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."

Related Stories

NIH Won't Fund Human Germline Modification 21 comments

A week after a Chinese team reported semi-successful modification of human embryos, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, has said in a statement that his agency will not fund any research involving human germline modification:

The concept of altering the human germline in embryos for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed. Advances in technology have given us an elegant new way of carrying out genome editing, but the strong arguments against engaging in this activity remain. These include the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent, and a current lack of compelling medical applications justifying the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in embryos.

Practically, there are multiple existing legislative and regulatory prohibitions against this kind of work. The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed (H.R. 2880, Sec. 128). Furthermore, the NIH Guidelines state that the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, "...will not at present entertain proposals for germ line alteration". It is also important to note the role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this arena, which applies not only to federally funded research, but to any research in the U.S. The Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act give the FDA the authority to regulate cell and gene therapy products as biological products and/or drugs, which would include oversight of human germline modification. During development, biological products may be used in humans only if an investigational new drug application is in effect (21 CFR Part 312).

However, some scientists aren't joining the chorus of "universal" criticism:

George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, disagrees that the technology is so immature. He says that the researchers did not use the most up-to-date CRISPR/Cas9 methods and that many of the researchers' problems could have been avoided or lessened if they had.

Although researchers agree that a moratorium on clinical applications is needed while the ethical and safety concerns of human-embryo editing are worked out, many see no problem with the type of research that Huang's team did, in part because the embryos could not have led to a live birth. "It's no worse than what happens in IVF all the time, which is that non-viable embryos are discarded," says John Harris, a bioethicist at the University of Manchester, UK. "I don't see any justification for a moratorium on research," he adds. Church, meanwhile, notes that many of the earliest experiments with CRISPR/Cas9 were developed in human induced pluripotent stem cells, adult cells that have been reprogrammed to have the ability to turn into any cell type, including sperm and eggs. He questions whether Huang's experiments are any more intrinsically problematic.

Group of Scientists and Bioethicists Back Genetic Modification of Human Embryos 25 comments

Following a September 3-4 meeting in Manchester, England, the Hinxton Group, "a global network of stem cell researchers, bioethicists, and experts on policy and scientific publishing" has published a statement backing the genetic modification of human embryos, with caveats:

It is "essential" that the genetic modification of human embryos is allowed, says a group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts. A Hinxton Group report says editing the genetic code of early stage embryos is of "tremendous value" to research. It adds although GM babies should not be allowed to be born at the moment, it may be "morally acceptable" under some circumstances in the future. The US refuses to fund research involving the gene editing of embryos. The global Hinxton Group met in response to the phenomenal advances taking place in the field of genetics.

From the statement:

Genome editing has tremendous value as a tool to address fundamental questions of human and non-human animal biology and their similarities and differences. There are at least four categories of basic research involving genome editing technology that can be distinguished: 1) research to understand and improve the technique of genome editing itself; 2) genome editing used as a tool to address fundamental questions of human and non-human animal biology; 3) research to generate preliminary data for the development of human somatic applications; and 4) research to inform the plausibility of developing safe human reproductive applications. These distinctions are important to make clear that, even if one opposes human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes, there is important research to be done that does not serve that end. That said, we appreciate that there are even categories of basic research involving this technology that some may find morally troubling. Nevertheless, it is our conviction that concerns about human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes should not halt or hamper application to scientifically defensible basic research.

BBC has this beginner's guide to the designer baby debate.

Related:

The Rapid Rise of CRISPR
NIH Won't Fund Human Germline Modification
Chinese Scientists Have Genetically Modified Human Embryos
UK Approves Three-Person IVF Babies


Original Submission

First Known Attempt at Genetically Modifying Human Embryos in the U.S. is an Apparent Success 28 comments

U.S. scientists have genetically modified human embyros using CRISPR and have apparently avoided the worst of the off-target effects that have plagued previous efforts. The results are unpublished and the team is not commenting yet:

The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon, Technology Review has learned.

The effort, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, involved changing the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos with the gene-editing technique CRISPR, according to people familiar with the scientific results.

Until now, American scientists have watched with a combination of awe, envy, and some alarm as scientists elsewhere were first to explore the controversial practice. To date, three previous reports of editing human embryos were all published by scientists in China.

Now Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases.

Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days—and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—the experiments are a milestone on what may prove to be an inevitable journey toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.

Also at STAT News.

Previously: Chinese Scientists Have Genetically Modified Human Embryos
NIH Won't Fund Human Germline Modification
Group of Scientists and Bioethicists Back Genetic Modification of Human Embryos
The International Summit on Human Gene Editing
UK Scientist Makes the Case for Editing Human Embryos
Second Chinese Team Reports Gene Editing in Human Embryos
Scientists Keep Human Embryos Alive Longer Outside of the Womb
Francis Collins Retains Position as Director of the National Institutes of Health


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, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:05AM

    by Anne Nonymous (712) on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:05AM (#174187)

    A little like panda pancreas, with rhino horn overtones.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:46AM (#174250)

      The Chairman demands more Mayo!

      • (Score: 2) by middlemen on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:02PM

        by middlemen (504) on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:02PM (#174314) Homepage

        The Chairman demands more Mayo!

        Mayo Zedong ?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:52PM (#174394)

          And get the dog to lick it off.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by sbgen on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:25AM

    by sbgen (1302) on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:25AM (#174191)

    I read the first link in the summary which goes to Nature News. It appears the said paper was rejected by high profile journals Nature, Cell and Science before getting published where it is due to ethical objections. 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. Theirs is a relatively older ( two generations older) and patent encumbered method that they sold for years at huge prices - unaffordable by most research labs anywhere in the world. Now that this paper comes out with an easier protocol being employed he seems to have found ethical problems. Something that gives pause to me in the bioethics track attached to the new paper.

    I need to read the paper to find out the technical details. Based on the kind of embryos used, the high rate of off target effects and other problems appear to be expected. Certainly the efficiency needs to improve way higher before being usable for anything serious in medical side. This is the very first published data and now at least we have data to argue about - not just hypotheticals.

    --
    Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:20AM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:20AM (#174200) Journal

      It isn't clear to me what the ethical issues are, but it also seems that whoever is first to embrace the technology to enhance humans may have serious advantages over everyone else, and the process of natural selection rewards those with advantages.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by t-3 on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:59AM

        by t-3 (4907) on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:59AM (#174210)

        No, natural selection favors those who survive and reproduce. "Survival of the strongest" is the flawed reasoning used to support all too many flawed ideologies.

        • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:43AM (#174249)

          natural selection = survive and reproduce. = "Survival of the strongest"

          It's not reasoning but definition.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:31PM (#174263)

            > It's not reasoning but definition.

            Only if you define fertility as strength.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:42PM (#174269)

            Incorrect.

            It is 'survival of the fittest'- not 'survival of the strongest', and that is an important distinction.

            Lets say you have two competing genetic branches of lizard.

            The lizard in question gets in lethal fights ~1:6 during its lifespan, resources are plentiful but energy intensive to gather

            Mutation A causes the lizard to get armoured scales, larger size, devastating claws, and greater hunter-intellect.
            Mutation B causes the lizard to mature faster, be smaller, have softer more vulnerable skin, and generally be dumber.

            Given our outlined scenario (1:6 lethal fights, plentiful but energy intensive resources) mutation B will win out over time- all of the lizards will become smaller, more vulnerable, and dumber- because for every 1 stupid lizard that gets killed because of its lack of capability in a fight 5 will survive and reach breeding age sooner, whereas the energy requirements of being bigger, smarter, and having better natural weapons will plague all Mutation A members.

            Evolution does not select the 'best' route- It will develop A (singular) solution for a given niche, over time, but by no means will that be the best or most effective means to fill that niche.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:53PM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:53PM (#174331) Homepage
              _OR_

              The larger slower smarter hunters will have a free lunch every day, and the lethal fight rate for the cute fluffy ones will approach 1:1.

              Keeping that ratio constant whilst everything else was changing is just absurd.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:15PM (#174278)

            natural selection = survive and reproduce

            So far you're right.

            = "Survival of the strongest"

            And here's where you go wrong.

            You've made the implicit (and wrong) assumption that it will always be the strongest who will be best in surviving and reproducing.

            The surviving one will be the one who is best adapted. While in some environments this may be the strongest one, in other environments it will be the one who is best at hiding, or who can survive the longest with no food or water.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:39PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:39PM (#174308)

            While you work out at the gym being "the strongest," I'll be at your house banging your wife. Ever wonder why your kids don't look like you?

            • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:15PM

              by Hartree (195) on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:15PM (#174360)

              I predict strong selection for the ability to hide in closets when hubby comes home.

        • (Score: 2) by quadrox on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:12PM

          by quadrox (315) on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:12PM (#174277)

          Had to mod overrated, because nowhere did GP state anything about survival of the strongest - he only mentioned advantages, and clearly in the sense of "survival of the fittest" advantages (at least there is no indication that it is not meant so).

          Therefore GP appears to be factually entirely correct, and parent is at best ignorant, at worst wilfully putting up a strawman.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:45AM

      by AnonTechie (2275) on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:45AM (#174203) Journal

      This research will go on irrespective of ethical objections by some.

      --
      Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:04AM (#174241)

        Unfortunately, you are most likely correct. Get your Clone Wars tickets now, folks, while supplies last.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:12PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:12PM (#174258) Journal
          It's only unfortunate, if the ethical objections are on valid and rational grounds. That fails in this case. First, the objection is not for actual harm incurred, but potential harm which is never explicitly described. We have no means at this time to determine whether the harm is great enough to justify the proposed solution. Research will be needed to understand those consequences and the very thing which these ethical concerns obstruct is the research.

          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

            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.

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday April 24 2015, @02:00PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Friday April 24 2015, @02:00PM (#174653) Journal

            It's only unfortunate, if the ethical objections are on valid and rational grounds. That fails in this case. First, the objection is not for actual harm incurred, but potential harm which is never explicitly described. We have no means at this time to determine whether the harm is great enough to justify the proposed solution. Research will be needed to understand those consequences and the very thing which these ethical concerns obstruct is the research.

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 24 2015, @06:56PM (#174798) Journal

              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.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:38AM (#174248)

        While true it's neither a recommendation to carry on the said research or a reason to accept it anywhere.

        One parallel that comes to mind is the torture methods and policies developed by United States, partially based on those used by Vietnamese on captured US prisoners of war.

  • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:18PM

    by Hartree (195) on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:18PM (#174362)

    I saw an article a few years back that predicted that the first human germ line engineering would take place in China. This was due, both to their technical ability in bioengineering, and even more to that particular culture not having as much aversion to it as the West.

    Crispr/Cas technology has made it a lot easier.

    (Of course I can't remember the original citation, so consider it unsourced.)

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 24 2015, @04:24AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 24 2015, @04:24AM (#174544) Journal

      If the produce is not up to orders then they just put a bullet in them.....

  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:43PM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:43PM (#174371) Homepage

    Will this be the next Korean plastic surgery? It's not like the Chinese have any qualms about this stuff. I foresee millions of identical looking handsome males with 180+ IQs and the emotional depth of a brick incoming. Let me get my umbrella.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 24 2015, @04:33AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 24 2015, @04:33AM (#174545) Journal

      You forgot the natural ability to ingrain authority into the brain command center such that any decision is dictated by party ideology.