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A Chinese branch of the World Health Organization has withdrawn an application to register He Jiankui's project in its clinical database.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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:52PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:52PM (#773116)

    You're assuming that which is to be proved: That the experiment is the resulting genome, not the editing technique.

    In other words, it's not enough to say that this guy did something unethical; the burden of proof is on the people to lay out objective criteria and then apply them. The reason nobody wants to do this is because if they lay out objective criteria, that will tell everyone what they must do in order to edit genomes ethically, which will basically give the OK to start making designer people, whom the powers-that-be fear.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:00PM (6 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:00PM (#773123)

    > which will basically give the OK to start making designer people, whom the powers-that-be fear.

    The power-that-be are the ones who can afford designer babies.

    Did the mother carrying those twins inside her for 9 months know that any unexpected CRISPR side-effects would have put her in danger, since her uterus contained two "mutant" frankenbabies ?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:09PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:09PM (#773128)

      Put another way: You can say the same about a traditionally created fetus; the problem is even worse, because you are literally just mixing sperm and eggs and hoping for the best.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:27PM (4 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:27PM (#773136)

        (I"m not doing anything "again", check thread names)

        The natural process has its imperfections, most of which result in miscarriages, as would most major CRISPR mishaps.
        But "just mixing sperm and eggs and hoping for the best" has been done billions of time, and does not technically involve slicing the DNA.
        Our genetic editing has gotten better, and been done hundreds of thousands of times in various lab animals. But lab protocols are typically targeting a specific result, and might potentially miss a side-effect which is not obvious in short-lived animals the way it will be in humans.
        It's a false equivalence.

        The proper equivalence is that early IVF was thought risky, deemed unethical by many, and people worried about side-effects. Yet, decades later it has become a routine thing (though with a significant failure rate).

        Gene-editing great apes would have been the normal progression before jumping to humans, because involving a mother, two babies, and an AIDS-resistance gene has to be properly vetted for risk by a group of specialists.
        You don't know yet that CRISPR didn't do its job wrong (too much editing, contamination...), and you don't know whether that gene could turn out to have terrible side-effects after being expressed for a decade inside a human.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:32PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:32PM (#773139)

          I don't disagree, but that's the whole point: Where are the objective criteria for what is ethical, so that everyone may proceed with the game in confidence?

          In my opinion, trying to add improvements or trying to remove problems is much more ethical than squirting semen into a random woman during a one-night Tinder stand, which doesn't result in house arrest (anymore).

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:12PM (2 children)

            by Freeman (732) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:12PM (#773491) Journal

            It's not a game and shouldn't ever be treated as such. (Though, I assume, you were just using it as a turn of phrase.) Slicing an unborn babies' DNA in bits, is more ethical than a one-night stand? I'm going to have to go with, No. You have it precisely backwards, unless there was not a consensual agreement to such an event. In which case, I would place them on equal footing. You think teenagers are rebellious now, just think of when they figure out that not only are you controlling their actions, but you determined they would be the first kid born with pink hair.

            --
            Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:29PM (#773542)

              ...from their parents, while allowing their parents to raise their children without having to act like lepers seems like a good reason to test this treatment.

              Sure the kids could have unintended side effects and live horrible lives or die. But in many parts of the world that is already the truth thanks to air, water, soil, or food pollution. Your parents genes can have unintended side effects even without these modifications, and despite all the sequencing done on humans for 'high risk genes' there are still hundreds of thousands to millions of other genes that could ruin your life in the wrong coupling as well.

              While I think this guy deserves some social shunning for what he did, I don't think it is any worse than the grave robbing past generations did to complete their research on physiology, or the hundreds of morally questionable experiments done since that catapulted modern medicine forward. And compared to many of those past experiments, this one had the potential for far better research and computer analysis to back it (assuming he wasn't grossly negligent in his work) to ensure that the children live healthy productive lives at no higher risk of serious defects than the general population whose parents haven't undergone genetic screening before conception, or screening of their child's dna while in the womb. The latter of which has its own risks for the fetus as well.

              • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:07PM

                by Freeman (732) on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:07PM (#774000) Journal

                Here's a super great idea, how about don't have a kid, if you are HIV positive? I get that, if you aren't using safe sex methods you may not know. Then, I would just call you reckless. Sure, there will be a very small number of cases where weird random something happens and now I'm pregnant and am HIV positive / have AIDS.

                Gene-editing unborn babies and saying let's see what happens is very reckless and very dangerous. What happens, if instead of creating a child that is highly resistant to contracting HIV / AIDS. He creates a child who, if infected by HIV/AIDS would end up having some sort of Super HIV/AIDS that isn't responsive to any known treatments. Well, #1 that kid / adult is royally screwed and so is anyone else that contracts it, if that Super Bug gets out into the wild.

                --
                Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"