Yves here. Currently, discussions on Twitter regarding CRISPR technology are overwhelmingly optimistic, showcasing summaries of new research and celebrating its remarkable advancements, such as:
Scientists successfully eliminate HIV from immune cells using CRISPR. The cells remained free of HIV even after being exposed again. A cure may be within reach! pic.twitter.com/XJ9cdBnPwb
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) November 13, 2025
Moreover:
Review: AI will enhance CRISPR-based genome editing technologies https://t.co/ngpwpIuVUf (read for free: https://t.co/pBk8xlCSmM) pic.twitter.com/PJ46MChXcb
— Stephen Turner 🦋 @stephenturner.us (@strnr) November 19, 2025
However, there are articles laden with technical details, which might discourage some readers:
A compound that enhances homology-directed repair in CRISPR editing may lead to genome instability https://t.co/zim9K6l6FLhttps://t.co/jZIQiIA8yB
— Nature Biotechnology (@NatureBiotech) November 20, 2025
While I acknowledge the excitement surrounding this groundbreaking technology, I remain cautious about the breadth of experimentation it encourages.
By John P. Ruehl, an Australian-American journalist based in Washington, D.C. He serves as a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute and contributes to various foreign affairs publications. His book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute
A significant medical achievement occurred in May 2025 when doctors at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia utilized CRISPR-based gene editing to treat a child suffering from a rare genetic condition. Unlike previous CRISPR treatments aimed at known mutations, this represented a leap forward in personalized medicine, specifically tailored to the child’s unique DNA. For advocates of biomedical innovations for human enhancement, this marked yet another indication of gene editing’s vast possibilities, even amid ongoing ethical, political, and safety concerns.
The journey to editing human genes began in the 1970s, when scientists first began to cut DNA segments from one organism and attach them to another. Early methods were cumbersome, slow, and not very precise. Later tools like meganucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, and zinc-finger nucleases offered improved accuracy but remained complex and labor-intensive.
A true breakthrough occurred in 2012, when researchers Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier adapted CRISPR, a natural system in bacteria that cuts out viral DNA, for genetic modification. This ability to tailor DNA modifications to any organism—including humans—created a precise, programmable method for targeting genetic mutations. Along with Cas9, a protein that acts as molecular scissors, this revolutionary method made editing DNA far faster, simpler, and more cost-effective.
Despite regulatory delays and ethical discussions, more than 200 individuals underwent experimental CRISPR treatments by 2023, as noted in a recent MIT Technology Review article. Notably, November of that year saw a significant legal milestone when the UK approved Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ CASGEVY, aimed at treating transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia and sickle cell disease. This therapy reactivates fetal hemoglobin production to dilute malfunctioning red blood cells linked to sickle cell disease, according to Yale Medicine. Regulatory approvals soon followed from Bahrain and the U.S., with the EU and several other countries granting approvals by mid-2025.
Research on CRISPR technology continues to advance, as demonstrated by findings from the University of Texas at Austin, where researchers recently unveiled a CRISPR therapy that can replace large defective DNA segments and correct multiple mutations concurrently, thus overcoming traditional one-site editing limitations. Meanwhile, “epigenetic editing,” which employs modified Cas9 proteins, can activate or deactivate genes without cutting DNA, and new CRISPR systems are capable of directly inserting new DNA into cells, bypassing the natural repair processes for larger precision edits.
The landscape of gene editing is evolving, with numerous companies emerging alongside academic researchers. By early 2025, the U.S. had approximately 217 gene-editing companies, while Europe boasted only a few dozen (primarily in the UK and Germany) and China had around 30, as reported by BiopharmaIQ.
Leading the industry are companies like CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, and Beam Therapeutics. A growing network of companies and researchers participated in the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing held in London in 2023, following previous summits in Washington, D.C., in 2015, and Hong Kong in 2018.
Smaller companies are also making strides. Although xenotransplantation—implanting organs from non-human animals in humans—has a longstanding history, CRISPR technology is revitalizing this field. In 2024, Massachusetts General Hospital conducted a pioneering transplant of a CRISPR-edited pig kidney. Harmful pig genes were removed, and human genes were introduced. This kidney was donated by the American pharmaceutical company eGenesis.
While the patient survived for two months before passing from unrelated causes, eGenesis completed another transplant in 2025. Furthermore, companies such as United Therapeutics, along with its subsidiary Revivicor, are embarking on trials to potentially transform the organ donation landscape.
The swift proliferation of CRISPR technology has also fostered a DIY biotech movement among transhumanists and biohackers exploring biotechnology for human enhancement. Nonconventional genetic experimentation, or “garage research,” often occurs outside standard regulations. CRISPR kits priced under $100 can be ordered online, facilitating experimentation and collaboration due to their compact size, relative ease of use, and open-source characteristics.
An article in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences in 2023 noted that “[n]ew technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 provide nontraditional experimenters all-encompassing gene editing capabilities, raising questions on whether the current largely laissez-faire governance approach is adequate.”
One prominent figure in this movement is former NASA biochemist Josiah Zayner, who founded The ODIN in 2013 to sell CRISPR kits aimed at helping people genetically enhance themselves. His early demonstrations of the technology’s potential garnered considerable online attention. In 2017, Zayner even livestreamed his experience injecting CRISPR-edited DNA to disable his myostatin gene in an attempt to promote muscle growth.
CRISPR’s applicability extends beyond human experimentation. In 2017, Mississippi dog breeder David Ishee sought regulatory approval for using CRISPR to prevent bladder stones in Dalmatians but faced immediate backlash. Meanwhile, the agriculture sector has seen more success: U.S. startup Pairwise developed a CRISPR-edited salad mix for consumers, and a multinational biotech consortium initiated pilot trials of drought-resistant maize in Africa in 2024.
Since its inception, China has been a leader in CRISPR innovation. In 2014, Chinese researchers were among the first to use CRISPR-Cas9 in monkey embryos and became the first to alter human embryos in 2015, prompting international concern. In 2018, researcher He Jiankui modified the DNA of two human embryos to confer immunity to HIV. While the twins were born healthy, the announcement led to widespread outrage, culminating in He receiving a three-year prison sentence in 2019 and stricter regulations on human gene editing in China.
Chinese institutions and companies are actively seeking international partnerships to fortify their position. In August 2025, ClonOrgan participated in a pig-to-human organ transplant, while other Chinese entities made early advancements in CRISPR-coated cancer treatments.
The U.S. and China maintain their status as frontrunners in CRISPR research, with some European nations also actively participating. However, other regions are quickly building their capacity. In April 2025, Brazil initiated the first patient trial for CRISPR gene editing targeting inherited heart conditions, while growth is also noteworthy in places such as Russia, India, and the Gulf States.
Concerns and Inevitable Progress
The swift integration of CRISPR technology across various spheres—private companies, research institutions, activists, and hobbyists worldwide—has raised significant concerns. Despite the low financial barrier to creating CRISPR therapies, the actual costs of treatment remain high. Social issues have emerged surrounding the concept of “designer babies,” where wealthier families might select genetic traits or immunize their children against diseases, thereby aggravating social inequalities.
The case of He Jiankui exemplifies the complexities involved; it involved editing the CCR5 gene in embryos to ward off HIV, which may have inadvertently influenced intelligence and memory due to the gene’s connection to cognition.
Safety issues are also paramount. Unintended mutations—known as “off-target effects—can result in genetic abnormalities and chromosomal damage. Research in 2024 from Swiss scientists illustrated these risks, emphasizing the potential for heritable changes. Genetic sequences once deemed non-essential may play crucial roles, and alterations could yield unexpected impacts on human evolution.
In 2015, leading scientists and researchers suggested a global moratorium on heritable genome editing, yet research has persisted unabated. Genetically altered mosquitoes were released in Africa in 2019 to explore population control in 2019, and in 2020, researchers from Imperial College London demonstrated that modifications could eliminate malaria-carrying mosquito populations in laboratory settings.
Like all emerging technologies, CRISPR-based therapies have spurred significant legal conflicts. For instance, the Broad Institute holds patents for CRISPR’s application in human and animal cells, whereas UC Berkeley claims the original test-tube version, leading to a contentious patent dispute resolved in 2022. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that rights to CRISPR-Cas9 for human and plant cell applications belong to the Broad Institute, not Berkeley.
Concerns around biosecurity and the potential for weaponization further inhibit the broader adoption of CRISPR. Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has frequently warned that genome editing technologies, including CRISPR, could serve as weapons of mass destruction. The ease of access raises apprehensions about manipulating pathogens and creating immune-resistant populations, as well as the possible enhancement of soldiers’ cognitive or physical abilities.
Nonetheless, the potential of this technology is too significant to disregard, as evidenced by the interest it has garnered from officials in the Trump administration. Vice President J.D. Vance has spoken favorably about the CRISPR sickle cell treatment soon after his election. Additionally, other officials disclosed financial interests in the CRISPR industry, with reports indicating Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plans to divest holdings in CRISPR Therapeutics AG and Dragonfly Therapeutics to prevent conflicts of interest before assuming office.
Emerging CRISPR techniques, such as base editing and prime editing, underscore the ongoing potential of the technology. In 2025, researchers at Stanford and their collaborators successfully integrated these tools with AI to further enhance their capabilities. As consolidation increases among companies and institutions, open-source hubs may pave the way for innovation that heavily regulated businesses and bureaucratic entities struggle to achieve.
Jennifer Doudna, a co-inventor of CRISPR, expressed in her 2017 book A Crack in Creation that “Someday we may consider it unethical not to use germline editing to alleviate human suffering.” With the potential to cure numerous diseases, some believe there exists a moral imperative to decrease avoidable suffering, even amid ethical controversies. As financial motives drive companies to expedite these therapies, governmental oversight, private competition, and the eventual expiration of CRISPR patents are crucial for guaranteeing that benefits are equitably distributed as they materialize.
