.
View

Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier: An exclusive interview with the Nobel laureate behind “molecular scissors”#

During AE’s Annual Conference 2024, Nobel laureate Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier MAE, was interviewed by Wyborcza, one of Poland’s leading newspapers. The interview offered fascinating insights from this trailblazing scientist.

Professor Charpentier is a renowned French microbiologist, biochemist, and geneticist. In 2020, alongside Jennifer A. Doudna, she received the Nobel Prize for her groundbreaking discovery of the gene-editing technique known as “molecular scissors.” She was was elected as member of the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology section in 2024 and was one of the keynote speakers at the Building Bridges 2024 conference.

The Academia Europaea Wrocław Knowledge Hub is proud to present this illuminating conversation that offers a glimpse into the remarkable personality of our esteemed Academia Europaea member.

Emmanuelle Charpentier
Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier MAE (Photo credit: Hallbauer & Fioretti)

Wyborcza Newspaper – Interview with Prof. Emmanuelle Charpentier by Karolina Kijek#


What would happen to the world if all bacteria disappeared?

"There would be no life. Bacteria are essential for the planet’s ecosystem and for human existence. The human body contains 10 times more bacterial cells than its own cells. They are particularly abundant in the intestines, and bacteria also inhabit our skin. Although they dominate numerically, due to their small size, our body contains more of its own DNA than bacterial DNA.

In general, they can be good or bad.

We must take care of the good ones, which are in the soil, water, and organisms. And we must deal with the bad ones, which means advancing medicine to handle bacterial infections, as bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics.



Can they threaten humanity?

"For example, as a biological weapon? I would say that the risk of creating a dangerous bacterium in a laboratory has been similar for 40-50 years. So, theoretically, it could happen, but it hasn’t.

In that time, another threat has grown. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming an increasing problem. If a bacterium evolves, becomes dangerous, and we don’t have an effective treatment, it could be a serious issue. Developing a new antibiotic takes a long time, and vaccines are an even more complex process.

Technologies, solutions, and teams of scientists must therefore be ready for the next pandemic, whether caused by viruses or bacteria. To achieve this, constant investment in research is necessary, and that is inconsistent."



Why?

"It doesn’t bring quick profits. The pharmaceutical industry prefers to develop drugs that can be sold in large quantities. Antibiotics are used only when absolutely necessary, so the financial benefits are smaller. As a result, there are fewer investments.

People also tend to underestimate risks. A decade ago, when I arrived in Germany, the institution I worked for didn’t have a virology department. I pointed out that there should be one. Later, we saw this in practice with the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic."



Let’s return to the world of bacteria, which paved the way for your Nobel Prize for “molecular scissors.” Could you explain how they work? You first looked for a way to combat Streptococcus pyogenes, one of the world’s most dangerous pathogens. While studying it, you discovered that it could defend itself against viral attacks. How does it do that?

"This system is called CRISPR. It can be compared to a tool in Word that lets you find a word in a text and then delete or replace it. If we imagine that the cell’s DNA is text, the CRISPR system identifies the “foreign” fragment belonging to a virus and destroys it.



Together with Jennifer Doudna, you transferred this tool into a test tube and reprogrammed it. That’s how the “molecular scissors” were created.

"By understanding how the bacterial mechanism works, we learned how to modify it to make it useful for editing any DNA sequence, not just that of a virus."



I’ve read that this is one of the most important breakthroughs in modern genetics, like landing on the moon.

"It all happened at the right time. Scientists had modern technologies that allowed them to understand how genes function. However, they lacked a way to modify them. Thanks to CRISPR, they can now act.

It’s like baking a cake: without basic ingredients like eggs and flour, it’s impossible. The CRISPR mechanism provides those ingredients, unlocking new steps in discovering life’s mechanisms. It answers many biological questions and enables experiments that were previously impossible."



Is it more of a discovery or an invention?

"Both. First, we understood the natural mechanism in bacteria, which was a discovery, and then we programmed it to work on any DNA. That’s the invention part."



In my lifetime (I’m 30), how might “molecular scissors” change the world?

"More diseases will likely be treated using CRISPR, or with a therapy that would have used CRISPR either to discover the target or to develop the therapy itself. Even now, we see the first examples, such as genetic blood disorders or some cancers, being treated with this method."



Does that mean cancer could disappear entirely?

"It will take time to develop treatments for all types of cancer, and new types will continue to emerge. However, significant progress has been made in this field. For example, some types of breast cancer that were fatal 20 years ago are now completely curable.

CRISPR plays an important role in these studies. It helps us understand the molecular mechanisms of cancer, genetic mutations that cause tumors, and develop new drugs."



Could it help fight climate catastrophe?

"During your lifetime, we’ll likely be able to design plants resistant to climate change and modify more fruits and vegetables using CRISPR. This technology already plays an important role in developing new biofuels.

In general, I assume the greatest progress will happen in biomedicine and food. These are two areas where advancements are crucial because everyone on Earth needs food and medicine."



Will it be possible to make people resistant to diseases before they are born?

"That has already happened. In 2018, a Chinese scientist used this mechanism to edit the germline during in vitro fertilization, creating children resistant to HIV. It was, of course, heavily criticized. Firstly, because this intervention might make children more susceptible to other infections, and secondly, due to ethical concerns. The scientist went to prison for two years and, after his release, returned to CRISPR research."



Where do you think the ethical boundary lies?

"Until we understand this technology better and it becomes more precise, it should only be used to treat patients, not, for example, to modify the human germline.

The technology isn’t ready for such experiments yet. If one day it reaches the point where CRISPR can correct mutations associated with diseases, there will undoubtedly be discussions about whether it is ethical."



Back to the Nobel Prize—did you have a feeling you would be honored for “molecular scissors”?

"Yes, I knew it was significant. It’s rare for a technology to become so important in such a short time."



What’s life like after receiving such an award?

"People treat you like a superhero. They assume you don’t sleep, constantly work, are always in top form, and know the answer to every question. They invite you to panels on topics outside your field. They assume you have a team handling everything for you, which isn’t true."



The Nobel Prize is the highest honor one can receive.

"It also highlighted a difference between Europe and the U.S. in their approach to laureates. In the U.S., scientific institutions actively strive to increase the number of Nobel laureates among their staff, knowing how to support and promote them. These institutions often rely on donations, so they need award-winning scientists to attract funding. In Europe, it’s different, as my colleagues have also noted. Institutions often don’t know what to do with Nobel laureates or major discoveries. We’re somewhat left on our own. Sometimes there’s jealousy or an assumption that we already have everything we need for further work."



What about pressure?

"If I feel pressure, it’s internal rather than external. And, of course, it’s not about winning another Nobel Prize. I know such a story cannot be repeated. Many factors contributed to it, which rarely align in life: time, place, people, mindset, project potential.

If you enter my office, you’ll see that all my awards are in boxes."



Why?

"Because I want to feel free. To give myself a chance to create something new. Besides, I wouldn’t have enough wall space.'

I try to put the Nobel Prize aside, although, on the other hand, I partly base my future on it. I want to engage more in supporting science and be where my voice is most needed, for example, by motivating the younger generation to pursue science."



We’re speaking during the conference organized by Wrocław University of Technology.

"I encourage my colleagues to contact scientists whose expertise is important to them, even if they don’t know them personally.

Conferences are a great way to establish such connections. We can talk and see what someone might bring to our work."



What would you say to the younger generation of scientists, especially women?

"I’d say that for all the women scientists I know, this activity—I prefer this word to “work”—brings immense satisfaction.

Science is also a field where they can effectively use their strengths. Women tend to be more pragmatic and organized, which is useful for planning experiments and later on for executive functions. There’s also the creative aspect where women’s intuition can be valuable. Another important point is teamwork—women excel in leadership roles, in my opinion."



Is science still a man’s world?

"Yes, though it’s been changing in recent decades, and proportions are balancing out. Unfortunately, fewer young people, especially women, are now interested in a scientific career. And in a country like Germany, science remains fairly patriarchal.

It requires a lot of time and commitment, which may seem difficult for someone planning to have a family and children."



You’ve been involved in science for almost 30 years and now lead the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Berlin, one of whose goals is combating antibiotic-resistant infections.

"I’d also like to focus on laboratory research unrelated to CRISPR that we started in the past. However, due to new responsibilities, I have less time for that now.

Returning to the differences between the European and American systems—there are many scientists in the U.S. who are active even in their 90s.

So, I still have my whole life ahead of me to work."




You may find the orginal interview in Wyborcza Newspaper. 28thth December 2024.

Imprint Privacy policy « This page (revision-6) was last changed on Monday, 17. March 2025, 08:08 by Kaiser Dana
  • operated by