The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab: Biological

The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab

2.1.3 Biological

Innovations in the biological realm – and genetics in particular – are nothing less than breath-taking. In recent years, considerable progress has been achieved in reducing the cost and increasing the ease of genetic sequencing, and lately, in activating or editing genes. It took more than 10 years, at a cost of $2.7 billion, to complete the Human Genome Project. Today, a genome can be sequenced in a few hours and for less than a thousand dollars. [Note: K.A. Wetterstrand, “DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP)”, National Human Genome Research Institute, 2 October 2015; http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/]. With advances in computing power, scientists no longer go by trial and error; rather, they test the way in which specific genetic variations generate particular traits and diseases. Synthetic biology is the next step. It will provide us with the ability to customize organisms by writing DNA. Setting aside the profound ethical issues this raises, these advances will not only have a profound and immediate impact on medicine but also on agriculture and the production of biofuels. Many of our intractable health challenges, from heart disease to cancer, have a genetic component. Because of this, the ability to determine our individual genetic make-up in an efficient and cost-effective manner (through sequencing machines used in routine diagnostics) will revolutionize personalized and effective healthcare. Informed by a tumour’s genetic make-up, doctors will be able to make decisions about a patient’s cancer treatment. While our understanding of the links between genetic markers and disease is still poor, increasing amounts of data will make precision medicine possible, enabling the development of highly targeted therapies to improve treatment outcomes. Already, IBM’s Watson supercomputer system can help recommend, in just a few minutes, personalized treatments for cancer patients by comparing the histories of disease and treatment, scans and genetic data against the (almost) complete universe of up-to-date medical knowledge. [Note: Ariana Eunjung Cha, “Watson’s Next Feat? Taking on Cancer”, The Washington Post, 27 June 2015; http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons-next-feat-taking-on-cancer/]. The ability to edit biology can be applied to practically any cell type, enabling the creation of genetically modified plants or animals, as well as modifying the cells of adult organisms including humans. This differs from genetic engineering practiced in the 1980s in that it is much more precise, efficient and easier to use than previous methods. In fact, the science is progressing so fast that the limitations are now less technical than they are legal, regulatory and ethical. The list of potential applications is virtually endless – ranging from the ability to modify animals so that they can be raised on a diet that is more economical or better suited to local conditions, to creating food crops that are capable of withstanding extreme temperatures or drought. As research into genetic engineering progresses (for example, the development of the CRISPR/Cas9 method in gene editing and therapy), the constraints of effective delivery and specificity will be overcome, leaving us with one immediate and most challenging question, particularly from an ethical viewpoint: How will genetic editing revolutionize medical research and medical treatment? In principle, both plants and animals could potentially be engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and other forms of treatment. The day when cows are engineered to produce in its milk a blood-clotting element, which haemophiliacs lack, is not far off. Researchers have already started to engineer the genomes of pigs with the goal of growing organs suitable for human transplantation (a process called xenotransplantation, which could not be envisaged until now because of the risk of immune rejection by the human body and of disease transmission from animals to humans). In line with the point made earlier about how different technologies fuse and enrich each other, 3D manufacturing will be combined with gene editing to produce living tissues for the purpose of tissue repair and regeneration – a process called bioprinting. This has already been used to generate skin, bone, heart and vascular tissue. Eventually, printed liver-cell layers will be used to create transplant organs. We are developing new ways to embed and employ devices that monitor our activity levels and blood chemistry, and how all of this links to well-being, mental health and productivity at home and at work. We are also learning far more about how the human brain functions and we are seeing exciting developments in the field of neurotechnology. This is underscored by the fact that – over the past few years - two of the most funded research programs in the world are in brain sciences. It is in the biological domain where I see the greatest challenges for the development of both social norms and appropriate regulation. We are confronted with new questions around what it means to be human, what data and information about our bodies and health can or should be shared with others, and what rights and responsibilities we have when it comes to changing the very genetic code of future generations. To return to the issue of genetic editing, that it is now far easier to manipulate with precision the human genome within viable embryos means that we are likely to see the advent of designer babies in the future who possess particular traits or who are resistant to a specific disease. Needless to say, discussions about the opportunities and challenges of these capabilities are underway. Notably, in December 2015, the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine of the US, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of the UK convened an International Summit on Human Gene Editing. Despite such deliberations, we are not yet prepared to confront the realities and consequences of the latest genetic techniques even though they are coming. The social, medical, ethical and psychological challenges that they pose are considerable and need to be resolved, or at the very least, properly addressed.

The dynamics of discovery

Innovation is a complex, social process, and not one we should take for granted. Therefore, even though this section has highlighted a wide array of technological advances with the power to change the world, it is important that we pay attention to how we can ensure such advances continue to be made and directed towards the best possible outcomes. Academic institutions are often regarded as one of the foremost places to pursue forward-thinking ideas. New evidence, however, indicates that the career incentives and funding conditions in universities today favour incremental, conservative research over bold and innovative programmes. [Note: Jacob G. Foster, Andrey Rzhetsky and James A. Evans, “Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies”, American Sociological Review, October 2015 80: 875-908; http://www.knowledgelab.org/docs/1302.6906.pdf]. One antidote to research conservatism in academia is to encourage more commercial forms of research. This too, however, has its challenges. In 2015, Uber Technologies Inc. hired 40 researchers and scientists in robotics from Carnegie Mellon University, a significant proportion of the human capital of a lab, impacting its research capabilities and putting stress on the university’s contracts with the U.S. Department of Defence and other organizations. [Note: Mike Ramsay and Douglas Cacmillan, “Carnegie Mellon Reels After Uber Lures Away Researchers”, Wall Street Journal, 31 May 2015; http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of-carnegie-mellon-in-robotics-1433084582]. To foster both ground-breaking fundamental research and innovative technical adaptations across academia and business alike, governments should allocate more aggressive funding for ambitious research programmes. Equally, public-private research collaborations should increasingly be structured towards building knowledge and human capital to the benefit of all.