SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A team of researchers led by Junjiu Huang at the Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou have reported human germline modification using CRISPR:
In a world first, Chinese scientists have reported editing the genomes of human embryos. The results are published in the online journal Protein & Cell and confirm widespread rumours that such experiments had been conducted — rumours that sparked a high-profile debate last month about the ethical implications of such work.
In the paper, researchers led by Junjiu Huang, a gene-function researcher at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, tried to head off such concerns by using 'non-viable' embryos, which cannot result in a live birth, that were obtained from local fertility clinics. The team attempted to modify the gene responsible for β-thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disorder, using a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR/Cas9. The researchers say that their results reveal serious obstacles to using the method in medical applications.
[...] A Chinese source familiar with developments in the field said that at least four groups in China are pursuing gene editing in human embryos.
While some embryos were successfully edited, the use of CRISPR/Cas9 was not nearly as reliable as desired:
The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. "If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%," Huang says. "That's why we stopped. We still think it's too immature."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:12PM
Second, when we look at the proposed solution we see two serious problems with it. First, the proposed solution, delay only rewards those who ignore the ethical debate in the first place. That means giving a vast advantage and initiative to those who ignore ethics over those who do. And there is little penalty aside from moderate hurdles to publishing the research, which is not going to be the main benefit of this research. And then we come to the possible driver [soylentnews.org] for these concerns, namely, that there is at least one competing product out there which isn't subjected to these ethical issues.
One of the objectors is the guy leading SangamoBiosciences - the company that has been selling a similar method of gene editing to one used in the publication.
Another possibility is the absence of control of Western-style ethics over Chinese R&D. This may just be due to an attitude of contempt for that which the would-be ethicists can't control. Would these researchers be so concerned, if there wasn't a profitable business to protect or perhaps, if the researchers weren't Chinese? I can't say due to the vagueness of the concern that has been expressed so far. This supposed ethical argument is not structured to be scientifically persuasive.
So to summarize, we have an argument that proposed a solution, delaying research significantly, that backfires badly to a problem that is ill-defined and not backed by evidence of need to address the problem. Then there are a couple of significant conflicts of interest out there that may be compromising the would-be ethicists proposing this solution. I don't see the compelling need to obstruct this research. But I do see the need to continue this research, namely, that it provides a possible avenue to fix valid human needs such as fixing genetic flaws, and improving human quality of life and span of life.
(Score: 1) by sbgen on Friday April 24 2015, @03:50AM
The ethical considerations are taken seriously in this field of study. The present study had clearance from the institutional ethics review board of the authors' university. Also the embryos used were explicitly nonviable, showing that researchers actively wanted to avoid controversy overshadowing the actual work. I do consider this choice as a good first step although the findings become tentative due to the nature of the embryos used. Till now no such data existed.
Ethical concerns here are valid and general populace has a say in it. Science cant operate in vacuum, after all scientists live within the society. There has been a lot of discussion by experts (actual researchers who did the pioneer work on CRISPR/Cas9 tool and bio-ethicists) recently and they have published their arguments in peer reviewed journals. Unfortunately they are pay-walled for general public (does that count as ironic?). Suffice to say I would listen to their arguments. Nevertheless it is in human nature that some one will do the work anyway so why not make sure it is done over-board and data is published? For example the current study has shown that a particular mechanism of error-correction inside cells is going to be a bugbear in human embryo-related work. There are reagents in use in the field to suppress this mechanism but no one in the right mind would use it on an embryo, human or otherwise. So the field is that much wiser now. I hope so.
Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 24 2015, @04:40AM
The ethical considerations are taken seriously in this field of study.
I don't see the reason to care given that the results are so consistently counterproductive. I think there is a place for ethics here, but it needs to be something that contributes to our welfare, not merely obstructs progress or rewards those who don't play by the rules.
Ethical concerns here are valid and general populace has a say in it.
Well, sure, I back free speech. I just don't believe that "say in it" means they should have influence. There is a vast realm of human endeavor, which most medical research falls in, for which I think the public should have no influence. Sorry, I don't believe in pure democracy or letting people influence something that they don't have a clue about or a stake in.
Nevertheless it is in human nature that some one will do the work anyway so why not make sure it is done over-board and data is published?
Note that despite taking reasonable precautions, the researchers were bounced from several journals on spurious ethical grounds. Looks like someone isn't following the plan. And as I noted in my earlier post, there's at least one advocate for halting this research who just happens to have a financial stake in a competing technology.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday April 24 2015, @02:00PM
Ethics is about far more than just whether or not something "causes harm".
What they are trying to accomplish here would involve conducting experiments on human beings who have no ability to understand or consent to this experimentation. That's a pretty huge and obvious ethical dilemma. They haven't reached that point *yet*, but that's the only place these sorts of experiments can be heading.
Of course, if we want to cure genetic diseases, we'll almost certainly have to do that at some point. I don't see any other way. There's gotta be human trials, and if you're working on genetic diseases you'll probably need to conduct them on actual, viable embryos. And then allow those embryos to be born. But we'd better be damn careful about how we do that.
I don't think *this study* was really unethical, but it's definitely stepping into that grey area.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 24 2015, @06:56PM
Ethics is about far more than just whether or not something "causes harm".
I agree. But when ethics ventures into those areas outside of considerations of harm, it tends to completely lose usefulness fast. If you can't show harm in a supposed ethics quandary, then I can't show care.
What they are trying to accomplish here would involve conducting experiments on human beings who have no ability to understand or consent to this experimentation.
So far they've used nonviable embryos which nixes that concern. And we already accept a considerable degree of harm to humans who have no ability to understand or consent to being born. An ethics ban should be supported by some material difference that is more considerable than the problems, including birth defects, which are accepted with birth.
I don't think *this study* was really unethical, but it's definitely stepping into that grey area.
No one has demonstrated a "grey area" with the current research.