Review
HUMAN NATURE – Review
The documentary HUMAN NATURE, which is available on Amazon Prime, offers an accessible, accurate explanation of CRISPR, the molecular biology discovery that gives scientists a way to correct and cure genetic diseases, among other potential uses, but acting like molecular scissors to cut out and replace defective genes. The beautifully shot, well-researched HUMAN NATURE presents a mostly balanced picture of this groundbreaking discovery.
CRISPR is often called “molecular scissors” for its ability to alter DNA sequences, even down to changing a single base pair, the “letters” of the DNA alphabet, a level of precision never before possible. HUMAN NATURE does an excellent job of covering the basics of DNA and describing what CRISPR is and why it is such a game-changer, with enormous potential for the treatment of genetic diseases and even cancer. But the documentary stumbles a bit into bias when it later discusses its potential for its misuse, not sufficiently clarifying what risks are specific to CRISPR and which are inherent in other genetic techniques such as in-vitro fertilization and genetically modification of organisms.
Director Adam Bolt presents the topic in a straight-forward way without oversimplifying. The topic was inherently of interest to me personally, as I have a degree in genetics, but this is an important topic that should interest everyone, because the discovery of CRISPR has the potential to change medicine and many things about our world is that great. The information is clearly and accurately presented and the presence of a great number of well-respected authorities adds to the depth of the information. Yet HUMAN NATURE is an engaging film, drawing the viewer in and presenting both the science and the historical context in an lively, visually strong fashion.
It does a good job of balancing interview sequences with other footage, keeping a brisk enough pace to keep the audience involved. The material it presents in describing the science and both the promise and questions it poses for society are well crafted and edited. Among the experts who speak are Jennifer Doudna, one of the developers of the CRISPR technology, and David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize winner and leader in the field of molecular biology. Unlike many documentaries about science, it is clear that scientists played a big part in creating this film, which is one greatest of its strengths.
Where HUMAN NATURE does best is in its first half, covering what CRISPR is and why it is so revolutionary. It does an outstanding job to conveying how remarkable and game-changing this new technique really is. The documentary has just the right amount of information to give audiences an understanding of genetics and DNA without getting too sidetracked into detail to take the focus off the central topic. It describes how CRISPR works in a clear but scientific manner, letting scientists and doctors speak, but also focusing on patients with genetic diseases, the people it has the potential to help. It does an outstanding job to conveying how remarkable and game-changing this new technique really is.
HUMAN NATURE does an excellent job in this first portion where it examines what CRISPR is and its great promise for humankind. One of the strongest voices in this first segment, and actually throughout the documentary, is a teen suffering from Sickle Cell Disease. He is a well spoken, well-grounded and personable young man who is both likable and wise beyond his years. The documentary uses the sickle cell as a example for many of the points it makes about the potential good in CRISPR and some of the questions it raises. When someone inherits two copies of the gene, the result is Sickle Cell Disease, in which misshapened red blood cells cause painful and sometimes life-threatening symptoms, but when an individual inherits a single copy of the gene, there is evidence that it confers some resistance to malaria. The genetic trait is common in Africa and some areas around the Mediterranean.
Where the documentary falters a bit is in the second portion where it turns to potential dangers. Like every tool, CRISPR has the potential for misuse in the wrong hands or if used without ethical or legal guidelines. The guiding principle here, for CRISPR or any powerful tools, is that old saying “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
However, what the documentary does not make clear is that most of the dangers it presents are already with us, largely from the already on-going use of in-vitro fertilization and the unknowns in genetic modification of organisms (a subject the documentary does not even touch on). The risk for unscrupulous use already exists with IVF, which can be used to select for one gender over the other, or for height or eye color, or eliminate embryos with genetic diseases or any trait the user might deem “undesirable.” While research scientists follow rules of ethical behavior that are enforced by peer-reviewed journals and some countries ban some actions, their is no international rule on this. A debate on it is underway in academic circles but less so in governmental ones. The risk comes less from academic research, which operates under ethical constraints, but from private companies, where the profit motive drives decisions and the ultimate constraints are legal. While most scientists agree on what is ethical use, the legal rules vary country to country, with some things banned in some countries but allowed in others. With or without CRISPR, the documentary is right to call for some international rules for ethical use of the genetic manipulation, particularly when a powerful technique like CRISPR moves from a pure-research setting to a commercial one.
CRISPR is indeed a powerful advance, and there is one aspect to CRISPR that presents a unique risk: its potential to change the germ line. meaning its changes would be inherited by the next generation. CRISPR gives scientists the potential to not only cure someone with a genetic disease, such as the boy with sickle cell, but to ensure that the trait is not passed down to his offspring. The documentary is right to sound the alarm on this aspect, as the law of unintended consequences looms large when one begins to manipulate the evolution of humankind.
HUMAN NATURE presents a fairly good discussion of this danger, focusing on the fact that there is still much that is unknown about human genetics. While eliminating human suffering by getting rid of a genetic disease like Huntington’s or a cancer is enormous appealing, there is considerable risk of long-term unknown results. We do not know if we might accidentally eliminate another trait, such as musical talent, at the same time we eliminate a defective gene, because there are too many unknowns about the influence of one gene on another.
That danger argues for a go-slow approach and much more research. The documentary presents an informative and engaging discussion on this double-edged sword aspect of CRISPR, although it makes some strange choices on what the filmmakers see as risky. For example, it focuses with alarm on a researcher with an interest recreating Ice Age mammoths, which might be possible, and repopulating the steppe with them, which seems unlikely to happen. On the other hand, the film shows us a start-up company already trying to use CRISPR to grow organs for human transplants in pigs, by replacing large sections of pig DNA with human DNA to create a pig-human hybrid organism. The filmmakers seems less worried about this commercial operation, despite the many more red flags it seems to raise.
Overall, HUMAN NATURE is a polished, well-researched and informative film about a groundbreaking discovery that has enormous promise for the human species, but viewers need to give careful consideration to the questions raised about it so as to neither “throw the baby out with the bathwater” nor plunge ahead into a brave new world of unintended consequences. As in most things, the middle way is best.
Although it is not a flawless film, HUMAN NATURE is a lively, visually colorful, engaging documentary that respects the audience’s intelligence. It is a breathe of fresh air in a world where reporters rarely cover science well and too many anti-science voices dominate.
RATING: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars
0 comments