According to Physicist Leon Lederman, scientific myth-histories are not intended to be historically accurate. Instead, they serve as pedagogical devices that filter out unwanted historical details and noise. By filtering out this noise, myth-historians hope to perpetuate an essentialist idealization of science. In practice, these narratives are not passive filters of anachronist noise. They are active rhetorical agents that serve to project community ideals, filter out unpopular scientific ideas, help establish consensus, and further particular scientific agendas. In January 2016, Eric Lander of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard wrote an article for Cell entitled “The Heroes of CRISPR” in which he gives a short historical account of the development of this revolutionary genetic editing technology. Read as such, and without an understanding of the broader context of innovation surrounding CRISPR-Cas9, his audience might accept this account as a factual representation of scientific development. However, when read as part of a controversial patent dispute between academic heavyweights Jennifer Doudna at U.C. Berkeley and Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute, this historical narrative begins to reveal itself as a clear case of myth-historical propaganda. In his account Lander significantly downplays Doudna’s contributions, choosing instead to highlight the efforts of his colleagues at Broad. Doudna has since published A Crack in Creation detailing her own myth-historical version of the development of CRISPR-Cas9. The following analysis unpacks the various emerging myth-histories of CRISPR-Cas9, and contextualizes their various uses and impacts as scientists and institutions vie for scientific recognition and patent control.
