By: Kareena Pisharodi.
People around the world questioned whether surgeon Christiaan Barnard had crossed the line between medical genius and clinically insane when he transplanted a dying man’s heart with another crimson, beating organ. At first, this act was seen as reckless interference with a natural stage in life: death. What was once considered a dangerous procedure for mankind now has saved millions of people, and has completely revolutionized modern medicine. However, as society’s technological advancements funnel down to the biological field of medicine, the world has grown weary of the potential harm that could follow. Society’s ambiguity towards scientific risk-taking should be discouraged since it ultimately promotes funding aversion and incremental advancements instead of bold innovation necessary for major discoveries.
The increasing risk aversion held against science research influences government funding priorities, causing researchers to focus on safe, incremental projects rather than bold innovations. To provide an example, an upcoming field in biological medicine, CRISPR germline editing, faces strict limitations because of ethical and safety concerns, even though the technology has the potential to revolutionize genetic methodologies. CRISPR is gene-editing technology that allows scientists to precisely cut and modify specific segments of DNA in living organisms, making it possible to correct genetic errors or alter specific traits. Huntington’s disease is an inherited neurodegenerative disorder caused by a mutation in the HTT gene. Specifically, the gene contains an abnormally high number of repeated DNA sequences, which eventually damage nerve cells in the brain. Hypothetically, CRISPR could treat neurodegenerative and other inherited diseases such as Huntington’s, but in reality, it has only been tested on mice, bacteria, and even human grown cells. Since CRISPR technology is severely underdeveloped for clinical trials, extensive research and funding are necessary to improve its accuracy and safety, especially
for editing germ cells. However, government agencies often hesitate to fund controversial or high-risk scientific fields, prioritizing projects with more predictable outcomes instead. “Scientific funding systems often favor predictable, incremental research over high-risk projects, encouraging scientists to focus on refining existing knowledge rather than pursuing more uncertain but potentially transformative discoveries (Sutter).” When funding becomes tied to these types of predictable research, researchers begin adjusting their questions before they even begin experiments, choosing problems that are more likely to receive approval rather than those that might lead to major breakthroughs. As a result, scientists are encouraged to pursue smaller advancements within research that has already been in development rather than reaching out to find new discoveries that require significant risk and investment.
On the other hand, many argue that avoiding the issue entirely is safer for society. Focusing on improving pre-existing knowledge can prove more successful to advancing the scientific community rather than wasting funds on unsure fields that could potentially result in more harm than good (Gross and Bergstrom). Another idea to consider is that new discoveries can be detrimental to the current funding of scientific projects due to outcomes that could invoke doubt in the success of research. This kind of hesitation often builds a self reinforcing cycle where only proven ideas receive support, which makes it even harder for new ideas to ever become proven in the first place. Despite these concerns, is not doing anything to resolve an issue considered more ethical than attempting to confront and fix it? For the first time in history there could be an opportunity to prevent Hereditary transmitted diseases with the utilization of the CRISPR editing complex. The principle of funding different fields of science and not newly discovered ideas can be understandable if not for this fact. So the question lies, whether society takes this opportunity to help the lives of others around them and pursue greater capabilities
initially deemed impossible within medicine, or keep stationary where we are now, which completely contradicts the human nature of seeking innovation and discovery.
Since the dawn of mankind when our ancestors realized they could create an element of Mother Nature with the use of sticks and stones, to now scientists being able to genetically alter human DNA, people throughout the course of history have never forgotten their sense of curiosity. Society shouldn’t condone limiting ourselves because we are scared of what could happen; instead, we should embrace the unknown and push to discover it, tame it, and use it towards the best for mankind. With the invention of these new discoveries, humanity has the capability to expand our knowledge and inspire more movements for the scientific field. While society might think this is a simple problem that isn’t worth the effort to fund, nor explore, it can carry significant attributes that are highly unrecognized.
Society’s hesitation towards new fields in research does not only slow scientific progress in theory, but it also delays potential treatments that could directly change human lives. When innovation is filtered through fear instead of possibility, entire fields of medicine risk being reduced to what is already known rather than what is urgently needed. This creates a significant gap between what science could potentially achieve in the future if promoted successfully, and what it is allowed to explore, which ultimately becomes the real cost of scientific risk aversion. When Christiaan Barnard performed the world’s first heart transplant, many around the world viewed it as reckless experimentation. But to this day, heart transplants have become a standard procedure that has saved countless lives. History reminds us that many of medicine’s greatest breakthroughs were once dismissed by society as dangerous or incomprehensible ideas. If humanity hopes to continue progressing, we must be willing to explore the unknown rather than reject it out of fear, because ultimately it comes down to a simple fact: fortune favors the brave.
Leave a Reply