Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the close-to-the-edge dept.

Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)

Update: Professor He Jiankui has defended his human genome editing project at the Human Genome Editing Summit at the University of Hong Kong. Although the project has been halted, Jiankui claimed that there was potentially a second pregnancy (and a third genome-edited baby) on the way. Jiankui also said that results have been submitted for peer review, although he did not name a journal. Eight couples consisting of an HIV-positive father and HIV-negative mother participated in the study, and all medical treatment was funded by He Jiankui. The parent company of the Shenzhen hospital where the experiment was carried out said that signatures on an application to the hospital's medical ethics committee had been forged. Chinese Deputy Minister of Science and Technology Xu Nanping called the experiment unlawful. Jiankui indicated that he had consulted with ethics experts in recent years:

William Hurlbut, a senior researcher in neurobiology at the Stanford Medical School, said that he was one of the ethicists that He consulted with over the past two years. Hurlbut, who served on the U.S. president's council on bioethics, said that while he knew that He was "heading in this direction," he didn't know the full-scale of the project or that it involved implanted embryos. "I challenged him at every level, and I don't approve of what he did," said Hurlbut.

American scientist under investigation over ties to alleged genetic editing

Rice University has launched an investigation into one of its professors after reports surfaced that he is connected to alleged genetic editing in China that resulted in the birth of two babies with altered DNA. They announced the investigation Monday in the wake of reports that Dr. Michael Deem, a professor of biochemical and genetic engineering, was involved in a case in which genetic editing was performed on human embryos to alter a gene in a way to make them resistant to HIV. The university said that it had "no knowledge of this work" and that to its knowledge, the work was not performed in the U.S., where genetic editing of human embryos is illegal.

[...] Deem said he was in China when the participants agreed to genetic editing, and said they understood the risks, according to the Associated Press. Deem added that comparing the gene editing to a vaccine "might be a layman's way of describing it," according to the AP.

China orders probe into first 'gene-edited babies'

The National Health Commission said on Monday it was "highly concerned" and had ordered provincial health officials "to immediately investigate and clarify the matter". The government's medical ethics committee in Shenzhen said it was investigating the case, as was the Guangdong provincial health commission, according to Southern Metropolis Daily, a state media outlet.

We Have an Official Update From The University Behind The CRISPR Baby Scientist

The Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, has released an official statement distancing itself from the work of geneticist He Jiankui, who is employed at the institution as an associate professor. In a brief statement on its website, the university noted that He, who has been on leave since February of this year, did not perform the work at the university, or during university hours. Nor was the university or its biology department aware of the work.

"The Southern University of Science and Technology strictly requires scientific research to abide by and comply with international academic ethics and academic norms in accordance with national laws and regulations," the statement reads.

Bullish on Gene-Edited Babies? Be Careful. Gains in Crispr-focused stocks on an ethically troubling, if dubious, scientfic development show their mercurial nature.

The hype surrounding this technology makes these stocks particularly speculative. On the negative side, these same companies saw their stocks plunge earlier this year after a scientific publication highlighted a potential cancer risk in the use of Crispr. As for the latest news, it's pretty difficult to construct a positive narrative out of it, though it appears investors are doing just that. This is a dubious claim from a scientist that appears to have been operating without full sanction. It's unclear if he edited embryos at all or successfully, so it's a stretch to see this as validation of Crispr, let alone of the way that these public biotechs are using it.

If anything, this development exposes the broader risks of the technology in a way that could lead to regulatory and scientific scrutiny. Theoretically, the furor about editing embryos could stall development of Crispr for that use, leading to more opportunity and a longer commercial runway for the more circumscribed work these companies are doing. But that's pretty unstable ground for investing.

First Genome-Edited Babies? If it's safe, then it's ethical. No need for a global moratorium.

One problem with CRISPR editing is that it sometimes introduces mutations far from the gene at which it is aimed at correcting. Such off-target mutations could obviously cause other problems. Researchers are working hard to make CRISPR editing ever more precise. If parents were given the choice of implanting either edited or unedited embryos, and if they were adequately informed about the risks of using CRISPR technology, then that is where decisions about the ethics of using this technology should properly rest. There is no need for global moratorium.

takyon: This story offers more details about He Jiankui and what he was doing in the years and months leading up to the reveal.

See also: Gene-Edited Twins in China Still Face Risk of HIV Infection
Outrage Over Human Gene Editing Will Fade Fast
'Of course it's not ethical': shock at gene-edited baby claims


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:58PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:58PM (#767522)

    Pretty much none? I'm sure there are a few assholes out there, but my guess is that most scientists realize there are incredibly complex ethical issues along with very possible genetic issues that could result from mass gene manipulation.

    We don't even fully understand genetics yet! Discoveries are still being made. Seems like a terrible idea to mess around with the building blocks of life without some better understanding.

    I much prefer selective breeding, though homogenous genetics creates its own set of potential problems.

  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:54PM (6 children)

    by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:54PM (#767553)

    If we waited until we fully understood things before messing with them we'd never get anywhere. And yes, every technology has the potential to mess with or shorten people's lives, this isn't a special case.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:04AM (5 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:04AM (#767578)

      > this isn't a special case.

      Yes it is, because you are dealing with humans, and not only that, but the humans are unable to give consent.

      If the embryos have their DNA tampered with to reduce the chances of them getting AIDS, but they end up with other mutations that cause them more suffering in life, what then?

      You can't undo the gene editing, you can't just kill them and try again, and they have to live with the results of your experimentation for the rest of their lives, which may have been considerably shortened due to the meddling.

      It is different if you already have a born human being with a condition, who is able to consent to some "hail Mary" experimental treatment to cue them of their condition, because they are aware of the risks, and are aware of their current suffering, and feel the risk is worth it. The unborn have no such ability to consent at the point they are tampered with.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:22AM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:22AM (#767582) Journal

        Children don't get to choose who their parents are, or how old their parents are when they conceive, etc. If they are dealt a genetic shit sandwich, they have to live with it. Newborns and young children with illnesses, genetic or not, also do not get to choose what kind of treatment they get or consent to it. In many countries, the unborn have no right to live, period (i.e. abortion is legal to some degree). Parents are fucking and creating their own little experiments. There should be no embryo gene editing ban based on this lack of supposed "consent".

        Now, there may be a compelling reason for embryo gene editing to be forbidden: the CRISPR process is known to cause unacceptable rates of errors, so the editing may not be an improvement. If it's possible to edit a bunch of embryos at once and then screen them for errors, then that could be a workaround. Or we could wait until the editing techniques get better, and it appears that they will. The special case will be the guy who decided to boldly forge ahead with today's flawed techniques. And we will learn from this special case, since these two or three children will undoubtedly be studied closely.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Thursday November 29 2018, @01:35AM

        by legont (4179) on Thursday November 29 2018, @01:35AM (#767603)

        Consent? What consent? They can be killed without their consent all right. In fact they are somebody's else body if I believe liberals and that body can take whatever drugs it wants.

        Better start fixing ethics issues at some other stage. Can't have it both ways.

        What happened here is that somebody forced the issue, which is good.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 29 2018, @03:59AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 29 2018, @03:59AM (#767635) Journal

        Yes it is, because you are dealing with humans, and not only that, but the humans are unable to give consent.

        He already said "has the potential to mess with or shorten people's lives". There aren't any other sort of people at present. And "unable to give consent" doesn't mean a thing when you're a fetus.

      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:17AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:17AM (#767670)

        Every technological change has the same potential consequences. Change a line of code in a car? Do it right, things improve. Do it wrong and unwilling nonconsenting people could die or be permanently injured.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @05:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @05:36PM (#767805)

        babies and children are the responsibility of the parents. parents need no approval from "society"(brainwashed slaves) or the parasites of the state.