1251: "The Gene That Won’t Let Go"
Interesting Things with JC #1251: "The Gene That Won’t Let Go" – What happens when nature stops choosing and we start writing the rules? A gene that refuses to vanish may reshape every wild thing we know.
-
Episode Anchor
Episode Title: The Gene That Won’t Let Go
Episode Number: #1251
Host: JC
Audience: Grades 9–12, college intro, homeschool, lifelong learners
Subject Area: Biology, Bioethics, Genetics, Environmental Science
Lesson Overview
Students will:
Define the concept of a gene drive and explain how it differs from traditional Mendelian inheritance.
Compare the potential uses of gene drives across species and ecosystems.
Analyze the ethical considerations and ecological risks associated with releasing gene drives into the wild.
Explain how CRISPR-Cas9 technology enables gene drive development and propagation.
Key Vocabulary
Gene Drive (jeen drīv) — A technique that promotes the inheritance of a particular gene to increase its prevalence in a population, overriding standard genetic laws.
CRISPR-Cas9 (kris-per kass-nine) — A genome editing tool that allows scientists to alter DNA with high precision; central to gene drive function.
Inheritance (in-ˈher-ə-təns) — The process through which genetic information is passed from parents to offspring.
Ecological Ripple Effect (ē-kə-ˈlä-ji-kəl ri-pəl ə-fekt) — The cascading and often unpredictable environmental impacts that can follow from altering a single species.
Reversibility Plan (ri-ˌvər-sə-ˈbi-lə-tē plan) — A proposed strategy to counteract or limit the effects of a gene drive after release, often through mechanisms like daisy drives.
Narrative Core (Based on the PSF – relabeled)
Open: The story hooks listeners by starting with mosquitoes—the deadliest animal to humans—immediately raising stakes and curiosity.
Info: Introduces the revolutionary 2015 genetic breakthrough at UC California using CRISPR-Cas9 to create gene drives.
Details: Discusses how gene drives function by overriding Mendelian inheritance, with examples like sterilizing mosquitoes to combat malaria.
Reflection: Raises critical ethical and ecological questions about irreversible genetic edits, unforeseen consequences, and international regulation.
Closing: "These are interesting things, with JC."
Transcript
(Provided above; verbatim podcast script. No modifications made.)
Student Worksheet
What is the primary purpose of using gene drives in mosquitoes?
How does a gene drive override traditional genetic inheritance?
Why are scientists and ecologists concerned about releasing gene drives into wild populations?
Describe the function of CRISPR-Cas9 in gene editing.
Imagine a trait you think could be used for good via a gene drive—what would it be, and why?
Teacher Guide
Estimated Time: 1–2 class periods (45–90 minutes)
Pre-Teaching Vocabulary Strategy:
Use visuals and analogies (e.g., Punnett squares vs. gene drive diagrams)
Anchor vocabulary with real-world examples (e.g., mosquitoes and malaria statistics)
Anticipated Misconceptions:
Students may think gene drives are already widely used in the wild.
Confusion between CRISPR editing and natural genetic inheritance.
Discussion Prompts:
Should gene drives be used to eliminate diseases like malaria?
Who should have the authority to release gene drives into nature?
What are the risks of irreversible genetic changes?
Differentiation Strategies:
ESL: Provide visual glossaries and use bilingual keyword sheets.
IEP: Scaffold with sentence frames and graphic organizers.
Gifted: Encourage ethical debates or simulation modeling of gene propagation.
Extension Activities:
Research current gene drive field trials and write policy memos.
Design an infographic showing how gene drives could impact an ecosystem.
Cross-Curricular Connections:
Ethics/Philosophy: Power and responsibility in scientific intervention.
Environmental Science: Ecosystem balance and interdependency.
Biotechnology: Role of CRISPR in modern science.
Quiz
Q1. What is the main function of a gene drive?
A. To improve genetic diversity
B. To speed up natural selection
C. To promote the inheritance of a specific gene
D. To eliminate random mutation
Answer: CQ2. What year was the first gene drive using CRISPR-Cas9 created?
A. 2010
B. 2015
C. 2020
D. 2005
Answer: BQ3. Which organism was used in early gene drive tests to combat malaria?
A. Culex mosquito
B. Tsetse fly
C. Anopheles mosquito
D. Aedes mosquito
Answer: CQ4. What is one major concern of releasing gene drives into the wild?
A. It may lower biodiversity.
B. It is too expensive.
C. It doesn’t work on insects.
D. It’s banned in all countries.
Answer: AQ5. What is a “daisy drive” designed to do?
A. Strengthen gene drive inheritance
B. Reverse engineered traits in humans
C. Allow gene drives to spread endlessly
D. Fade out gene drives over time
Answer: DAssessment
Explain how a gene drive works and why it challenges Mendelian inheritance.
Discuss at least two risks and two potential benefits of using gene drives in ecological systems.
3–2–1 Rubric:
3 = Accurate, complete, thoughtful
2 = Partial or missing detail
1 = Inaccurate or vague
Standards Alignment
U.S. Standards
NGSS HS-LS3-1: Students analyze how gene drives alter inheritance patterns, connecting to LS3 (Heredity: Inheritance and Variation).
NGSS HS-LS4-5: Evaluating evidence for the impacts of genetic technologies on biodiversity and ecosystems.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.11-12.2: Determine central ideas in science texts (applies to podcast transcript).
ISTE 7a: Students explore local/global societal issues and use technology to make informed decisions.
International Equivalents
AQA A-Level Biology 3.4.1 DNA, genes and chromosomes: Understand gene structure and inheritance.
IB Biology HL Topic 3.4 (Inheritance): Application of inheritance patterns including non-Mendelian inheritance.
Cambridge IGCSE Biology 4.2: The role of genes in inheritance and genetic engineering technologies.
-
Interesting Things with JC #1251: "The Gene That Won’t Let Go"
It started with mosquitoes.
Not the itchy kind you swat on summer nights, but the ones that have killed more humans than all the wars in history. Malaria, yellow fever, dengue. Viruses carried not by bullets or borders, but by wings less than a tenth of an ounce (2.8 grams).
In 2015, scientists working out of the University of California created something many believed was impossible. A genetic edit so dominant, so persistent, that it refused to play by the usual rules of inheritance. They called it a gene drive.
And the game of life was never the same again.
A typical gene, whether for eye color or disease resistance, follows Mendel’s laws. Each parent contributes half. But a gene drive breaks that symmetry. Using a molecular tool called CRISPR-Cas9, it copies itself onto the corresponding chromosome in the offspring, overriding chance. Instead of 50 percent, it spreads with near-total certainty, sometimes reaching 95 percent or higher of all future generations.
Imagine a genetic trait that forces itself into the bloodline, again and again, until the entire wild population carries it. In lab trials, gene drives turned female Anopheles mosquitoes sterile within eleven generations. That’s the same insect that transmits malaria to over 200 million people a year, killing more than 400,000, most of them children under age five.
That’s the promise, eliminate a disease vector by collapsing its reproductive chain.
But that’s only one version of the story.
Other teams have aimed gene drives at invasive rodents in island ecosystems, at crop-devouring beetles, even at reversing genetic conditions in mammals. The goals vary, eradicate, suppress, repair, but the method stays the same, force the trait, break the odds.
And this is where science meets the hard wall of ethics. Because gene drives don’t stay local. Once released into the wild, there’s no border checkpoint. A mosquito doesn’t need a passport. An altered genome can cross continents in months.
And once it’s out, there’s no easy way to get it back.
Ecologists have warned of unforeseen ripple effects, predators losing prey, parasites losing hosts, or wild species gaining traits that become new problems of their own. Resistance mutations, where the CRISPR site is altered and the drive fails, can evolve too, sometimes leading to unpredictable outcomes.
Governments and researchers have responded with caution. In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences called for strict containment protocols and public consent before any environmental release. Projects must include reversibility plans, so-called “daisy drives” that fade out over generations, and ongoing monitoring to track unintended effects.
Because even the most targeted gene drive can’t predict every consequence.
What gene drives offer isn’t just power over pests or pathogens. It’s power over inheritance itself. That kind of leverage has never existed before, not in agriculture, not in medicine, not even in eugenics. For the first time, we can write traits not just into an individual, but into the wild, into nature’s default setting.
In 2020, a gene drive test off the coast of Western Australia aimed to eliminate an invasive mouse species threatening seabird colonies. It worked in simulation. But critics warned that if just one edited mouse escaped the island, native populations on the mainland could collapse in less than five years.
Because once you change the default, the future becomes a reflection of that decision.
It is, by design, irreversible.
These are interesting things, with JC.
-
Show Notes
This episode explores the revolutionary science of gene drives, genetic edits that rewrite the rules of inheritance, and their applications in controlling mosquitoes, rodents, and crop pests. Through the lens of scientific innovation and ecological caution, students encounter the real-world balance between technological promise and ethical risk. Perfect for lessons in genetics, ethics, and environmental science, the episode sparks debate on the future of biotechnology and human influence over nature’s blueprint.
Public Source for Further Reading:
Champer, J., Buchman, A., & Akbari, O. S. (2016). Cheating evolution: engineering gene drives to manipulate the fate of wild populations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 17(3), 146–159. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.113
