CRISPR as agent: a metaphor that rhetorically inhibits the prospects for responsible research

• Main Author: Leah Ceccarelli
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2018-11-01
• Series: Life Sciences, Society and Policy
• Subjects: Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA; Berg letter; CRISPR research moratorium; International summit on human gene editing; Jennifer Doudna
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40504-018-0088-8

Abstract In 2015, a group of 18 scientists and bioethicists published an editorial in Science calling for “open discourse on the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to manipulate the human genome” and recommending that steps be taken to strongly discourage “any attempts at germline genome modification” in humans with this powerful new technology. Press reports compared the essay to a letter written by Paul Berg and 10 other scientists in 1974, also published in Science, calling for a voluntary deferral of certain types of recombinant DNA experimentation. A rhetorical analysis of the metaphors in these two documents, and in the summary statements that came out of the respective National Academy of Sciences conferences they instigated, shows that while they have a lot in common, they are different in at least one important way. The more recent texts deploy conceptual metaphors that portray the biotechnology in question as an autonomous agent, subtly suggesting an inevitability to its development, in contrast to the earlier texts, which portray the scientists who are using the technology as the primary agents who take action. Rhetorical moves depicting biotechnology as an agent in the 2015 texts hint at contemporary skepticism about whether humans can restrain the forward momentum of science and technology in a global context, thus inhibiting scientists from imagining a consequential role for themselves in shaping the future of responsible research.