Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the missing-inaction dept.

China gene-editing scientist's project rejected for WHO database (original)

A Chinese branch of the World Health Organization has withdrawn an application to register He Jiankui's project in its clinical database. The move comes after China's government halted He's work, saying it would take a "zero tolerance attitude in dealing with dishonorable behavior" in research.

He has faced a global backlash after claiming to have produced the world's first gene-edited babies in a bid to make them HIV-resistant. The project drew international criticism for its lack of transparency, with health officials and other scientists concerned that it raises ethical questions that will taint other work in the field.

The application to enter the database of the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry was rejected because "the original applicants cannot provide the individual participants' data for reviewing," according to the registry's website.

[...] He's whereabouts are still unknown. Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily cited unnamed sources earlier this month that the researcher was put on house arrest by his university, Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, but representatives of the university and He's lab both declined to comment.

takyon: Several news organizations reported on Dec. 3 that He Jiankui was missing.

Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)
Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:40PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:40PM (#773108)

    It's possible to determine exactly what changes were made.

    The experiment is not the resulting genome; the experiment is whether the technique will produce the desired genome.

    Take a random sperm and a random egg, and use them to make genome G—this is the age-old way (i.e., fucking) of creating a genome, and is therefore "normal" or "ethical". Now, use editing techniques to create a new genome G'. Sequence G' to determine that it differs only in the way you intend—that is, it should be a "normal", "ethical" genome, G, but with HIV-resistance added.

    Now, implant G' into an embryo and grow it into a person.

    The experiment was finished before there was a person.
    In fact, at this point, it would be unethical to grow G rather than G', as G would be objectively inferior to G'.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:55PM (5 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:55PM (#773161)

    ...assuming all the techniques you used worked perfectly and there are no side effects, yes. Considering this is basically the first alpha of the product I am very skeptical of that claim.

    I'm not arguing that there are ethical questions; I'm saying you can't dismiss one entire side of the discussion by using logic from a different argument that doesn't fit in this context.

    --

    But if you really want me to, here, I'll take a stab at it:

    Let's say this experiment is instead, let's see how extreme a case of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome we can give a fetus. So we go about modifying it in the womb or whatever, and then oops! we forgot to abort it. Now it's been born and is going to live life and grow up with FAS.

    You don't see how this is an ethical problem? Yes, congratulations, the experiment was "finished" before birth, but that's worth jack shit to the kid that results.

    The experiment was finished before there was a person.

    Then why wasn't the experiment discontinued?

    --

    You're arguing from the standpoint of what the technology will eventually be. The other people in this discussion are arguing from where the technology currently is.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:37PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:37PM (#773180)

      Yes, my experiment finished successfully, we can confirm the chain reaction can be initiated. The chain reaction itself is not my problem.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:41PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:41PM (#773483)

        I'm just going to start swinging my fists around; it's not my fault your face happens to be in the way.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:54PM (#773191)

      Especially when she's a drunkard you met on Tinder for casual sex?

      That's not against the law.

    • (Score: 1) by DeVilla on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:04PM (1 child)

      by DeVilla (5354) on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:04PM (#774052)

      The experiment was finished before there was a person.

      Then why wasn't the experiment discontinued?

      The experiment wasn't complete. We still have to see the the HIV immunity worked. That will require exposing the specimens to the disease once they have developed some more.

      We will also need to watch for unexpected results like physical or mental abnormalities or super powers.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 13 2018, @08:28PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday December 13 2018, @08:28PM (#774121)

        Then the AC's already-dubious argument for how it wasn't unethical is just outright wrong.

        Seems a bit weird that they decided to test the splicing with HIV, though. Couldn't they have picked something that doesn't leave you so totally fucked if the DNA engineering doesn't work?

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"