A scientific biography of Jennifer Doudna, a founder and co-developer of the CRISPR gene-editing mechanism, and an examination of what happened after CRISPR hit the marketplace.
I wanted this to be great and it was... fine. There's a lot of politics and competitiveness, which is interesting. I also liked the parts about how different scientists enjoy the business side of things and, especially, how Stanford does a great job of helping their faculty and doctorate students make money. Berkeley, where Doudna is, is doing its best to keep up. Isaacson's discussion on the moral aspects of using CRISPR on humans, how different cultures may view this, and the practice in humans to date – only in China – was excellent.
A view into the work and lives of gene editing researchers
4 stars
This is an area of research with huge potential impacts that I had little understanding of. The basic explanations are pretty good, though I still have plenty of questions. Why are CRISPR RNA sequences palindromic? Etc. Mostly this is the stories of the people, though. Somehow I hadn't heard that there are genetically modified humans walking the earth, and how that happened is pretty interesting. Also these researchers managed to agree on some guard rails to safeguard our species, which has parallels with what is happening with artificial intelligence now.
As good as [a:Walter Isaacson|7111|Walter Isaacson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1192222433p2/7111.jpg] is at making science comprehensible to non-scientists (though [a:Bill Bryson|7|Bill Bryson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1578597522p2/7.jpg]'s better at it), I found long stretches of [b:The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race|54968118|The Code Breaker Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race|Walter Isaacson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1610894755l/54968118.SY75.jpg|85738526] a chore to read, like doing homework in a class I'm not doing well in. This says more about my poor intellect and reading preferences than it does about the book. After I finished it, I realized that if someone asked me what RNA is, I'd be unable to give a decent definition of it, and RNA is the key molecule in CRISPR use for gene editing. I'd bet that most who read it wouldn't be able to tell you what CRISPR stands for (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). It's 531 pages long, but …
As good as [a:Walter Isaacson|7111|Walter Isaacson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1192222433p2/7111.jpg] is at making science comprehensible to non-scientists (though [a:Bill Bryson|7|Bill Bryson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1578597522p2/7.jpg]'s better at it), I found long stretches of [b:The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race|54968118|The Code Breaker Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race|Walter Isaacson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1610894755l/54968118.SY75.jpg|85738526] a chore to read, like doing homework in a class I'm not doing well in. This says more about my poor intellect and reading preferences than it does about the book. After I finished it, I realized that if someone asked me what RNA is, I'd be unable to give a decent definition of it, and RNA is the key molecule in CRISPR use for gene editing. I'd bet that most who read it wouldn't be able to tell you what CRISPR stands for (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). It's 531 pages long, but not really: There are many photos throughout and notes and an index, which begin on page 481. Unlike with many similar books, you can skip the notes entirely if you're not interested in pursuing further reading. Take the photos and the air out of it, it'd probably be closer to 350 pages. You know, thinking about, don't let anything I say influence you on this. It does have a lot of good stuff in it, like how gene editing may effect the future, and how the science practiced by Doudna and others has led to a safe and effective vaccine for COVID in such a short time. One thing I found missing among the many pages of interesting discussions on the pros and cons of gene editing is, I think, a key factor in defending it use: If we don't do it, someone else will. Think of the sci-fi movies we've all seen or at least heard about that feature genetically engineered super soldiers, and people with intellects that dwarf our own. Imagine a rival nation in which the IQ of the average citizen is what would be 140 here. Including anyone's thoughts on this was a missed opportunity.
Let's pause for a quick refresher course. Enzymes are a type of protein. Their main function is to act as a catalyst that sparks chemical reactions in the cells of living organisms, from bacteria to humans. There are more than five thousand biochemical reactions that are catalyzed by enzymes. These include breaking down starches and proteins in the digestive system, causing muscles to contract, sending signals between cells, regulating metabolism, and (most important for this discussion) cutting and splicing DNA and RNA. By 2008, scientists had discovered a handful of enzymes produced by genes that are adjacent to the CRISPR sequences in a bacteria's DNA. These CRISPR-associated (Cas) enzymes enable the system to cut and past new memories of viruses that attack the bacteria. They also create short segments of RNA, known as CRISPR RNA (crRNA), that can guide a scissors-like enzyme to a dangerous virus and cut up its genetic material. Presto! That's how the wily bacteria create an adaptive immune system!
I like books on the history of science but usually I read physics books. This made a nice change.
I didn’t realise the development of CRISPR was so acrimonious, I hope this book has set the story straight.
I found the sections about David Watson to be a bit excessive and feeling them bolted on, being of interest to the scientific community but not enough content for a book of its own. My biggest qualm is that Watson obviously has strongly held beliefs but the evidence for the foundation of his beliefs was not rigorously stated and overturned only dismissed as untenable for someone to hold them. Is he a crusty old racist? Probably. Or is he ignorant of contradictory evidence or newer science?
Given that CRISPR has opened a new frontier in both the medical and moral realms the book covers the related dilemmas in both.
Parts of it are superb. Other parts are needlessly redundant or an absolute waste of space. It could've been at least a quarter shorter without missing much.
Issacson gives too much airtime to bioethicists; in doing so he legitimizes them. Steven Pinker said it best when he told bioethicists to, "Get out of the way." Pinker elaborates further here.
Essentially, by perpetuating the meme that we should move slowly with biotech (lest we offend the bioconservatives) we are perpetuating the death and suffering of millions worldwide. Treating the human germline as holy ground is not only patently ridiculous, it is wildly immoral.
I genuinely do not understand how so many people (including the biotech innovators themselves) have been brainwashed with this meme. George Church is a notable exception.
All that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and eagerly await his next work. Definitely a 5-star book, it's just …
Parts of it are superb. Other parts are needlessly redundant or an absolute waste of space. It could've been at least a quarter shorter without missing much.
Issacson gives too much airtime to bioethicists; in doing so he legitimizes them. Steven Pinker said it best when he told bioethicists to, "Get out of the way." Pinker elaborates further here.
Essentially, by perpetuating the meme that we should move slowly with biotech (lest we offend the bioconservatives) we are perpetuating the death and suffering of millions worldwide. Treating the human germline as holy ground is not only patently ridiculous, it is wildly immoral.
I genuinely do not understand how so many people (including the biotech innovators themselves) have been brainwashed with this meme. George Church is a notable exception.
All that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and eagerly await his next work. Definitely a 5-star book, it's just irresponsible that he's mindlessly parroting a meme that is perpetuating death/suffering needlessly.
