Directed Evolution in Humans

Submitted by Alexander D. Keith

Salt Lake Community College
Anthropology 1020
April 20th, 2014













Overview
Directed evolution is a very broad subject, but if we limit it to directed evolution and its
effects on human variation, we find a more manageable beast. Throughout this paper, I will
define directed evolution as it pertains to human variation, discuss the process involved in
directing evolution, the possibilities of directed evolution, and then delve into some ethical
questions raised by human directed evolution.
Definition
What is directed evolution? Wikipedia defines it as such: Directed evolution is a
method used in protein engineering that mimics the process of natural selection to evolve
proteins or nucleic acids toward a user-defined goal. This definition is corroborated by
biotechlearn.org which says that directed evolution is Selecting for a specific trait at a
molecular level. For example, variation is introduced into a single gene, which codes for an
enzyme, and enzymes with the desired activity are then selected for.
Francess Arnold tells us in his article entitled Design by Directed Evolution that
evolution does not work toward any particular direction, nor is there a goal. So, to put it
simply, directed evolution is evolution that has been directed toward a user defined goal.

Process
In an article written by Jesse D. Bloom and Frances H. Arnold called In the Light of
Directed Evolution: Pathways of Adaptive Protein Evolution, we learn of the 3 steps in any
given directed evolution experiment. Those three steps are diversification, selection, and
amplification.
Diversification; when a gene with a protein of interest is found it is randomly recombined
or mutated to create a vast library of varying genes. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA
shuffling are the most common methods of diversification for directed evolution experiments.
Both of these methods are discussed in detail by Robert D. Bradley and David A. Hillis in their
article Recombinant DNA Sequences Generated by PCR Amplification
Selection; after the diversification process is complete the gene library is tested for
genetic mutants or variants with the desired properties. This is done by screening or selection.
Screening is a method that enables the researcher to identify and isolate the desired mutants.
Whereas selections automatically eliminate all unwanted or non functional mutants.
Amplification; after the desired variants are identified by selection or screening they are
replicated over and over by using the PCR method discussed earlier. This enables researchers to
better understand the mutations that have occurred.
These three steps in any given directed evolution experiment are called a round.
Although, most experiments are made up of several rounds each building on the last to expand
the genetic library.

While Ive talked about scientific experiments involved in directed evolution, this is not
the only form of directed evolution that exists, although for the time being it is the most accurate
and scientifically sound. There is also a form of directed evolution that does not involve a
scientific method as much as it involves guesswork. This other form of directed evolution is
merely goal oriented sexual selection. In this less scientific form of directed evolution, parents
look for a partner or sperm and egg donors with the traits that they as the parents want most for
their child. In the article Sexual Selection and Mate Choice by Malte Andersson and Leigh W.
Simmons we learn that this approach is far from perfect but is very popular when choosing a
sperm or egg donor. While this method may seem simplistic, it shows that directed evolution
already plays a part in modern day society.
Possibilities
Jurgen Brosius discusses the many possibilities of directed evolution in his article From
Eden to a Hell of Uniformity? Directed Evolution in Humans. He tells us that We will soon
have the ability to use gene therapy to correct genetic disease, clone individuals from somatic
cells, introduce desired traits or remove undesirable ones, design genes from scratch and
introduce additional chromosomes.
The most popular uses for directed evolution now deal mostly with medicine and
agriculture. It is easy to see why these are the fields where directed evolution could help greatly.
The medicinal advantages to directed evolution have astounding potential. We could
eradicate entire diseases by making genes that are immune to those diseases. We could use
directed evolution in virulent diseases and change them into a fighting force for good. However,
in directed evolution the potential for good, while vast, is matched by its potential for ill.
Changing a disease is always a dangerous coin flip and researches must always ask themselves
the hard questions such as is this a cure for cancer or the next worldwide pandemic?. The same
is equally true when it comes to changing human genes. The recipient of this gene change may
only have traded one disease or disfigurement for another.
The field of agriculture (pardon the pun) is where directed evolution is being used the
most, and although controversial it definitely has its benefits. Thanks to genetic engineering
crops produced today are larger than ever before. They are also hardier with incredible resilience
and resistance to insects. Some crops are even being modified to be immune to certain diseases.
But again there is the potential to do much harm if the proper research isn't conducted. There are
many people who are against genetically engineering food due to its potential untested hazards
Another possibility when it comes to directed evolution is giving parents the option to
pick desired traits in their children even before they are conceived. This concept has been given
the colloquial term of designer babies. Sonia Suter tell us in her article A Brave New World of
Designer Babies? that if research in this area continues and is not banned it would give us the
opportunity to design our baby from the ground up. Hypothetically letting parents choose their
child's eye color, hair color, height, susceptibility to disease, facial structure and possibly even
the childs intelligence.

Ethics
With all of these possibilities both good and bad we must strongly evaluate each ethical
question that is presented.
Perhaps the largest ethical dilemma in relation to directed evolution is presented by
designer babies. What should parents be allowed to select for or against? For example, an
article by Julian Savulescu in the British Medical Journal entitled Deaf Lesbians, Designer
Disability, and the Future of Medicine tells about the case of Sharon Duchesneau and Candy
McCullough, a deaf lesbian couple living in the United States who wanted a deaf child. For their
donor they chose a man who had five generations of deafness in his family. They effectively
selected for a deaf child. While this couple did nothing wrong, or at least not in any legal sense,
it raises the question if directed evolution in children is part of the future what should be
allowed? Should parents be able to select for anything they want? Should they be allowed to
select things that may hinder a child's development or growth? The interesting point here is that
if two parents intentionally deafened a child after its birth they would most definitely be put in
jail. Should we treat experiments in directed evolution any differently? In an article What
Choices Should We Be Able to Make About Designer Babies? A Citizens Jury of Young People
in South Wales by Rachel Iredale (Health Expectations Volume 9, Issue 3, pages 207217) this
issue is discussed at great lengths.

Another ethical dilemma is raised by Jurgen Brosius in his quote cited earlier in this
paper when he mentions introducing additional chromosomes. Would this lead to speciation?
Would these genetically engineered offspring be able to reproduce?

Closing
Throughout this paper I have defined directed evolution as evolution with a user defined
goal. I have discussed the process involved with directed evolution experiments explaining the
three steps of diversification, selection and amplification. I have also discussed the many
possibilities offered to us by directed evolution including medicinal, agricultural and designer
babies, and finally discussed many of the ethical debates involved in the area of directed
evolution.





Work Cited
Non Scientific
1. Directed Evolution: Terms and Definitions | Biotech Learning Hub."Biotechnology
Learning Hub RSS. The University of Waikato, 28o Oct. 2008. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.biotechlearn.org.nz/focus_stories/evolved_enzymes/directed_evolution_terms_and
_definitions>.
Defines Directed Evolution
2. Directed Evolution." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Apr.
2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution>.
Defines Directed Evolution
Scientific
1. Andersson, Malte, and Leigh W. Simmons. "Sexual Selection and Mate
Choice."Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 01
June 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.tree.2006.03.015>.
Sexual selection
2. Arnold, Frances H. "Design by Directed Evolution." - Accounts of Chemical Research
(ACS Publications). California Institute of Technology, 28 Feb. 1998. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar960017f?journalCode=achre4>.
Evolution has no goal
3.Bloom, Jesse D., and Frances H. Arnoldb, H. H. Arnold. "In the Light of Directed
Evolution: Pathways of Adaptive Protein Evolution." In the Light of Directed Evolution:
Pathways of Adaptive Protein Evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15
June 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9995.full>.
Process of experimentation
4. Bradley, Robert D., and David M. Hillis. "Recombinant DNA Sequences Generated by
PCR Amplification." Recombinant DNA Sequences Generated by PCR Amplification.
Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University; and TDepartment of Zoology,
University of Texas at Austin, 01 Jan. 1997. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/5/592.short>.
Selection process
5. Brosius, Jurgen. "From Eden to a Hell of Uniformity? Directed Evolution in Humans."
- Brosius. Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 18 July 2003. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10313/abstract>.
Possibilities
6. Iredale, Rachel, Marcus Longley, Christian Thomas, and Anita Shaw. "What Choices
Should We Be Able to Make about Designer Babies? A Citizens Jury of Young People in South
Wales." - Iredale. Health Expectations, 8 Aug. 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1369-
7625.2006.00387.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false>.
Ethical dilemma of designer babies
7. Savulescu, Julian. "Summary Points." National Center for Biotechnology Information.
U.S. National Library of Medicine, 05 Oct. 2002. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124279/>.
Ethical dilemma
8. Suter, Sonia M. "22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2007 Brave New World of
Designer Babies, A." 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2007 Brave New World of Designer
Babies, A. Hein Online, 01 Jan. 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/berktech22&div=43&id=&page
=>.
Designer baby possibilities