CRISPR: A Crack in Creation
CRISPR Gene-editing may well go down in the annals of history as one of humanity’s most monumental discoveries alongside the likes of the printing press, airplane or personal computer. I’ve been fascinated by the CRISPR story for a while now, and CRISPR stocks have surged into the public consciousness following positive comments by Cathie Wood (who’s ARK ETF centered on disruptive technologies recently beat JPM for the title of world’s largest active ETF). CRISPR companies are no longer esoteric, and are in fact one of the latest trendy “meme” stocks.
CRISPR is essentially a gene-editing tool. And it really is as self-explanatory as that. It’s a technique that can alter your DNA and serve up designer babies, or even potentially dinosaur theme parks or mutant ninja turtles (yeah, took me all day to come up with that one). It works by delivering an enzyme complex and cutting off and replacing target DNA Strands. This graph from the genetic literacy project is the best illustration I could find. You can also check out this nifty video by Kurzgesagt. CRISPR is not the only tool available for tinkering with life’s operating system, but it is one of the quickest and the most cost effective.
While applications so far center on tackling genetic disease, arguably better understanding of the technology could forever change our understanding of what it means to be Human. In 2018, He Jiankui, a Shenzhen-based biophysics researcher unveiled the creation of the first gene-edited babies – twins Lula and Nana. Specifically he had edited their genes to confer stronger resistance to HIV. He Jiankui does not seem to have given thought to the wider ethical ramifications his work, and was widely condemned in the ensuing moral panic. The Chinese authorities subsequently suspended his research, and sentenced him to brief prison sentence.
CRISPR’s key luminaries, are Jennifer Doudna (who’s excellent book “A Crack in Creation” is a great read on the subject) and Emmanuelle Charpentier. Both were awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their contributions to CRISPR. It’s worth noting the two scientists are embroiled in an epic legal battle with rival geneticists from the Broad Institute ("Feng Zhang" is a name-drop worthy scientist here). Institutional interests are also a factor with Doudna and Charpentier being represented by University of California Berkeley, and the Broad Institute being an affiliate of MIT & Harvard.
This article is a good read into the politics of CRISPR and an intriguing look into the commercialization of science in general. Of the three leading CRISPR companies two are associated with Doudna and Charpentier, while the other is backed by the broad institute.
For most retails investors, the appeal is obvious - invest a reasonable amount leave it to stew for ten years or so. For now all three firms have largely similar pipelines with Sickle Cell & Thalessemia in the clinical trial phase, and closer to fruition. CRISPR is the largest of the three at the moment, boasting a market cap of $11 Bn, followed by EDITAS with a ~$4.5 Bn market cap and Intellia with ~$3.5bn (All as of 31/Dec/20). Their predictably isn't much in the way of revenues given that this is early stage biotech. All firms do have a substantial cash pile to see them through the next years. All in all, would say definitely one of the more interesting long-range bets one can take. The fact that these are "meme" stocks shouldn't dissuade anyone you as institutional holdings for all three are either in the range of 70% or well in excess (For comparison perennial retail favorite Tesla's institutional base is only 40% ).