Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday October 24 2019, @02:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the moral-dilemma dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Embattled Russian scientist sharpens plans to create gene-edited babies

Rebrikov acknowledges the scientific consensus that a bright red line now prohibits germline editing because the young CRISPR technology remains too error prone. Yet to the utter dismay of many colleagues, he has put his toes right on the line. And he is forcing Russia and the world at large to confront the key question: How, exactly, do you responsibly cross it?

Rebrikov first discussed editing embryos at a conference in Kazan, Russia, on "postgenome" technologies in October 2018, nearly 1 month before the He story would explode. "I was really surprised that in the full auditorium of 500 people he was freely speaking about this issue," says Egor Prokhortchouk, a genomics specialist at RAS's Research Center of Biotechnology in Moscow. Even though Rebrikov's study didn't violate Russian regulations, Prokhortchouk still thought it was pushing the limits of what the strict science and health ministries would allow.

Working with nonviable embryos made at his IVF clinic—part of the Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology—Rebrikov and his co-workers used CRISPR to introduce a deletion into a gene for a protein, CCR5, that studs the surface of white blood cells. People who naturally inherit a defective CCR5 gene from both parents are highly resistant to HIV and suffer no dramatic ill effects from the protein's absence; this is the same gene that He tried to cripple in the twin girls. But Rebrikov's experiment—which joined about a dozen such human embryo-editing studies published to date, mainly from Chinese researchers—simply explored the efficiency of CRISPR. He did not discuss implanting edited embryos. "Everybody was interested in technical details and nobody asked questions about ethical things," Prokhortchouk says.

In February, however, Rebrikov disclosed his greater ambitions to Prokhortchouk and his medical students. Rebrikov and his colleagues had described the CCR5 embryo study in the Bulletin of RSMU, which led Prokhortchouk to invite him to a student journal club to discuss the paper and He's experiment. "Rebrikov insisted that he wants to create CCR5-edited babies and that this will protect them from HIV infection from their mothers," says Prokhortchouk, who was—and remains—opposed to such plans.

Rebrikov says from the outset he was not interested in preventing a specific medical ailment, but rather to prove that he could safely help people with germline editing, which he believes will one day be widely used. He wanted to build his case by finding people with rare medical situations that would warrant the risk. He hoped to identify, for example, women who were living with HIV and wanted babies but were not responding to marketed antiretrovirals, which powerfully reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission. Using IVF to create embryos homozygous for the CCR5 mutant in theory could help prevent infection from their mothers.

[...] RAS [Russian Academy of Science] has not spoken publicly about human germline editing, even though many science academies around the world have called human germline editing premature. One reason may be that many Russian scientists did not take Rebrikov's pronouncements seriously. "When I first heard about this proposal, I considered this a bad joke because our country overregulates research," says Raul Gainetdinov, a psychiatrist who heads the Institute of Translational Biomedicine at St. Petersburg State University. "We stumble like hell. We cannot push anything through the Ministry of Health." Gainetdinov adds that only a handful of labs in Russia even do germline editing in animal models.

Elena Grebenshchikova, a bioethicist at RAS's Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences, told the Moscow meeting attendees that she is glad Rebrikov pushed these issues into the public arena in Russia. "There's a lack of communication between scientists and the society," she said. "His openness to the subject is really a plus to shift the responsibility from a simple scientist or an institution to the shared responsibility where all of society is included."

Rebrikov has grown weary of the frenzied media, some of which has badly misrepresented his work and plans. He will no longer offer a timeline when asked when he might be ready to seek approval to implant an edited embryo. "That's a very strange question because now, we're not making babies, we're just proceeding in a scientific way."


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: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 24 2019, @04:59PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday October 24 2019, @04:59PM (#911269) Journal

    In the near future we will have the ability to synthesize entire genomes from scratch. Design the genome on a computer, create an embryo from scratch containing the printed DNA, and implant (in an artificial womb). So even if CRISPR and upcoming embryo editing techniques remained "too dangerous" to be used because of off-target errors, there will be a logical route to designer babies. This will also allow scenarios like gay and lesbian couples having their own genetic children with DNA from each parent, and you could still add on "designer genes" to enhance height, intelligence, etc. on top of that.

    There is a high chance that a pregnant woman with Down syndrome will have a baby with Down syndrome, which is typically regarded as a negative outcome. But you don't see governments criminalizing unprotected sex with these women. Instead, we see things like prenatal screenings leading to abortions of potential Down syndrome children [soylentnews.org]. "Eugenics!!!" doesn't really have that same ring to it when it's a choice made by parents.

    Artificial wombs will become the final form of the "elective c-section". They will be necessary in countries where surrogacy is banned. It will be common for most individuals to be on permanent birth control, and they'll simply get a child created using DNA samples. It may have a smaller chance of birth complications [npr.org] than natural birth. It may be cheaper to create a designer baby in an artificial womb than to use today's form of in vitro fertilization. IVF requires surgeries, this doesn't.

    So a tiny group of first-generation CRISPR humans will be thinking about having children around the 2040s or so. A dizzying amount of fertility advancements will have happened by that point, and by the next generation or two, the idea of "breeding" requiring bonking and a natural mixing of DNA may be obsolete. I don't think we have to worry whatsoever about what genes CRISPR babies may be passing on.

    There could be concerns over designer individuals severely outperforming "invalids" in the economy as described in Gattaca. And it is obvious that wealthier people will have access to designer babies and other fertility technologies first. This can be addressed in part by universal basic income and universal health care funding a designer baby procedure ("but how many times per individual/couple?", you may ask, so the real concern may be some form of 'n'-child policy). No amount of genetic enhancements is going to stop hundreds of millions of jobs from being performed by computers and robots. So we will have economic unrest worse than the Gattaca scenario if something isn't done about it.

    Also, the advantages that a designer baby would have may not count for much. If a greater proportion of the population is supermodel-level attractive, that just means more competition between them, happening at the same time as the rise of sex robots. Athleticism will be on the decline if it just turns into a game of genetic fine-tuning, and widespread "cheating" (biotechnology advances, including anti-aging) will put certain sports at risk. American Football is more unethical than this CRISPR stuff, since it turns young men into battered and suicidal time bombs. But if we develop the capability to heal the damage caused by traumatic brain injuries, then we will probably also be able to prolong football careers by decades, if not indefinitely (complete anti-aging). Players who don't want to retire will no longer "age out".

    What isn't going to work is telling parents that they can't use certain fertility technologies because "reasons". Their bodies, their choice.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2