SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Chinese scientist who allegedly created the first genetically engineered babies is being detained
The Chinese scientist who shocked the world with claims of creating the first genetically engineered babies is being detained in the Chinese city of Shenzhen, according to a report in The New York Times.
[...] The Southern University of Science and Technology, based in Shenzhen, has denied the reporting around Dr. He's whereabouts and fate, telling the Times, "Right now nobody's information is accurate, only the official channels are." Meanwhile, the official channels are staying silent.
Reporters found security personnel blocking access to the residence where Dr. He is reportedly staying and others denying access to the former offices Dr. He used to conduct his research. The scientist's name and biography remains on a board listing staff in the university’s biology department.
Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)
Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated)
Chinese Gene-Editing Scientist's Project Rejected for WHO Database (Plus: He Jiankui is Missing)
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday December 31 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)
They're known now. They weren't known then.
Those weren't around when the first trials began. For most drugs, there isn't a magic undo button. That's what the testing is for.
Bull: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28348039 [nih.gov]
Animal trials prove or disprove little. If a trial fails it doens't mean the drug is unsafe to humans. If the drugs succeeds it doesn't mean it's safe for humans. It's not even a good indication of either. It's just a method to make trials more expensive. Which, to itself, could be said to prevent some clowns from testing crazy shit and thus reduce risks. But there better ways to achieve that. And more to the point, the guy already did animal trials and was still rejected for reasons unspecified.
Known by whom? They've been editing plants since CRISPR day 1 and livestock for nearly the last 5 years. The FDA is holding back the imports but it's already sold overseas. Maybe they can't prevent the mutations. But have you considered the possibility the guy actually knows what he's doing for a living and have a good way to test for their existence of mutations before taking the next step and moving forwards with the pregnancy? I'm not in his field. But if someone who never coded a line in his life came over and told me to stop doing this and that since it's "unsafe" I know I wouldn't listen to him.
How do you prevent infected blood packs? *You* being the key here. Cause the whole point of mass immunization (CRISPR or otherwise) is to make sure society doesn't fall apart to some infection when one guy decided washing their hands / reporting in for an exam / wearing a condom was too bothersome.
Besides, it's not a test case for public relations. It's research for medicine. Why should Africa wait when they have whole countries with families falling apart due to AIDS and no money for treatments? You're saying the risk isn't worth it. I can guarantee you there's a good 20million out there that would rather see a child or two die from a random mutation in their first decade of life than see two or three die in their mid 20s. China been covering up their HIV infection rates for a while now. Have you considered maybe the guy knows something you don't? That maybe the real risks are in waiting for some technical advancement that may or may not come from the west instead of moving forwards with this now?
That's the equivalent of GM's historic electric vehicle prototypes. They're investing in the patents and copyright in-order to prevent commercialization by competing startups. We've seen it in every other industry including pharma as they encounter disruptive technologies and practices. I don't understand what makes you think it's any different this time.
Overall, stop making assumptions regarding risks or the variables. We don't have all the facts. We barely have any facts. His fellow researchers might not even understand everything he did and are busy reading the papers he released. As previously said, there plenty of scenarios where everything he did can be justified. The only thing we know is that industries have long histories of delaying scientific progress to improve their bottom lines and there's absolutely no reason to take their sides when they have shit tons of marketeers and shills doing it for them.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01 2019, @12:14AM
I don't really know what you are trying to do with this analogy, but if you are trying to argue that CRISPR-mediated germline editing is like the initial vaccination "trials" performed two hundred years ago or variolation "trials" five hundred years ago then it's not going to provide any useful insight.
First of all, did you actually read the paper? The paper in no way disprove the utility of preclinical trials. Preclinical animal trials happen to be dirt cheap, so I have no idea why you think they substantially affect the expense of the drug development process.
I don't even know where to start with the rest of your post. It is clear that you lack the familiarity with the academic literature on the topics of HIV, HIV treatment and public health, and gene editing.
Briefly:
The off-target mutation problem is well established in the academic literature (hell, it has been covered here many times) and there are lots of patents on processes that lower the rate.
You can lower the off-target rate by various means (e.g. careful design and screening of gRNA sequences and alterations to Cas9).
It's unlikely that the doctor has quietly solved the problems single-handedly.
If I had to personally do it, I'd order primers and do a RT-PCR to detect HIV RNA and an ELISA for HIV antibodies.
CRISPR-mediated germline editing plus IVF is not even close to mass immunization. This is not even remotely close to a low-cost solution to HIV in China or Africa.
This is definitely not the same as electric cars.
My reasons for skepticism, instead of your incredibly optimistic assumptions, are based on the published evidence and knowledge of the fields involved.