consumers commonly refer to as “plastics.”  Although the world’s navies and commercial vessels dump some 639,000 plastic containers per day, according to Capt. Charles Moore of the Algita Marine Research Foundation, eighty percent of middle-ocean flotsam originates on land.  India claims 5000 plastic bag processing plants and Kenya manufactures 4000 tons of the non-recyclable sacks every month.

All of which pales both quantitatively and qualitatively in comparison to the 5.5 quadrillion plastic pellets, or nurdles (250 billion pounds worth), that we manufacture annually.  The problem with nurdles specifically is at least two-fold.  First, these plastic crumbs have always attracted and absorbed deadly and durable poisons like DDT and PCBs, the latter of which have proven to inflict hormonal chaos upon newly hermaphroditic fish and polar bears.  Second, numerous and sundry creatures, if by design or mistake, have ingested and will continue to ingest nurdles in copious and, evidently, life altering amounts.

The tragedy of plastic more generally, whether in the form of pellets, bags, or nylon nets, is the composition’s stubborn longevity.  When unsubmerged, at least, plastics are photodegradable, or vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation.  But unfortunately, they will not biodegrade according to any practical time scale.  So, because man can do little except curb its production of plastics, nature will have to rely on her own strategies.  Microbes have already evolved to consume natural hydrocarbons, including oil.  But, alas, plastics have existed for no more than fifty years.  Senior research scientist, Anthony Andrady remains dryly hopeful, however.  Don’t worry, he quips, evolution should have plastics well under control within another 100,000 years or so.

Nuclear waste tends to be far less accommodating.  Without us, our governments’ intact nuclear warheads—some 30,000 of them—would probably not explode.  But their bomb housings would surely corrode and disintegrate within a few thousand years, exposing ten to twenty pounds of weapons-grade plutonium, with a half-life of 24,110 years, per ICBM.  Relatively heavy, released alpha particles will not penetrate the skin.  Once inhaled, though, even one millionth of a gram can cause lung cancer.  On the brighter side, less than a pound will remain after 125,000 years, and, after 250,000 years, bombs shouldn’t be an issue at all.

But uranium waste is another matter entirely.  During the enrichment process, uranium-235, with a half-life of 704 million years, is separated in a centrifuge from “depleted” uranium-238, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.  When alloyed with steel, 500,000 tons of the depleted variety in the U.S. alone becomes useful for the cheap production of armor-piercing projectiles.  Of course, U-238 bullets are still hot—1000 times more radioactive than the background level—and they will likely remain contaminated beyond terrestrial time.

Far hotter waste, 13,000 tons worldwide and 3000 tons in the U.S. alone, is produced annually in the world’s 441 active nuclear plants.  Except for defense rubbish, which is currently stored at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southeastern New Mexico, all nuclear waste in America is contained only temporarily.  Our most prolific plant, the triple-reactor, 3.8-billion-watt Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Phoenix, uses 170,000 fourteen-foot zirconium-alloy rods containing uranium pellets, each of which commands as much energy as an entire ton of coal.  Annually, the facility consumes thirty tons of fuel, after which the rods are provisionally submerged into a holding pond approximately forty-five feet deep.  When pool space is exhausted, the fuel is removed to steel and concrete “dry casks.”  Surprisingly, spent fuel grows up to a million times hotter than when it was fresh, as it continues to exchange neutrons and expel alpha and beta particles, gamma rays, and heat.

In our absence, no doubt, the storage pools would quickly boil and evaporate away.  And, though certainly more durable, cement and steel casks can persist for only so long.  Every fuel rod, in other words, would eventually ignite and erupt into a toxic inferno.

Perhaps most other life would in fact benefit from our absence.  So be it.  But the salient issue, of course, is not the planet’s status without us, as the author’s title suggests.  Instead, Weisman implicitly offers us a rather thinly veiled opportunity to venture beyond the boundaries of our temporal context.  With that much accomplished, Weisman leaves the rest to his readers, and some will leave it at that.  But the sober, less passionate truths about humanity will remain concealed until it dares to glance over its collective shoulder.  The truly critical questions are timeless.  How long can we go on like this?  To what extent are we responsible for the welfare of generations yet to come?  Well written and scrupulously researched, The World Without Us explores an impressive range of key social and environmental challenges, reporting faithfully without preaching.