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: 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.