>> Imagine that we could eventually use genome editing to protect people from getting certain forms of dementia.

I think that would be an incredible advance.

♪♪ >> Hello and welcome to "GZERO World."

I'm Ian Bremmer, and today, a look at whether gene editing could improve life on Earth or lead us to the same kind of dystopian nightmare outlined in "Blade Runner."

>> A Blade Runner's job is to hunt down replicants, manufactured humans you can't tell from the real thing.

>> From curating the perfect crop to eradicating deadly disease, visiting your local geneticist could soon become routine.

I'm talking to scientist Jennifer Doudna, whose work in the field led her to win the 2020 Nobel Prize for chemistry.

And then how much would you pay to clone your pet?

Some people are willing to spare no expense to revive the DNA of their beloved critters.

Don't worry, I've also got your "Puppet Regime."

>> ♪ But all of a sudden, as the economy was buddin' ♪ >> ♪ Guess who stepped on the scene ♪ >> But first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by... >> Geologists have long debated whether we have entered what's called the Anthropocene, an epoch defined by human impact on the world.

From population explosion to climate change to the nuclear arms race, just how much influence we have had on our planet remains hotly contested.

But one new technology may confirm we're already there.

CRISPR stands for clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.

You don't have to remember that.

But you should know that this new gene editing technique can literally change life as we know it.

By pairing these clusters with a protein called Cas9, scientists are now able to precisely edit DNA sequences in living things.

They hope to be able to cure genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia and hereditary blindness.

CRISPR may even be used to treat cancer and HIV.

It is also being applied to the animal kingdom.

Researchers in Australia are currently looking at ways to make an invasive species of poisonous toad less lethal so that native animals, like the much cuter northern quoll, don't die every time they munch on one.

Plant scientists are using it to create healthier and more robust crops.

The applications of this new tool seem endless up to a point.

>> So a Chinese scientist helped create the world's first genetically edited babies.

He is going to jail.

His name is He Jiankui.

>> He claims to have edited the genetic code of twin baby girls to make them resistant to the HIV virus.

Critics worry that applying CRISPR on human beings so early in the field's development could be extremely dangerous.

One study from 2020 found that using CRISPR on cells in human embryos can lead to serious side effects, including the potential for the cells to discard large chunks of their own genetic material.

And there's an even darker side to CRISPR.

What about engineering soldiers who can fight without fear or pain?

That's an idea that was kicked around by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Putin, by the way, has just earmarked nearly $2 billion in funding for genetic research.

There are gray areas, too.

Should we bring back the woolly mammoth?

Harvard geneticist George Church seems to think so.

By implanting the extinct animal's DNA into the modern Asian elephant, Church hopes to adapt the species to resemble its ancient relative in order to thrive in colder climates.

The move, he says, would prevent the Asian elephant from extinction while also potentially aiding the Arctic ecosystem.

What about editing the genes of your unborn children to prevent diseases like muscular dystrophy?

That sounds like a pretty good idea, but exactly how much choice should parents get?

The idea of designer babies is hardly knew.

It was even highlighted back in 1997 in the sci-fi film "Gattaca" when a couple's visit to a local geneticist was more routine than a trip to the OB/GYN.

>> You have specified hazel eyes, dark hair and fair skin.

I've taken the liberty of eradicating any potentially prejudicial conditions -- premature baldness, myopia, alcoholism and addictive susceptibility, propensity for violence.

>> Many argue that using CRISPR technology for good or for bad amounts to playing God and that its use should be halted altogether.

Others, like the World Health Organization, see enormous potential for the science, but also want to put limits on its application to prevent humanity from bringing out our worst traits.

With new CRISPR-related biotech companies cropping up every day and the 2020 Nobel Prize for chemistry going to two early pioneers of the science, the field's visibility is rising fast.

One of the recipients of that prize is Berkeley Professor Jennifer Doudna.

Her work has revolutionized how we think about DNA.

I spoke to her about where we go from here in the quest to bring CRISPR to the world.

Jennifer Doudna, so lovely to see you.

Thanks for joining on "GZERO World."

>> Thanks for inviting me, Ian.

Great to be here.

>> So I have to start, of course.

Congratulations for winning the 2020 Nobel in chemistry.

At what point did you first realize that you had discovered something life-changing?

>> I think I would have to say it came in stages.

There was the feeling of anticipation when I started a collaboration with Emmanuelle Charpentier back in 2011.

>> Who won the Nobel with you, yeah.

>> Right, right, as as our -- for our collaborative work, and then there was the the exciting results from the lab that came about over the next few months.

And then I think really with the publication of our work in the summer of 2012, there was a sense that we were on the cusp of a kind of a revolution in biology and in genomics where it would be possible to use the CRISPR technology to manipulate DNA in such a powerful way that it was going to open the door to lots of opportunities.

And that's certainly been true.

But that was, you know, took a while later, of course, over the next few months to really see how just how big a revolution it was going to be.

>> Let me ask you a little bit about the science just for the audience that isn't immersed in CRISPR.

Explain for those that have only seen a headline or two what CRISPR is and does.

>> Well, yeah.

So I think it's important to address why do we care?

What's exciting here?

What's the breakthrough?

And in a nutshell, it's a technology that allows scientists to make precise, targeted changes to DNA in cells.

And the reason that's important is that, for the first time, we now have the ability to alter very tiny all the way up to very large segments of the code of life, the code that makes us who we are, that makes dogs and cats and mice and rice and wheat and every every living thing relies on a DNA code.

And because we now have a technology that allows that code to be precisely altered, we can not only study the functions of genes in ways that were previously very hard, if not impossible to do, but we can also make changes to DNA that will have real world implications in the near future.

For example, correcting disease-causing mutations at their source.

That's just a really profound sort of advance in biological research.

>> Ending blindness, for example, I mean, so I mean, these enormous ailments, disabilities -- what is a disability and an ailment and what is something that's a personal preference, right?

How do you think about that?

>> Well, my own view is that a disability is something that someone considers to be, you know, inhibiting to them in some way.

And I've discovered in my conversations over the last decade or so that different people, you know, interpret that differently.

So I've had people tell me that they don't consider deafness to be a disability for them.

You know, for them personally, it's not because they have found an extraordinary life as a deaf person that they wouldn't have found possible, you know, with their hearing present.

So, you know, I think for each person at some level that answer might be different.

But to me, it's -- you know, if there is a condition that is causing suffering in some way, then that is a condition that we should be seeking to mitigate.

>> That's a pretty expansive view.

I mean, I could describe being 5'8" as inhibiting.

And certainly I know that in many decisions historically, men that are taller tend to do better.

Did you intend for me to be able to take it that broadly?

>> No, but I can see how you might take it there.

You know, certainly I think an argument could be made.

I'm not making it.

But one could imagine an argument being made that some physical characteristics are inhibitory to, you know, a person's professional intentions or something like that.

Should we be using genome editing to address this?

I would say no, but I think we're in a world now where increasingly that kind of choice may become possible.

And so it's something that we as a society will have to grapple with.

>> Are there areas of research and just understanding how the stuff works, not applying it, that you would say "this is too dangerous, scientists shouldn't go there"?

>> Certainly things like working with human embryos, especially with the intent of implanting them to create a pregnancy.

That's an area where we need a lot of regulation and caution because there are obvious ethical and societal implications of that kind of work.

Same with environmental applications of something like genome editing.

If you're going to be releasing insects into the environment that have been edited, and especially if they have the ability to pass their genetic traits on to others in their population, that might affect the whole population, I think that's, again, something that needs to be handled with appropriate caution.

>> Because you're beta testing the ecosystem at that point.

>> Right.

Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> The potential to do incredible things and make incredible advances that will be beneficial to our society, but hand in hand with that goes these large risks.

So, you know, week by week, I find that my field is changing.

The technology is advancing rapidly.

So that's one thing obviously hard, even as a scientist, to keep up with it, much less if you're a policymaker.

>> It sounds like you're saying there are these momentous applications that we've already seen, but it sounds like you really believe that the big ones that cause the greatest amount of death early, you know, premature death in the human population -- heart disease, cancers across the body -- you think this will be meaningful for all of those in the fairly near future?

>> Yeah, I mean, I'm not an optimist, but I'm trying to be appropriately cautious here.

I think realistically, however, for the foreseeable future, it will continue to be the case that in most -- you know, in most situations we're going to want to use CRISPR in individuals not to create heritable changes in the DNA, but really to treat an individual.

And I'm anticipating a time when it will be possible, for example, to protect people from diseases that they might otherwise be susceptible to.

So, for example, imagine that we could eventually use genome editing to protect people from getting certain forms of dementia that might otherwise they would succumb to because of their genetics.

I think that would be an incredible advance.

>> Because we talk about healthcare.

But of course, in reality, what we're spending most of our money on is sick care.

It's response to people that already have maladies.

And what you're saying is the ability to create these immunities, to build up the ability of human bodies on an individual basis to resist these kinds of diseases.

That's what CRISPR is going to be most effective at.

>> That's right, exactly.

>> I'm wondering if there are uses of CRISPR that I mean, we actually could get true international cooperation.

There are so few areas that we see governments working together to collaborate and cooperate.

Is this one that you think that we should be optimistic about?

>> I don't know if I'm optimistic.

[ Laughs ] Look, I'm actually on a on a committee right now that's organizing a meeting on genome editing.

And we're going to have a specific focus on human genome editing.

And I think what's been very interesting with this and as the topic has kind of continued to be discussed and presented in these international meetings and reports have been written that have kind of come out with various kinds of guidelines and criteria around that type of science, it's been very interesting to see how the international community actually has largely coalesced around a set of standards that we all agree are appropriate.

Now, does that mean that governments would honor that in the legal system?

It's hard to say, but I certainly think that from the perspective of, you know, using the scientific community to "regulate," if you will, the kind of science that happens, it's been actually very effective, I would say.

>> So, I mean, this is, I assume, a group of the leading scientists from all over the world that are working on this issue.

And what you're telling me is there's actually been a lot more willingness to agree on topics that would be pretty controversial than you would have expected going into these three meetings so far.

>> Absolutely.

Yeah.

I'm just guessing here, but I think part of it is that for biological systems, and especially if we're talking about the human body, each of us feels very personally invested in that.

Right?

We've each got a body and we've got -- we have families, we have loved ones that might be affected by things that affect our bodies.

I think there's just a very visceral kind of interaction, a feeling that we're kind of, you know, we're kind of all in this together.

And it's very much a real time effort.

You know, these things are going to affect us.

And so we need to pay attention to them versus at least for some people can feel a bit more removed.

They're not quite sure how that impacts them personally.

And there's lots of other things to worry about.

So maybe it isn't something they need to engage with.

>> Is there that sense of inevitability that I mean, we're just going to be, you know, "playing God," we're going to be creating adapting life as humanity and the only question is how long it takes us to get there?

>> Yes, I would say absolutely.

I think that all of us that have been actively working on these, whether it's these international summits or the World Health Organization report or, you know, there's lots of venues where people have been involved in in crafting, you know, the language around how genome editing will be deployed in the future.

And I think across the board, at least in those scientific circles, there's the sense that you just said -- basically that this will happen.

It's a matter of time.

And so the important thing to do now is to try to make sure that it happens in the most ethical and responsible fashion.

>> We know that inequality in the world is growing for lots of reasons -- economic reasons, climate-related reasons.

What do we need to watch out for?

What do we need to do to minimize or at least reduce the level of disenfranchisement that come from some people having access or earlier access to this kind of life changing technology?

>> Well, certainly the first step is just acknowledging what you just said.

And I think that's -- you know, we have to acknowledge that that is one of the really big challenges with, frankly, any new technology but certainly with what we're talking about here with CRISPR, because it is a technology that, at least in the early stages, is going to be very expensive.

So, for example, the therapy that's being based on CRISPR that's being used right now to treat sickle cell patients is costing between one and two million dollars a patient.

And that's clearly just not a price point that will make it affordable and available to everyone globally who can benefit from it.

What do we do about that?

I asked -- That's the question I ask myself the most, I would say.

I really think about this a lot.

We have a unique opportunity to focus our work around that question in the sense that when we do the science that we're doing, we're doing it from the standpoint of "how do I think about making this technology affordable and available to people in the future?"

And one of the big ones is we're working on ways that we can deliver the CRISPR molecules much less expensively into patients in the future.

And I think that will be one of the ways that we can help mitigate costs.

And then, of course, there's also going to be the scale of this.

Right now, this is being used in just a handful of patients for good reasons.

It's being still in a testing phase.

But eventually we're going to, if it is proven to be safe and effective for people, then I think we're going to want to work as quickly as possible to scale it to a point where that also helps bring down the cost.

>> Jennifer, thank you so much for joining us on "GZERO."

I wish you the best with your research.

I hope you'll come back and tell us about where it's going.

>> Thanks so much for inviting me, Ian.

Great to be here.

>> Dolly the Sheep made headlines when she became the first mammal to be cloned using an adult cell.

Back in 1996, British scientists used the DNA from a 6-year-old sheep -- I think that's a fairly old sheep -- to create a carbon copy of the animal she came from.

The sheep was named after the American country icon Dolly Parton because mammary gland cells were used in the process.

I have to admit, I was a little sad when I learned the etymology.

Dolly's arrival created huge debate across the world.

Both the Vatican and the White House came out strongly against human cloning.

Nearly 30 years later, new breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, DNA editing and the looming threat of a warming planet have all eclipsed cloning as moral challenges of our time, which may be why today, if you have the money -- around $50,000 to $100,000 -- to be exact, you can clone your pet.

One San Diego family did just that after their beloved yellow Lab, Marley, died in 2014.

>> Their love for Marley was so strong they couldn't really let go.

So the Tschirharts turned to Viagen Pets of Austin, Texas, a company that has cloned hundreds of pets for a multitude of grateful owners, including one Barbra Streisand.

>> That's right.

Streisand's pets, Miss Violet and Miss Scarlet, are actually clones of her dog, Samantha, who died in 2017.

And she's not the only celebrity to get in on the cloning craze.

Fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg and reality show host Simon Cowell, both suitably rich and ethically indifferent to worry about dropping $75,000 on their pet.

They've had two.

And the United States isn't the only country where you can get your pet cloned.

A biotech company in China has successfully cloned the dog Juice, no relation to the convicted American felon.

He's a celebrity dog there, made his name in movies and TV shows.

And the owner hopes the dog's brand can live on long after Juice bites it.

Another company in Seoul has set a world record by cloning a Chihuahua named Miracle Milly 49 times.

That's seven squared.

A lot of Chihuahuas.

Don't want to see that apartment.

Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, think that animal cloning should be banned.

The procedure, which is highly experimental, they say, often ends with an enormous number of failures.

And survivors can suffer from physical abnormalities, severe and chronic pain and other serious conditions.

Cat cloning is possible, too, but researchers say there's not much demand.

You know why?

Because cats are inferior.

Yeah, don't at me.

And now to "Puppet Regime," where President Joe Biden, in puppet form, laments the spread of COVID variants, also puppet-like, in America.

>> ♪ Hey there, little vaccine ♪ ♪ I thought you'd help me live the dream ♪ ♪ But all of a sudden, as the economy was buddin' ♪ >> ♪ Guess who stepped on the scene ♪ ♪ It's us, the Deltas ♪ ♪ Yes, we stole the show ♪ ♪ Catching one last wave before we go ♪ ♪ Thanks to skeptics and conspiracy lies ♪ ♪ We're really surfing as the cases rise ♪ ♪ Helter skelter ♪ ♪ We're the Deltas ♪ ♪ It was a matter of tiiime ♪ >> ♪ Helter skelter ♪ ♪ I gotta tell ya ♪ ♪ You're putting my legacy on the liiine ♪ >> ♪ Well, it's scary when a variant has very, very clearly went from random nose to center of the sho-oh-whoa ♪ ♪ But that's how we do it ♪ ♪ And before you knew it, the Delta surge was messing up your flow-oh-whoa ♪ ♪ Yes, it's true ♪ ♪ We've done a few breakthroughs ♪ ♪ But, of course, you know the numbers are small ♪ ♪ Where we're really having the cruises and the ones who haven't been jabbed at all ♪ ♪ Helter skelter ♪ ♪ We're the Deltas ♪ ♪ It was a matter of tiiime ♪ >> ♪ Helter skelter ♪ ♪ I gotta tell ya ♪ ♪ You're putting my legacy on the liiine ♪ ♪ Well, the vaccine seemed to promise me ♪ ♪ A first-term bounceback dream for the ages ♪ ♪ But a few breakthroughs and a lot of fake news ♪ ♪ And now we're freaking out again about contagion ♪ ♪ And the Delta skelter wave could pull me under ♪ ♪ Don't even get me started about these knucklehead governors ♪ ♪ I really thought we could just trust the science ♪ ♪ And in the end, we ran up against skeptics and defiance ♪ Come on, man.

>> ♪ Helter skelter ♪ ♪ We're the Deltas ♪ ♪ It was a matter of tiiime ♪ >> ♪ Ah, to hell with Delta ♪ ♪ I gotta tell ya ♪ ♪ You're putting my legacy on the l-- ♪ >> "Puppet Regime"!

>> That's our show this week.

Come back next week, and if you like what you see but don't want to just watch the same clone show time after time after time, because that would be boring, really boring, why don't you check us out at gzeromedia.com?

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by...