The researcher who asserts the creation of the inaugural gene-edited infants may be experiencing a manifestation of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, specifically an inability to recognize one’s own lack of knowledge.
The scientific community, in its entirety, has universally denounced this application of gene editing as both ethically indefensible and demonstrably negligent.
Nevertheless, this incident necessitates a rigorous period of self-examination for all scientists.
The inherent drive for pioneering achievements is deeply embedded within the fabric of scientific culture. Attaining the status of being first is customarily compensated with distinction, renown, accolades, and influence.
Consequently, individuals garner attention and respect, irrespective of whether they possess even a modicum of sound judgment. Transgressing established boundaries is frequently misconstrued as independent thought and groundbreaking innovation.
A capacity to remain unswayed by conventional restrictions and external opinions can indeed serve as an advantage in the relentless pursuit of knowledge. One need only consider the case of James Watson, who has recently resurfaced in public discourse due to a new PBS documentary.
While Watson was a significant contributor in the race to elucidate the structural composition of DNA, the presumptuous and self-absorbed demeanor that fueled his conviction in his unique insights and propelled him to celebrity status ultimately led to his professional downfall and cemented his reputation as a bigoted demagogue.
My contemplation of the impact of scientific rivalry commenced during a discussion concerning the gene-editing controversy with Jonathan Kimmelman, a bioethicist affiliated with McGill University.
He posited that while a researcher exhibiting meticulousness and profound conscientiousness might be a boon to society, it could potentially prove detrimental to their own career trajectory. Although certain media outlets have characterized him as a maverick scientist, such a designation is not entirely precise.
His perception of an exemplary scientist was largely shaped by prevailing cultural norms.
“It is crucial to acknowledge that this individual received training at esteemed American academic institutions and represents a product of mainstream scientific endeavors,” stated Kimmelman. “This is not an individual who self-taught using a rudimentary manual while operating from a domestic setting.”
Kimmelman has authored a publication detailing the now-notorious gene therapy experiments conducted at the University of Pennsylvania in 1999.
Subsequent investigative findings revealed that the confluence of financial conflicts of interest and an aspiration for hero status impelled the researchers involved to expedite human trials for gene therapy.
This initiative met a catastrophic end with the demise of an 18-year-old patient, Jesse Gelsinger, who received the experimental treatment. Had no fatalities occurred, the Penn research team might have been lauded as triumphant.
However, the gene-editing undertaking will invariably be remembered as unethical, even if the infants subsequently remain in good health. The potential advantages are demonstrably minimal when juxtaposed against the inherent risks; the intervention was intended to confer resistance to HIV, yet far more secure and dependable methods exist for preventing infection.
This pervasive “winner-take-all” culture may likewise offer insights into the behavior of Watson, now aged 90. His overtly racist and sexist pronouncements have rendered him so persona non grata within the scientific community that Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute, was compelled to issue an apology last year for commending Watson’s achievements.
An insightful analysis published on the medical website STAT explores how Watson’s colleagues ponder the paradox of an individual possessing such intellect displaying such a profound lack of sensitivity, an anachronistic resistance to contemporary scientific understanding of race, and, ultimately, a self-destructive tendency:
“The prevailing theory, according to his peers, is rooted in Watson’s seminal contributions—most notably, his co-discovery of DNA’s structure in 1953—and the methodology he employed. These successes fostered an inflated confidence not merely in his intellectual prowess but also in his approach to achieving success: relying on intuition, challenging established consensus, and largely disregarding the body of empirical evidence upon which a scientific discipline is founded.”
In essence, his habit of disregarding the input of others facilitated his advancement, and when these gambles yielded positive outcomes, it reinforced the perception that he was universally superior in intellect.
A comparable disposition of narcissism is evident in various interviews with Kary Mullis, the recipient of a Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work on polymerase chain reaction—a technique for DNA amplification that fundamentally transformed forensic science and genetic testing.
In his 1999 book, as detailed in a London Review of Books article titled “Nobel Savage,” Mullis controversially asserted that HIV is not the causative agent of AIDS and, more peculiarly, that psychologists are misguided for not affording greater consideration to astrology.
The narrative surrounding the gene-edited infants continues to grow more convoluted, with the most recent widely circulated news report suggesting that he might face capital punishment. While the substantiation for this claim appears tenuous, his professional career is almost certainly concluded.
The salient lesson extends beyond the individual scientist to encompass the broader scientific community and indeed all of society: prioritizing audacity in medical research at the expense of circumspection and meticulousness is unequivocally detrimental to our collective well-being.
Faye Flam contributes opinion pieces for Bloomberg. Her journalistic contributions have appeared in publications such as The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Psychology Today, and Science, among others. She holds a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology.
© 2019 Bloomberg
This commentary was initially disseminated by Bloomberg.
