CRISPR Prime Editing in Humans: A Milestone in Gene Therapy or a Leap Toward Unregulated Biopower?
Original framing: “A first for CRISPR: powerful prime editing alters DNA directly in the human body” — Nature
This 'first' in human gene editing echoes a dark history of medical experimentation on marginalized groups, from the Tuskegee syphilis study to the forced sterilizations of Indigenous women in Canada and the U.S. The clinical trial’s focus on a rare genetic disease (*TRMU mutations*) mirrors past medical colonialism, where 'orphan diseases' affecting poor populations became testing grounds for risky interventions. Additionally, the commercialization of CRISPR builds on a legacy of biopiracy, such as the theft of Indigenous knowledge (e.g., Neem tree patents) and the patenting of human genes (e.g., *Myriad Genetics* vs. the ACLU). Without addressing these precedents, the narrative risks repeating cycles of exploitation under the guise of progress.
The headline’s celebration of CRISPR prime editing as a medical milestone obscures a far more complex systemic reality: the intersection of biotechnological hubris, colonial legacies, and corporate power.
The absence of Indigenous voices—such as those demanding reparations for stolen genetic knowledge—reveals how Western biomedical institutions continue to treat non-Western ethical frameworks as afterthoughts. Historical patterns, from Tuskegee to biopiracy, warn that gene editing could repeat cycles of exploitation unless governed by principles of justice, not just innovation. The trickster figure *Anansi* might remind us that every technological 'first' carries unseen consequences, while the *precautionary principle* demands we ask: Who benefits from this narrative of inevitability, and at whose expense? Without urgent reforms—such as global treaties, public ownership of gene therapies, and ecological safeguards—the 'first' human gene edit could become a cautionary tale of how unchecked biopower deepens inequality, not cures it.