Still, as with any new technology, there are risks linked with CRISPR.

In addition to being applied to the DNA of our food, CRISPR also holds promise for modifying human genes. Researchers are currently experimenting with using the tool to cure and prevent disease. This summer, in a historical first, an international team of scientists used CRISPR to alter the DNA of human embryos that could have grown into adulthood. In those embryos, they corrected a gene responsible for a potentially fatal heart disease.

But some scientists have warned that CRISPR could one day be used not simply to correct DNA but rather to enhance it. This concern has raised the issue of "designer babies," or humans whose genes have been modified to make them geniuses or super athletes. The majority of researchers say that this development is unlikely for several reasons, many of which center on the fact that we do not know what many of our genes do in the first place, not to mention how to alter them in a way that would be beneficial. Instead of tweaking human DNA to make it better, the present science has been confined to very basic corrections, or changing a segment of DNA with a disease-causing mutation back to normal.

Others have suggested that CRISPR could be used — unintentionally or not — to unleash a domino effect on wildlife using an approach called “gene drives.” This method involves editing DNA in a way that ensures the changes are passed on to an animal’s offspring, meaning it could rapidly spread through a population. Some scientists have demonstrated potential positive uses for gene drives, such as reducing a population of malaria-carrying mosquitoes by tweaking its DNA to render certain members sterile. Others say such an experiment could go haywire. If an animal fled its habitat, its destructive DNA could eventually wipe out its entire species.

There are some practical limitations to these concerns, however.

Most scientists agree that gene drives aren’t particularly useful for agricultural purposes, since farmers are working with tightly controlled populations of plants and animals and gene drives rely on the natural genetic mixing that occurs in the wild.

ADVERTISEMENT

“You wouldn’t do a gene drive in a cow because you choose who mates with who,” Alison Van Eenennaam said. Van Eenennaam is a professor of animal genomics at the University of California at Davis, where she is working on using gene editing to modify cattle in a way that might protect them from animal cruelty and climate change.

Also, even if CRISPR were suddenly outlawed, gene drives could still be carried out; the approach has been demonstrated using a host of other gene-editing techniques aside from CRISPR. Nevertheless, both Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer are barred from using CRISPR for gene drives, according to the parameters of their agreement with the Broad Institute.

“There’s this real pile-on at the moment with gene editing. People are saying, ‘Well, what about designer babies and what about gene drives?’ and all that stuff, and it’s like, ‘Whoa — let’s back up. What I’m working on is not a gene drive; it’s not designer baby. It’s a cow without horns,” Van Eenennaam said.