Expert Voices

If we want to settle on other planets, we’ll have to use genome editing to alter human DNA

a twisted ladder of dna against a backdrop of space
An illustration of DNA against a rendering of outer space. (Image credit: Yuichiro Chino/Xuanyu Han/Getty Images)

This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Sam McKee is a researcher and associate tutor/lecturer on the philosophy of science faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University. 

When considering human settlements on the moon, Mars and further afield, much attention is given to the travel times, food and radiation risk. We'll undoubtedly face a harsh environment in deep space and some thinkers have been pointing to genome editing as a way to ensure that humans can tolerate the severe conditions as they venture further into the solar system.

In January, I was fortunate to attend a much-anticipated debate between astronomer royal Lord Martin Rees and Mars exploration advocate Dr. Robert Zubrin. The event at the British Interplanetary Society took on the topic of whether the exploration of Mars should be human or robotic.

In a recent book called "The End of Astronauts," Lord Rees and co-author Donald Goldsmith outline the benefits of exploration of the solar system using robotic spacecraft and vehicles, without the expense and risk of sending humans along for the ride. Dr. Zubrin supports human exploration. Where there was some agreement was over Rees's advocacy of using gene editing technology to enable humans to overcome the immense challenges of becoming an interplanetary species.

Our genome is all the DNA present in our cells. Since 2011, we have been able to easily and accurately edit genomes. First came a molecular tool called Crispr-Cas9, which today can be used in a high school lab for very little cost and has even been used on the International Space Station. Then came techniques called base and prime editing, through which miniscule changes can be made in the genome of any living organism. 

Related: Colonizing Mars may require humanity to tweak its DNA

The potential applications of gene editing for allowing us to travel further are almost limitless. One of the most problematic hazards astronauts will encounter in deep space is a higher dosage of radiation, which can cause havoc with many processes in the body and increase the longer-term risk of cancer.

Perhaps, using genome editing, we could insert genes into humans from plants and bacteria that are able to clean up radiation in the event of radioactive waste spills and nuclear fallout. It sounds like science fiction, but eminent thinkers such as Lord Rees believe this is key to our advancement across the solar system.

Identifying and then inserting genes into humans that slow down aging and counter cellular breakdown could also help. We could also engineer crops that resist the effects of exposure to radioactivity as crews will need to grow their own food. We could also personalize medicine to an astronaut’s needs based on their particular genetic makeup.

Imagine a future where the human genome is so well understood it has become pliable under this new, personalized medicine.

Kate Rubins was the first person to sequence DNA in space. (Image credit: NASA)

Genes for extremes

Tardigrades are microscopic animals sometimes referred to as “water bears”. Experiments have shown that these tiny creatures can tolerate extreme temperatures, pressures, high radiation and starvation. They can even tolerate the vacuum of space.

Geneticists are eager to understand their genomes and a paper published in Nature sought to uncover the key genes and proteins that give the miniature creatures this extraordinary stress tolerance. If we could insert some of the genes involved into crops, could we make them tolerant to the highest levels of radiation and environmental stress? It’s worth exploring.

Even more intriguing is whether inserting tardigrade genes into our own genome could make us more resilient to the harsh conditions in space. Scientists have already shown that human cells in the lab developed increased tolerance to X-ray radiation when tardigrade genes were inserted into them.

Transferring genes from tardigrades is just one speculative example of how we might be able engineer humans and crops to be more suited to space travel.

An image of a tardigrade as seen under a microscope. (Image credit: STEVE GSCHMEISSNER/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images)

We’ll need much more research if scientists are ever to get to this stage. However, in the past, several governments have been keen to enforce tight restrictions on how genome editing is used, as well as on other technologies for inserting genes from one species into another.

Germany and Canada are among the most cautious, but elsewhere restrictions seem to be relaxing.

In November 2018, the Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had created the first gene edited babies. He had introduced a gene into the unborn twins that confers resistance to HIV infection.

The scientist was subsequently jailed. But he has since been released and allowed to carry out research again.

In the new space race, certain countries may go to lengths with genome editing that other nations, especially in the west where restrictions are already tight, may not. Whoever wins would reap enormous scientific and economic benefits.

If Rees and the other futurists are right, this field has the potential to advance our expansion into the cosmos. But society will need to agree to it.

It’s likely there will be opposition, because of the deep-seated fears of altering the human species forever. And with base and prime editing now having advanced the precision of targeted gene editing, it’s clear that the technology is moving faster than the conversation.

One country or another is likely to take the leap where others pull back from the brink. Only then will we find out just how viable these ideas really are. Until then, we can only speculate with curiosity, and perhaps excitement too.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Sam McKee

Sam McKee works in education and academia as a researcher and associate tutor/lecturer on the philosophy of science faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University. He is director of Aylesbury Vale YFC, a charity putting on events for schools across the area in the sciences and humanities.

Sam is a polymath, gaining a 1st class degree in genetics at Cambridge University, a BA (Hons) in theology at Chester University followed by an MRes. He has a second master’s degree in molecular biology from Birkbeck. He is currently studying a PhD in philosophy of science. This winter he commences doctoral research at the University of Reading in molecular biology where he will be continuing research into DNA repair in the McGuffin laboratory. Working with ISSET, he oversaw a winning team which had its experiment flown to space by SpaceX to be conducted by astronauts on the International Space Station.

Sam speaks regularly to both students and adults on biology, aspects of religion and science, philosophy of science and religious studies. He also facilitates public debates around these disciplines for secondary school and university audiences. He is a popular writer for media outlets such as The Conversation, The Freethinker and the Institute for Art and Ideas (IaI).

Sam is passionate about STEM education and investing in the next generation, serving as an ambassador for The Genetics Society, as well as on the committee of Mars Society UK and Christians in Science. He is a member of the International Society for Science and Religion, and an author/reviewer for the European Journal for Philosophy of Science. He is part of the Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine; an academic group for the history of physics.

  • Unclear Engineer
    This seems likely to produce lot of "unintended consequences".

    But, the authors are probably correct that somebody somewhere will do it, even if illegally. It has become too easy to control effectively.
    Reply
  • ChrisA
    The only reason to think that humans are even needed in space is because you compare humans to the robots we at present. Wait 100 years and the robots will be MUCH better. So if we assume very advanced robots and AI the only reason for sending people to space is for tourism.

    If there are very good robots available, living in space could never be economically justified. Even if there was a way to make enough money in space to pay for the cost of living there, robots could do it cheaper,. That said, tourism might be huge if it could be made affordable

    I suspect the Moon would be like Antarctica, A place where a few scientists go for a year or so and a greater number of tourists go for a few days.

    Again, you have to stop thinking of robots as being like the current Mars rover. Think instead of a powerful machine that can do some thinking on its own and follow human supervision

    Yes. it is obvious that humans would have to change if they were to live in space. The lack of gravity would eventually kill most people and child development might not even work on low gravity. So it is a "race". which science fiction will come true first, bio-re-engineered humans with modified DNA or intelligent robots? Neither will happen in our lifetime.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I think you are mostly right about robots to places other than the Moon and Mars.

    But, humans still seem to have the advantage of being more mentally complex than robots, so that when something that is not planned for is observed, and critical thinking is applied, progress is faster than having to design a new robot and send it to where the old robot was insufficient. And, that assumes that the robot recognized the unexpected to begin with.

    I believe that thought will drive humans to go explore places that we have been thinking about exploring for decades. Which is mostly the Moon and Mars. I don't see people dreaming of going to Venus or Mercury, or even the moons of the gas giants. Obviously, we aren't going to land on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune, and why bother with Pluto?
    Reply
  • ChrisA
    Unclear Engineer said:


    But, humans still seem to have the advantage of being more mentally complex than robots,
    This is true in 2024. But will it still be true in 2124? Likely not.

    And why do we care about mental complexity? Is it a race? Even with a dim-witted robot, it can say. "I see a green rock that is unexpected." Then the scientist on Earth asks the robot to try some experiments and send back the result.

    But it will likely not be like that. The robot will know more than any one human possibly can and will be able to sort through facts faster. It may lack imagination but it only needs to be a smart technician, a good observer, and good at communication.

    The discussion about living in space is not for this century. We need to imagine 22nd-century technology.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I am not so sure that building robots that are smarter than humans is a smart idea. That could have more "unintended consequences" than editing our own genome.

    I'm not sure I would even know who to root for when the AI robots get into a war with the mutant humans.
    Reply
  • ChrisA
    Back when I was a kid your age. We all lived in caves and ate raw dinosaur meat. Then one day, Thagg showed us this new thing he called "fire". We all saw it as a novelty and wondered what to use it for but we quickly found that we liked roasted dinosaurs better than raw and we liked being warm and we liked having light after dark.

    The tribal elders saw this "fire" as a danger and said it would be the end of us all, fire can burn down the whole forest and destroy our food supply. They said "We must regulate fire and make rules about who and when it can be used and by who." But it was too late. By that time even women could make their own fires and fire technology spread to other tribes.

    We have the same situation with AI. some say "it must be regulated" but the reality is that even undergraduate computer science majors can read journal articles and make their own AI and thousands of them can and do. The technology is now in the wild.

    The technology will evolve as it will. I suspect AI will be very smart but also not so much like we are. But we will evolve too. Not by the natural Darwinian process but by self-modification. Today we are "human-plus-cellphone". and we are different from the people who lived 50 years ago because we can answer ANY random factual question in seconds (What is the mass of Saturn's Moon Titan and what is the pressure at the surface?) and we can talk with each other over global distances. Whatever technology is used to make robots can be used to make the next version of humans. They will become "human-plus-robotech" and be able to do things we can't just like we can do things our grandparents couldn't.

    The robots will be in a race with humans but humans are a moving target, we change.

    They were not so good at stopping the use of fire and the same story repeated hundreds of times, whenever a technology spills out into the wild.

    300,000 years ago there were multiple human species on Earth. I'd argue the Earth was more interesting, a little like Tolkien's Middle Earth. With gene editing and AI, perhaps the solar system will host multiple intelligent species once again. Some will be 100% biological, some robots, and some a mix of the two. Some will live in the real universe and some will like their simulated virtual worlds. in 1,000 years it will be a place even Tolkien could not imagine
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Your rather fanciful description of history is missing some pieces, particularly the crashes of some societies.

    And, it misses the parameters affecting the vulnerabilities of societies. Crashes tend to occur when the population is so dependent on something that it cannot continue to exist without it.

    In the "old days" of maybe 1000 years ago, rainfall, or lack thereof, was what did in agrarian societies.

    Today's vulnerability is electric power. Without that, what do you think will happen to the people who don't know how to coordinate or actually produce anything without their cell phones?

    So, the question is really whether we are headed for better times with new technologies, or headed for a crash.

    Looking back at the histories of the populations of other animals, exponential population increases such as humans are currently experiencing are typically followed by major population crashes.

    So, the real question is whether humans are actually so much smarter than the other animals of Planet Earth that we can avoid crashing our own population.

    I am not seeing convincing evidence that we really are that smart.
    Reply
  • Torbjorn Larsson
    McKee is a philosopher and Rees is an astronomer, neither has a say on the use of biotechnology, and it is telling that McKee has to reference a criminal like Jiankui. Besides the medical, biological and juridical ethics of human gene editing there is the problem that it is currently unfeasible in individuals.

    But it would be useful if GMO becomes more accepted, since we can e.g. cut down on antibiotics - resistance problems - and pesticides - spreads by insects and kills outside the fields.
    Reply
  • Torbjorn Larsson
    A study looked at robotic exploration but found that humans do it faster and cheaper, assuming you invest enough money for manned exploration. Perhaps future generations of technology will change that, but we'll have to wait and see.

    Historically humans explore and settle wherever we can, which likely will happen with the rest of the system too. And if we get to the Oort cloud we will go interstellar and perhaps never bother with the energetically costly and risky gravity wells earlier generations called "planets". Then we will speciate, meanwhile it takes only one crossbreeding per generation on average to prevent such splits. It is unlikely to ever happen in the Sun system.

    Unclear Engineer said:
    the authors are probably correct that somebody somewhere will do it, even if illegally. It has become too easy to control effectively.
    It is costly but fairly easy to try, but current techniques has too many unintended inserts to work in individuals or safely on fertilized eggs. It may never change, chemistry is basically random and crowded cell chemistry even more so (stochastic metabolism, cancer, mutations).

    ChrisA said:
    300,000 years ago there were multiple human species on Earth. I'd argue the Earth was more interesting, a little like Tolkien's Middle Earth. With gene editing and AI, perhaps the solar system will host multiple intelligent species once again. Some will be 100% biological, some robots, and some a mix of the two. Some will live in the real universe and some will like their simulated virtual worlds. in 1,000 years it will be a place even Tolkien could not imagine
    Unless you develop technology that reproduces, there will only be one human population due to the population genetics I described above - one crossbreeding per generation on average suffice.

    Unclear Engineer said:
    Looking back at the histories of the populations of other animals, exponential population increases such as humans are currently experiencing are typically followed by major population crashes.

    So, the real question is whether humans are actually so much smarter than the other animals of Planet Earth that we can avoid crashing our own population.
    The population projections is that we are heading for a crash from 10 billion people to about 1 billion sometime after 2100. Not because of primarily technology (though birth control has made it a possibility) but because of social reasons. C.f. China's shrinking population, having children cuts into your personal time as well as your economy.

    Unclear Engineer said:
    I am not so sure that building robots that are smarter than humans is a smart idea.
    That ship has sailed, current LLMs have made better medical diagnoses and behaved better to patients than your average above average intelligence doctor.

    Like ChrisA says, they are different though. Currently they have limited introspection for adjusting on the parameter level during basic training, say.

    ChrisA said:
    We have the same situation with AI. some say "it must be regulated" but the reality is that even undergraduate computer science majors can read journal articles and make their own AI and thousands of them can and do. The technology is now in the wild.
    AI is regulated. Like GMO technology it isn't feasible for hackers. It takes access to vast amount of data to make LLMs. And costly cloud computing power to make their transformer cores even if you want to make some limited AI such as cat image recognition (say). 🐈
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Regarding regulatory possibilities:

    We have already had a Chinese doctor create some gene-edited children. Yes, it takes some significant equipment, but that equipment is already not supervised sufficiently to prevent "illegal" uses. Add in a motivated multi-billionaire, and all sorts of things could be attempted.

    And, AI is just in its beginning stages. There are already multi-billionaires working on multiple versions. Yes, it currently requires massive amounts of computing infrastructure to make train and use it. But, with nanotechnology and established algorithms, I am not seeing any theoretical limit on how small an AI "being" could be made - even mass produced. We can already make electrical junction circuits smaller than the synapses in human brains, so I don't see any reason we could not eventually make an AI brain of similar function in a similar volume. I think in AI we are still in the "vacuum tube computer" stage of development, and getting to something analogous to today's computers using integrated circuits on multi-layer chips will make the AI more mobile and available to more users. The question is, what will those users "train" their AIs to do - "serve humanity" or "take over the world" for some rogue user?
    Reply