Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project
In the decade since CRISPR gene editing burst onto the scientific scene, it has evolved from a laboratory curiosity to a technology capable of rewriting the code of life itself. The first CRISPR-based medicines have already received approval, offering cures for genetic diseases once thought untreatable. Yet as this powerful technology advances, it raises profound ethical, legal, and societal questions that cannot be answered by biologists alone. This article explores how interdisciplinary collaboration—bridging science, ethics, law, and social sciences—is becoming essential for steering gene editing toward responsible and beneficial applications for all of humanity.
CRISPR technology has progressed at a breathtaking pace. What once took years in a laboratory can now be accomplished in days, with the global genome editing market expected to grow from $10.8 billion in 2025 to $23.7 billion by 2030 9 . This acceleration brings both promise and peril. While CRISPR offers unprecedented potential for treating genetic diseases, it also raises complex ethical dilemmas about how, when, and why we should modify human DNA.
The limitations of traditional scientific silos become particularly apparent with a technology as transformative as gene editing. Laws and regulations struggle to keep pace with rapid technological advancements, often becoming fragmented across different countries and jurisdictions 1 .
As scientists have noted, rather than relying solely on self-regulation, interdisciplinary professional engagement is needed to strengthen the governance of gene-editing technologies 1 .
Leading institutions worldwide have recognized that addressing the challenges of gene editing requires integrating diverse expertise. The most successful research projects now bring together not just biologists and physicians, but also ethicists, legal scholars, social scientists, and even members of the public 1 . This collaborative approach helps ensure that scientific advancements align with societal values and needs.
Projected growth of the global genome editing market from 2025 to 2030 9 .
At the University of Zurich, an ambitious project within the "Human Reproduction Reloaded" research priority program offers a compelling model of interdisciplinary collaboration in action. This program brings together experts and early-career researchers from fields as diverse as medicine, biology, biochemistry, law, sociology, anthropology, theology, machine learning, and ethics 1 .
The project operates through regular collaboration, with six scheduled meetings per year that unite all members 1 . This structure facilitates ongoing dialogue and mutual learning among specialists who might otherwise remain within their disciplinary boundaries.
| Field of Expertise | Specific Contribution | Integration Method |
|---|---|---|
| Biology & Biochemistry | Genome editing techniques using bovine embryos, tool improvement | Regular interdisciplinary meetings |
| Machine Learning & AI | Development of predictive tools (e.g., PRIDICT) to optimize guide RNA design | Collaborative tool development |
| Ethics & Philosophy | Normative analysis of gene editing implications | Moral philosophical examination |
| Law & Regulation | Novel perspectives on gene editing governance | Legal framework development |
| Sociology & Anthropology | Longitudinal surveys of public attitudes, ethnographic studies | Empirical data collection on societal perspectives |
| Clinical Medicine | Integration of research with patient care experience | Connection to fertility clinic practice |
Based on their experience, the Swiss researchers identified four essential strategies for productive interdisciplinary work on gene editing 1 :
Interdisciplinary research requires acknowledging that participants from different fields may use distinct terminology, methodologies, and publication practices. Success depends on recognizing these differences upfront and allocating sufficient time for team members to learn each other's languages and approaches.
While individual researchers may have discipline-specific objectives, the project must identify overarching questions that benefit from multiple perspectives. For the Swiss team, this meant focusing on comprehensive evaluation of germline gene editing's potential within the Swiss legal and ethical context.
Regular scheduled meetings provided the necessary structure for ongoing collaboration. These dedicated spaces—both physical and temporal—enabled the development of mutual understanding and trust essential for tackling complex problems together.
Including perspectives beyond academia through citizen advisory panels helped ensure the research remained grounded in public interests and concerns. This approach acknowledges that gene editing impacts extend far beyond the laboratory walls.
The tangible benefits of this collaborative approach are perhaps best illustrated by PRIDICT, a tool developed through the Swiss project that combines AI with fundamental genome editing research 1 .
Two significant concerns about CRISPR technology—frequently raised by both scientists and the project's citizen advisory panel—are editing efficiency and off-target effects (unintended genetic alterations). To address these challenges, biologists partnered with AI specialists within the project to create a tool that predicts prime editing outcomes.
Contributing Disciplines: Biology, Sociology, Ethics
Specific Inputs: Technical challenges and public concerns about off-target effects
Contributing Disciplines: Machine Learning, Biology
Specific Inputs: AI models trained on biological data, guide RNA optimization parameters
Contributing Disciplines: Biochemistry, Computer Science
Specific Inputs: Laboratory validation of predictions, algorithm refinement
Contributing Disciplines: Ethics, Law, Social Sciences
Specific Inputs: Evaluation of societal implications and regulatory considerations
The resulting PRIDICT tool has proven widely useful to the scientific community for optimizing the design of prime editor guide RNA 1 . This practical output demonstrates how interdisciplinary collaboration can produce innovative solutions that might not emerge within a single discipline.
The Swiss project extends far beyond technical optimization to examine broader implications of gene editing. The ethics branch employs moral philosophical methods to explore normative aspects of gene editing, while the legal team investigates how these technologies should be regulated, particularly in human reproduction 1 .
Perhaps most innovatively, the sociological component conducts a representative longitudinal survey of Swiss public attitudes toward assisted reproductive technologies, including germline gene editing 1 .
This empirical approach to understanding societal perspectives provides crucial data often missing from ethical debates.
Meanwhile, ethnographic research within the project—involving interviews and observation in IVF clinics and CRISPR laboratories—explores how gene-editing technologies are developed, applied, and discussed in daily practice 1 . This ground-level perspective reveals the nuanced ways in which these technologies are shaping and being shaped by social contexts.
Representation of hypothetical public attitudes toward different applications of gene editing technology based on longitudinal survey data 1 .
Conducting cutting-edge gene editing research requires both conceptual innovation and practical tools. The following table outlines key reagents and resources essential to contemporary gene editing work, drawn from both the Swiss project and broader scientific practice.
| Tool Category | Specific Examples | Function and Application |
|---|---|---|
| CRISPR-Cas Systems | Cas9 nuclease, Base editors, Prime editors | Core editing machinery for making targeted DNA changes 2 6 |
| Guide RNA Components | crRNA, tracrRNA, synthetic sgRNA | Molecular guides that direct Cas proteins to specific genomic locations 4 |
| Delivery Mechanisms | Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), Viral vectors, Electroporation | Methods for introducing editing components into target cells 3 |
| Vector Systems | All-in-one plasmids, Separate Cas9 and gRNA plasmids | DNA constructs for expressing editing components in cells 4 |
| Validation Tools | T7 Endonuclease I assay, NGS, Sanger sequencing | Methods to confirm editing efficiency and detect off-target effects 4 |
| AI-Assisted Design | OpenCRISPR-1, PRIDICT tool | Computational tools for predicting editing outcomes and designing optimal guides 1 7 |
As gene editing technologies continue to advance—with recent developments including AI-designed editors like OpenCRISPR-1 7 and landmark cases like baby KJ's personalized treatment for CPS1 deficiency 6 —the need for interdisciplinary collaboration will only intensify.
The Swiss project demonstrates that merging disciplines and methods in basic research helps overcome the disconnection of scientific, ethical, and legal research from clinical and social reality 1 .
This approach allows all aspects relevant to potential applications to be addressed during the research stage, ultimately leading to more responsible and effective translation to clinical practice.
While significant challenges remain—including ongoing ethical debates about appropriate uses of gene editing and concerns about equitable access to these expensive therapies—the interdisciplinary model offers a promising path forward. By embracing multiple perspectives from the outset, researchers can develop gene editing applications that are not only technically sophisticated but also socially responsible and aligned with public values.
The journey of CRISPR from basic science to clinical application illustrates that transformative technologies inevitably blur traditional boundaries between disciplines. Embracing this complexity through deliberate collaboration may well determine whether gene editing fulfills its potential to benefit all of humanity.