CRISPR: Investing in the 21st Century's Greatest Biotech Breakthrough

Every cell in our body contains a copy of our genome — over 20,000 genes and 3 billion paired letters of DNA.

DNA consists of two strands, twisted into a double helix and held together with a simple pairing rule: adenine pairs with thymine, and guanine pairs with cytosine.

These base pairs can best be visualized as the rungs on a twisted ladder. They connect everything together and ultimately shape who we are as individuals and as a species.

Genes also have profound effects on our health, and thanks to recent advances in DNA sequencing, researchers have identified thousands of genes that affect our risk of disease.

The list and prevalence of genetic diseases is jaw-dropping in scale — around 6,000 known disorders caused by gene inheritance, with the most common disorders affecting as many as one in every 3,600 people.

The most commonly known of these genetic disorders include:

• Cystic fibrosis
• Hemophilia
• Down syndrome
• Sickle-cell disease
• Color blindness
• Tay-Sachs disease
• Muscular dystrophy

To understand how genes work and to reduce these kinds of genetic diseases, researchers need ways to control them, but changing genes has historically not been easy.

In 2013, though, a new method of gene editing took the world by storm, promising to not only dramatically improve our ability to edit the DNA of any species (including humans) but also substantially lower costs.

In fact, this new biotechnology has the potential to cure genetic disease altogether — among several other incredibly powerful and world-changing applications.

Or, as the Genetic Literacy Project puts it:

It’s akin to a biological word processing system that allows scientists to cut and paste DNA almost as easily as if they were editing a journal article.

What is CRISPR?

Known as CRISPR-Cas9 (pronounced “crisper”), this method of targeted gene editing is based on a natural system used by bacteria to protect them from viruses.

You see, when certain bacterium (~40% of known types) detect the presence of virus DNA, they produce strands of assassin-like RNA, which hunt down and bind to the virus’s genetic code.

But these RNA strands aren’t bare-knuckle brawlers; they bring a sharp blade into battle — a protein known as Cas9 — which is used to cut virus DNA with extreme precision. It’s the purest form of execution: destruction at the very core.

When researchers first discovered this mechanism, it was a mere curiosity — but after enough years looking at CRISPR-Cas9 (and other CRISPR-associated proteins), it was discovered that the process could be manipulated to precisely edit not just virus DNA but the DNA of any living organism.

While many researchers have contributed, the celebrated “inventor” of CRISPR is Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at the University of California. In 2012, Doudna and her team crafted molecules that could enter a microbe and precisely snip its DNA at a location of her choosing.

In January 2013, Doudna went one step further: She cut out a particular piece of DNA in human cells and replaced it with another one. The general public wouldn’t catch on to the significance of the event until years later (most still haven’t), but this day marked what will likely turn out to be the single-greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century.

As Doudna herself put it, CRISPR is the “beginning of the end of genetic disease.”

Until recently, editing DNA required sophisticated labs, years of experience, and many thousands of dollars. But the discovery CRISPR has changed all that. To set up a CRISPR editing capability, a lab now only needs to order an RNA fragment (costing about $10) and purchase off-the-shelf chemicals and enzymes for $30 or less.

The Ethical Trap

They say that with great power comes great responsibility, and with the ability to specifically alter DNA, this statement has never been more true.

On one hand, CRISPR is likely to prove to be an incredibly powerful medicinal and societal tool. It has the potential to help millions of people suffering from genetic disorders, as well as improve the quantity and quality of our food supply.

On the other hand, there is still much about the human genome (and countless other genomes) we’ve yet to fully understand — we must tread carefully if we’re to wield this immensely powerful tool.

But treading carefully does not mean we should not tread at all. This is the ethical trap that often appears with new and powerful technology: because people do not fully understand it, they fear it and want to do away with it completely.

We’ve seen this kind of thinking with genetic technology in the past. Visit any anti-GMO website, and you’ll find terrifying headlines about the dangers of GMO foods. But scientific research (whether you like it or not) trumps public opinion.

I know good and well that there are plenty of people who will — for reasons I cannot fully understand — get upset when I point out the more than 2,000 global studies that have affirmed the safety of GMOs. Just to be clear, this is not my “opinion;” it is a scientific truth.

In fact, it’s because of this public hysteria that GM foods have become the most analyzed subjects in all of science, only for researchers to find that a) they’re totally safe (I can already feel the hate from the organic crowd) and b) they offer enormous global health benefits, i.e. preventing children from going blind due to vitamin A deficiency.

According to Forbes:

Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed.

The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.

What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.

Of course, the common response to these volumes of research from your anti-GMO crowd is conspiracy. The biotech industry doesn’t want you to know GMOs are bad, so it’s apparently paid off every scientific researcher out there to manipulate the data.

Yeah… Ok.

What’s so ironic is that the folks who have been told they’re being manipulated by the biotech industry are actually being manipulated by the organic industry. The most commonly cited anti-GMO study, for instance, was led by French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, a man who in 2015 was outed as being funded entirely by anti-GMO and organic food organizations including:

• The Sustainable Food Alliance
• Molango (an organic, non-GMO specialty food company)
• Nature Vivante (an “ecological living” trade association)
• Lea Nature (an organic and natural products company)
• French organic food giants Auchan and Carrefour
• Anthony Rodale (one of the U.S. organic industry’s leading figures)

The way I see it, there comes a point where you just have to adjust your beliefs according to the facts. I, too, was once fearful of genetic modification, but I’ve since done my due diligence and changed my stance.

As an investor, this way of adaptive thinking is incredibly important. It allows you to put your money in the right industries without letting your personal prejudices get in the way. It allows you to realize where the opportunity is and where it isn’t.

A decade ago, there were people who refused to invest in Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) for ethical concerns. Not only has science proven these concerns unwarranted, but a 1,000% increase in Monsanto’s share price has also proven those people incredibly naive.

But with the introduction of CRISPR, Monsanto is quickly becoming old news. The company was beat out on the patent race and will be left in the dust, barring an acquisition. The “next Monsanto” will be a company most people have never even heard of yet.

Believe me when I say CRISPR will be the next big thing in biotech — from crops to medicine, it will touch every industry involving organic life. In fact, it’s expected to triple the genome editing market within less than four years.

I know I won’t be able to convince everyone, and I might even make some of you angry by saying this, but the simple fact is there will be an insane amount of money flowing into this CRISPR over the next decade.

My advice is to buy stock in the patent holders as early as possible. You can take it or leave it.

Until next time,

Jason Stutman

Check us out on YouTube!