With every holiday party comes interesting conversations with family and friends. Discussions move from topic to topic, from the plausible repercussions of artificial intelligence to the conspiracy of the moon landing. I love these conversations cause they always tend to be more engaging than the polite “how’s school going?” question, but also because I usually learn something new. This Christmas Eve, I was introduced to the interesting controversy of something called CRISPR.

In terms of changing the entire industry, CRISPR is the iPhone of genetic engineering.

It’s common knowledge that after you fight off a viral infection such as the flu, your body is more resistant to a second infection by the same virus. This is the principle behind vaccines and booster shots. Many people, however, don’t understand the science behind how this works.

Foreword: This might get a little bit nerdy and scientific, but I’m going to explain it to you in simple terms, so bear with me.

When a virus attacks our bodies, bacteria fight the infection. The virus kills off many of the bacteria, but the bacteria that survive save the DNA of the virus into a genetic archive called CRISPR (which is an acronym for a ridiculously long and confusing name that isn’t even worth mentioning). When a virus attacks again, the bacteria make a copy of the virus’ DNA and utilize Cas9, a protein that compares the copy of the attacking DNA to DNA saved in CRISPR. When it finds a match, the Cas9 can then remove the attacking DNA, rendering the body immune to the effects of the virus.

Now onto the more interesting stuff. Scientists discovered a few years ago that the Cas9 can be programmed. You can simply give it a copy of the DNA you want to modify and place it into the organism to do its work. Crazy, right.

I know what you might be thinking – we’ve created numerous genetically modified organisms before the discovery of CRIPSR. The real innovation is that CRISPR has significantly decreased the cost of genetic engineering, can be used in a standard lab found at most high schools and universities, and has also made genetic engineering more precise. Essentially, any undergraduate with a somewhat advanced understanding of genes can easily genetically modify anything from plants, to animals, to even humans if they wanted.

Pretty scary, I know.

But you might be saying, “So what! I don’t care if some undergraduate student decides to make his dog glow in the dark. Even though it might be unethical and unnatural, at least it doesn’t affect me.”

Well, you’re wrong. What makes CRISPR even scarier is the added concept of gene drives. Basically, scientists have figured out how to implement the genetic modifications of an organism into all of its offspring by telling the CRISPR to copy and paste itself.

So, let’s say that someone decided to genetically modify a few dozen squirrels so that they only create male offspring. When those squirrels are released into the wild and reproduce, they will only create male offspring and those offspring will also only create male offspring. In a few years, the entire squirrel species could be wiped out because there are no females to reproduce with. Now, some people might be thinking “What a relief, I hate those things always digging around in my yard” (I know one of my aunts would certainly say that). But what if the same was done with honeybees which are essential to agriculture and ultimately human survival?

Alternatively, a lot of positive action can come from modifications such as disease-resistant plants, and even getting rid of invasive species. The practical uses are almost endless.

Ultimately, genetic engineering is becoming easier and it’s important that we look at the repercussions of this highly accessible technology. Problems such as the extinction of species, the modification of humans (or what some people have coined as “designer babies”), and problems with inbreeding and the spread of species across numerous continents, leads us to ask big questions. Should there be a global organization like the UN controlling genetic modifications, or should it be left to corporations? How can we control this technology so that people don’t use it irresponsibly? These questions, though challenging, must be answered in order to ensure a safe and responsible future.