Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-ethical-issues-here dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived.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) by sbgen on Friday April 24 2015, @03:50AM

    by sbgen (1302) on Friday April 24 2015, @03:50AM (#174531)

    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

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 24 2015, @04:40AM (#174547) Journal

    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.