Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the missing-inaction dept.

China gene-editing scientist's project rejected for WHO database (original)

A Chinese branch of the World Health Organization has withdrawn an application to register He Jiankui's project in its clinical database. The move comes after China's government halted He's work, saying it would take a "zero tolerance attitude in dealing with dishonorable behavior" in research.

He has faced a global backlash after claiming to have produced the world's first gene-edited babies in a bid to make them HIV-resistant. The project drew international criticism for its lack of transparency, with health officials and other scientists concerned that it raises ethical questions that will taint other work in the field.

The application to enter the database of the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry was rejected because "the original applicants cannot provide the individual participants' data for reviewing," according to the registry's website.

[...] He's whereabouts are still unknown. Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily cited unnamed sources earlier this month that the researcher was put on house arrest by his university, Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, but representatives of the university and He's lab both declined to comment.

takyon: Several news organizations reported on Dec. 3 that He Jiankui was missing.

Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)
Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated)


Original Submission

Related Stories

Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins) 50 comments

Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry

A Chinese scientist claims that he has helped make the world's first genome-edited babies — twin girls who were born this month. The announcement has provoked shock, and some outrage, among scientists around the world.

He Jiankui, a genome-editing researcher from the Southern University of Science and Technology of China in Shenzhen, says that he implanted into a woman an embryo that had been edited to disable the genetic pathway that allows a cell to be infected with HIV.

In a video posted to YouTube, He says the girls are healthy and now at home with their parents. Genome sequencing of their DNA has shown that the editing worked, and only altered the gene they targeted, he says.

The scientist's claims have not been verified through independent genome testing or published in a peer-reviewed journal. But, if true, the birth would represent a significant — and controversial — leap in the use of genome-editing. So far these tools have only be used in embryos for research, often to investigate the benefit of using them to eliminate disease-causing mutations from the human germline. But reports of off-target effects in some studies have raised significant safety concerns.

Documents posted on China's clinical trial registry show that He used the ubiquitous CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing tool to disable a gene called CCR5, which forms a protein that allows HIV to enter a cell. Genome-editing scientist Fyodor Urnov was asked to review documents that described DNA sequence analysis of human embryos and fetuses gene-edited at the CCR5 locus for an article in MIT Technology Review. "The data I reviewed are consistent with the fact that the editing has, in fact, taken place," says Urnov, from the Altius Institute for Biomedical Sciences in Seattle. But he says the only way to tell if the children's genomes have been edited is to independently test their DNA.

Also at STAT News:

The Chinese university where He is an associate professor issued a statement saying that it had been unaware of his research project and that He had been on leave without pay since February, Reuters reported. The work is a "serious violation of academic ethics and standards," Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen said in the statement. The university said it would immediately launch an investigation.

See also: As a genome editing summit opens in Hong Kong, questions abound over China, and why it quietly bowed out


Original Submission

Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated) 37 comments

Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)

Update: Professor He Jiankui has defended his human genome editing project at the Human Genome Editing Summit at the University of Hong Kong. Although the project has been halted, Jiankui claimed that there was potentially a second pregnancy (and a third genome-edited baby) on the way. Jiankui also said that results have been submitted for peer review, although he did not name a journal. Eight couples consisting of an HIV-positive father and HIV-negative mother participated in the study, and all medical treatment was funded by He Jiankui. The parent company of the Shenzhen hospital where the experiment was carried out said that signatures on an application to the hospital's medical ethics committee had been forged. Chinese Deputy Minister of Science and Technology Xu Nanping called the experiment unlawful. Jiankui indicated that he had consulted with ethics experts in recent years:

William Hurlbut, a senior researcher in neurobiology at the Stanford Medical School, said that he was one of the ethicists that He consulted with over the past two years. Hurlbut, who served on the U.S. president's council on bioethics, said that while he knew that He was "heading in this direction," he didn't know the full-scale of the project or that it involved implanted embryos. "I challenged him at every level, and I don't approve of what he did," said Hurlbut.

American scientist under investigation over ties to alleged genetic editing

Rice University has launched an investigation into one of its professors after reports surfaced that he is connected to alleged genetic editing in China that resulted in the birth of two babies with altered DNA. They announced the investigation Monday in the wake of reports that Dr. Michael Deem, a professor of biochemical and genetic engineering, was involved in a case in which genetic editing was performed on human embryos to alter a gene in a way to make them resistant to HIV. The university said that it had "no knowledge of this work" and that to its knowledge, the work was not performed in the U.S., where genetic editing of human embryos is illegal.

[...] Deem said he was in China when the participants agreed to genetic editing, and said they understood the risks, according to the Associated Press. Deem added that comparing the gene editing to a vaccine "might be a layman's way of describing it," according to the AP.

China orders probe into first 'gene-edited babies'

The National Health Commission said on Monday it was "highly concerned" and had ordered provincial health officials "to immediately investigate and clarify the matter". The government's medical ethics committee in Shenzhen said it was investigating the case, as was the Guangdong provincial health commission, according to Southern Metropolis Daily, a state media outlet.

Chinese Scientist Who Allegedly Created the First Genome-Edited Babies is Reportedly Being Detained 17 comments

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Chinese scientist who allegedly created the first genetically engineered babies is being detained

The Chinese scientist who shocked the world with claims of creating the first genetically engineered babies is being detained in the Chinese city of Shenzhen, according to a report in The New York Times.

[...] The Southern University of Science and Technology, based in Shenzhen, has denied the reporting around Dr. He's whereabouts and fate, telling the Times, "Right now nobody's information is accurate, only the official channels are." Meanwhile, the official channels are staying silent.

Reporters found security personnel blocking access to the residence where Dr. He is reportedly staying and others denying access to the former offices Dr. He used to conduct his research. The scientist's name and biography remains on a board listing staff in the university’s biology department.

Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)
Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated)
Chinese Gene-Editing Scientist's Project Rejected for WHO Database (Plus: He Jiankui is Missing)


Original Submission

China Confirms That He Jiankui Illegally Edited Human Embryo Genomes 15 comments

Chinese authorities say world's first gene-edited babies were illegal

Authorities in China say experiments which led to the birth of the world's first gene-edited babies broke the country's laws, state-run Xinhua news reported Monday. In November, Chinese scientist He Jiankui sparked international outrage when he announced that twin girls -- Lulu and Nana -- had been born with modified DNA to make them resistant to HIV. He later revealed a second woman was pregnant as a result of the research.

[...] On Monday, investigators from Guangdong Province Health Commission said that "the case has been initially identified as an explicitly state-banned human embryo-editing activity for reproductive purposes conducted by He Jiankui," Xinhua reported. The commission added that the scientist has conducted the work "In pursuit of personal fame and fortune, with self-raised funds and deliberate evasion of supervision and private recruitment of related personnel." The authorities also believe He forged both ethical review documents and blood tests to circumvent a ban on assisted reproduction for HIV-positive patients, state media reported.

[...] Authorities in China said He and any other people or institutions involved will be "dealt with seriously according to the law, and if suspected of crimes, they will be handed over to the public security bureau," according to Xinhua. "For the born babies and pregnant volunteers, Guangdong Province will work with relevant parties to perform medical observation and follow-up visits under the guidance of relevant state departments," Xinhua said, adding that born babies and pregnant volunteers will be monitored and followed-up with under the guidance of relevant state departments.

Where's the paper?

Also at TechCrunch and Newsweek.

Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)
Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated)
Chinese Gene-Editing Scientist's Project Rejected for WHO Database (Plus: He Jiankui is Missing)
Chinese Scientist Who Allegedly Created the First Genome-Edited Babies is Reportedly Being Detained


Original Submission   Alternate Submission

Russian Biologist Plans to Pursue CRISPR-Edited Babies Targeting Same Gene (CCR5) as He Jiankui Did 30 comments

Russian biologist plans more CRISPR-edited babies

A Russian scientist says he is planning to produce gene-edited babies, an act that would make him only the second person known to have done this. It would also fly in the face of the scientific consensus that such experiments should be banned until an international ethical framework has agreed on the circumstances and safety measures that would justify them.

Molecular biologist Denis Rebrikov has told Nature he is considering implanting gene-edited embryos into women, possibly before the end of the year if he can get approval by then. Chinese scientist He Jiankui prompted an international outcry when he announced last November that he had made the world's first gene-edited babies — twin girls.

The experiment will target the same gene, called CCR5, that He did, but Rebrikov claims his technique will offer greater benefits, pose fewer risks and be more ethically justifiable and acceptable to the public. Rebrikov plans to disable the gene, which encodes a protein that allows HIV to enter cells, in embryos that will be implanted into HIV-positive mothers, reducing the risk of them passing on the virus to the baby in utero. By contrast, He modified the gene in embryos created from fathers with HIV, which many geneticists said provided little clinical benefit because the risk of a father passing on HIV to his children is minimal.

[...] "The technology is not ready," says Jennifer Doudna, a University of California Berkeley molecular biologist who pioneered the CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing system that Rebrikov plans to use. "It is not surprising, but it is very disappointing and unsettling."

Alta Charo, a researcher in bioethics and law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison says Rebrikov's plans are not an ethical use of the technology. "It is irresponsible to proceed with this protocol at this time," adds Charo, who sits on a World Health Organization committee that is formulating ethical governance policies for human genome editing.

Third time's the charm? I guess they won't pick a genetic disease to target instead since preimplantation genetic diagnosis can already handle that. Others will have to resort to gene therapy after the child is born.

Previously: Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)
Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated)
Chinese Gene-Editing Scientist's Project Rejected for WHO Database (Plus: He Jiankui is Missing)
Chinese Scientist Who Allegedly Created the First Genome-Edited Babies is Reportedly Being Detained
China Confirms That He Jiankui Illegally Edited Human Embryo Genomes
China's CRISPR Babies Could Face Earlier Death

Related: HIV Reportedly Cured In A Second Patient


Original Submission

CRISPR Scientist Who Made Gene-Edited Babies Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison 4 comments

CRISPR scientist who made gene-edited babies sentenced to 3 years in prison:

The scientist who claimed to have created the first gene-edited human babies was fined around $430,000 and sentenced to three years in prison by a Chinese court on Monday, according to Chinese state media. He Jiankui was reportedly convicted of conducting an "illegal medical practice."

A court in Shenzhen reportedly found He, along with two colleagues, violated Chinese regulations and ethics by editing twin embryos' DNA. Authorities also found his team fabricated regulatory paperwork, according to state news agency Xinhua. He and his colleagues reportedly pleaded guilty to the charges.

He was condemned by the scientific community for using the gene-editing technology CRISPR to alter the gene CCR5, which HIV utilizes when infecting humans.

Previously:
One of CRISPR's Inventors Calls for Controls on Gene-Editing Technology
Russian Biologist Plans to Pursue CRISPR-Edited Babies Targeting Same Gene (CCR5) as He Jiankui Did
China's CRISPR Babies Could Face Earlier Death
China Confirms That He Jiankui Illegally Edited Human Embryo Genomes
Chinese Scientist Who Allegedly Created the First Genome-Edited Babies is Reportedly Being Detained
Chinese Gene-Editing Scientist's Project Rejected for WHO Database (Plus: He Jiankui is Missing)
Furor Over Genome-Edited Babies Claim Continues (Updated)
Chinese Scientist Claims to Have Created the First Genome-Edited Babies (Twins)


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.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:17PM (25 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:17PM (#773013)

    Literally NO PEOPLE were involved.

    A cell is not a person; a clump of cells is not a person.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:42PM (3 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:42PM (#773028) Journal

      If they wanted to do the research, they could have just done the gene editing, confirmed that it was successful, and then destroyed the clump of cells. Instead they let it grow into a person (actually two or three of them).

      But I'm on Team Jiankui so whatever.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:02PM (#773043)

        Seems like traditional methods of gene editing are even less ethical.

      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:51PM (#773188)

        Seems like traditional methods of gene editing are even less ethical.

        It's called humor, folks.

      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @02:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @02:40AM (#773853)

        Seems like traditional methods of gene editing are even less ethical.

        It's called humor, folks.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:36PM (12 children)

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:36PM (#773060)

      Like Takyon said, these developed into children that now have to live full lives with whatever hack job the scientist did on their genes.

      I do have a problem with that, and it's effectively experimenting on human beings. Just because it is at the very start of life is irrelevant, and doesn't make it ethical. Remember, these children have to live with whatever he attempted. They could've lived without manipulation, assuming a normal IVF process. Would it have been experimentation on a clump of cells, and they terminated it, then there may well be no ethical questions involved. Moral, and religious ones to be sure, but not ethical if the donor had informed consent.

      This isn't 9th fucking generation advanced genetics you see in Sci-fi. This is pre-alpha shit, with the children having to suffer that.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:29PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:29PM (#773098)

        What if he edited the genes, and then sampled the result to conclude that only the desired, well-understood edits were made?

        Then, the experiment is not the resulting genome, but rather the means by which to produce the resulting genome—if an unexpected genome resulted, the embryos could be destroyed, thereby preventing an unknown outcome for the resulting person.

        This is like vaccination: The outcome is so well understood, it's not considered an experiment.

        This is unlike circumcision: The penis/sexuality is so variable, it's an experiment every single time.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:48PM (8 children)

          by Freeman (732) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:48PM (#773112) Journal

          We understand very little, how one's DNA works and what chopping out one bit of DNA would actually do to someone. Sure, we can speculate, but what if that bit of DNA also does something that we didn't know? At what point are you doing science and at what point are you doing Dr. Evil "science"?

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:52PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:52PM (#773116)

            You're assuming that which is to be proved: That the experiment is the resulting genome, not the editing technique.

            In other words, it's not enough to say that this guy did something unethical; the burden of proof is on the people to lay out objective criteria and then apply them. The reason nobody wants to do this is because if they lay out objective criteria, that will tell everyone what they must do in order to edit genomes ethically, which will basically give the OK to start making designer people, whom the powers-that-be fear.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:00PM (6 children)

              by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:00PM (#773123)

              > which will basically give the OK to start making designer people, whom the powers-that-be fear.

              The power-that-be are the ones who can afford designer babies.

              Did the mother carrying those twins inside her for 9 months know that any unexpected CRISPR side-effects would have put her in danger, since her uterus contained two "mutant" frankenbabies ?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:09PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:09PM (#773128)

                Put another way: You can say the same about a traditionally created fetus; the problem is even worse, because you are literally just mixing sperm and eggs and hoping for the best.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:27PM (4 children)

                  by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:27PM (#773136)

                  (I"m not doing anything "again", check thread names)

                  The natural process has its imperfections, most of which result in miscarriages, as would most major CRISPR mishaps.
                  But "just mixing sperm and eggs and hoping for the best" has been done billions of time, and does not technically involve slicing the DNA.
                  Our genetic editing has gotten better, and been done hundreds of thousands of times in various lab animals. But lab protocols are typically targeting a specific result, and might potentially miss a side-effect which is not obvious in short-lived animals the way it will be in humans.
                  It's a false equivalence.

                  The proper equivalence is that early IVF was thought risky, deemed unethical by many, and people worried about side-effects. Yet, decades later it has become a routine thing (though with a significant failure rate).

                  Gene-editing great apes would have been the normal progression before jumping to humans, because involving a mother, two babies, and an AIDS-resistance gene has to be properly vetted for risk by a group of specialists.
                  You don't know yet that CRISPR didn't do its job wrong (too much editing, contamination...), and you don't know whether that gene could turn out to have terrible side-effects after being expressed for a decade inside a human.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:32PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:32PM (#773139)

                    I don't disagree, but that's the whole point: Where are the objective criteria for what is ethical, so that everyone may proceed with the game in confidence?

                    In my opinion, trying to add improvements or trying to remove problems is much more ethical than squirting semen into a random woman during a one-night Tinder stand, which doesn't result in house arrest (anymore).

                    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:12PM (2 children)

                      by Freeman (732) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:12PM (#773491) Journal

                      It's not a game and shouldn't ever be treated as such. (Though, I assume, you were just using it as a turn of phrase.) Slicing an unborn babies' DNA in bits, is more ethical than a one-night stand? I'm going to have to go with, No. You have it precisely backwards, unless there was not a consensual agreement to such an event. In which case, I would place them on equal footing. You think teenagers are rebellious now, just think of when they figure out that not only are you controlling their actions, but you determined they would be the first kid born with pink hair.

                      --
                      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:29PM (#773542)

                        ...from their parents, while allowing their parents to raise their children without having to act like lepers seems like a good reason to test this treatment.

                        Sure the kids could have unintended side effects and live horrible lives or die. But in many parts of the world that is already the truth thanks to air, water, soil, or food pollution. Your parents genes can have unintended side effects even without these modifications, and despite all the sequencing done on humans for 'high risk genes' there are still hundreds of thousands to millions of other genes that could ruin your life in the wrong coupling as well.

                        While I think this guy deserves some social shunning for what he did, I don't think it is any worse than the grave robbing past generations did to complete their research on physiology, or the hundreds of morally questionable experiments done since that catapulted modern medicine forward. And compared to many of those past experiments, this one had the potential for far better research and computer analysis to back it (assuming he wasn't grossly negligent in his work) to ensure that the children live healthy productive lives at no higher risk of serious defects than the general population whose parents haven't undergone genetic screening before conception, or screening of their child's dna while in the womb. The latter of which has its own risks for the fetus as well.

                        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:07PM

                          by Freeman (732) on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:07PM (#774000) Journal

                          Here's a super great idea, how about don't have a kid, if you are HIV positive? I get that, if you aren't using safe sex methods you may not know. Then, I would just call you reckless. Sure, there will be a very small number of cases where weird random something happens and now I'm pregnant and am HIV positive / have AIDS.

                          Gene-editing unborn babies and saying let's see what happens is very reckless and very dangerous. What happens, if instead of creating a child that is highly resistant to contracting HIV / AIDS. He creates a child who, if infected by HIV/AIDS would end up having some sort of Super HIV/AIDS that isn't responsive to any known treatments. Well, #1 that kid / adult is royally screwed and so is anyone else that contracts it, if that Super Bug gets out into the wild.

                          --
                          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:28PM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:28PM (#773176) Journal

        This is pre-alpha shit, with the children having to suffer that.

        The risk is there, yes, but there's no absolute certainty they will suffer.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:18AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:18AM (#773203)

          We could change that. (Seeing as how we as a species are prone to warrantless prejudices anyway.)

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:04PM (7 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:04PM (#773084)

      You can't use the abortion "it's just a clump of cells; it's not a person" argument when the abortion doesn't happen and the child is subsequently born.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:40PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:40PM (#773108)

        It's possible to determine exactly what changes were made.

        The experiment is not the resulting genome; the experiment is whether the technique will produce the desired genome.

        Take a random sperm and a random egg, and use them to make genome G—this is the age-old way (i.e., fucking) of creating a genome, and is therefore "normal" or "ethical". Now, use editing techniques to create a new genome G'. Sequence G' to determine that it differs only in the way you intend—that is, it should be a "normal", "ethical" genome, G, but with HIV-resistance added.

        Now, implant G' into an embryo and grow it into a person.

        The experiment was finished before there was a person.
        In fact, at this point, it would be unethical to grow G rather than G', as G would be objectively inferior to G'.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:55PM (5 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:55PM (#773161)

          ...assuming all the techniques you used worked perfectly and there are no side effects, yes. Considering this is basically the first alpha of the product I am very skeptical of that claim.

          I'm not arguing that there are ethical questions; I'm saying you can't dismiss one entire side of the discussion by using logic from a different argument that doesn't fit in this context.

          --

          But if you really want me to, here, I'll take a stab at it:

          Let's say this experiment is instead, let's see how extreme a case of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome we can give a fetus. So we go about modifying it in the womb or whatever, and then oops! we forgot to abort it. Now it's been born and is going to live life and grow up with FAS.

          You don't see how this is an ethical problem? Yes, congratulations, the experiment was "finished" before birth, but that's worth jack shit to the kid that results.

          The experiment was finished before there was a person.

          Then why wasn't the experiment discontinued?

          --

          You're arguing from the standpoint of what the technology will eventually be. The other people in this discussion are arguing from where the technology currently is.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:37PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:37PM (#773180)

            Yes, my experiment finished successfully, we can confirm the chain reaction can be initiated. The chain reaction itself is not my problem.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:41PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:41PM (#773483)

              I'm just going to start swinging my fists around; it's not my fault your face happens to be in the way.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:54PM (#773191)

            Especially when she's a drunkard you met on Tinder for casual sex?

            That's not against the law.

          • (Score: 1) by DeVilla on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:04PM (1 child)

            by DeVilla (5354) on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:04PM (#774052)

            The experiment was finished before there was a person.

            Then why wasn't the experiment discontinued?

            The experiment wasn't complete. We still have to see the the HIV immunity worked. That will require exposing the specimens to the disease once they have developed some more.

            We will also need to watch for unexpected results like physical or mental abnormalities or super powers.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 13 2018, @08:28PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday December 13 2018, @08:28PM (#774121)

              Then the AC's already-dubious argument for how it wasn't unethical is just outright wrong.

              Seems a bit weird that they decided to test the splicing with HIV, though. Couldn't they have picked something that doesn't leave you so totally fucked if the DNA engineering doesn't work?

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by mobydisk on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:48PM (13 children)

    by mobydisk (5472) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:48PM (#773032)

    What if the problem is that this guy isn't actually the first to implant CRISPR-edited children? Maybe China has been doing this for years. That would open up some alternate explanations:

    Maybe he didn't know there was a secret project, and by revealing his project he risks exposing the secret project.

    Maybe he was working on a secret government gene editing project, and had his own side-project ambitions. When he announced his side-project, he risked exposing the government project. Maybe he took credit for someone else's work, but now the government can't admit that without revealing their own project.

    Or maybe he revealed the secret government project, but lied saying that it was his project and that they were making HIV-tolerant children when it was really something else.

    Or maybe he did exactly what he was supposed to do, and this is playing out in public the way China intended it to. Maybe this person doesn't even really exist and it is a pseudonym.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:01PM (5 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:01PM (#773042) Journal
      • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:45PM (4 children)

        by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:45PM (#773064) Journal

        Where do stereotypes come from? Why does the west generally think of Asians as short? I live near a college town with a large population of Chinese students, and none of them are short. I am 6'1" and the Chinese I come across when walking downtown are my height or taller, this would not give rise to a stereotype of shortness.

        Some possibilities.. Impossible that the Chinese have been doing gene editing for the past 18 years, but maybe they restrict who is able to go outside of China for education for the purpose of giving a different image of China (physical prowess). It is known that the Chinese participate in breeding programs to get more athletic kids (olympics) so maybe this is an offshoot of that.

        Just find it odd how much taller the Chinese seem than the stereotypes suggest.

        ---

        After writing the above I checked the wiki on average height
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide [wikipedia.org]
        China is listed at 5'1.5" so I dunno.

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:47PM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:47PM (#773065) Journal

          Chinese students in America are likely to be richer than the average Chinese. Their families could have afforded milk and other nutritious stuff when they were growing up.

          But I haven't really seen a rash of tall Chinese students wandering around. Maybe your evidence is merely anecdotal?

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:08PM (1 child)

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:08PM (#773127)

            Anecdotally, taking the subway in Taipei, at not even 6 feet, I tower over most people over 40, but people in their teens/twenties are often the same height as westerners.

            I do believe that nutrition changes (good and bad) as the place got much richer are resulting in quickly catching up in height, faster than genetic processes would allow. Should get exacerbated when those taller people start having children.

            • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:32PM

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:32PM (#773140)

              When I was a kid, I played rugby against the Patumahoe School rugby team.

              Their front row was made up of three Chinese brothers whose great-great-grandfathers came over here to mine gold, then became market gardeners when the gold ran out.

              Huge dudes, because they ate a nutritious western diet and worked on their family farms.

              You really did not want to have to tackle them either. Like running into a sackful of spanners.

        • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:49PM

          by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:49PM (#773066) Journal

          I read that wrong, was looking at the column for female height. Still seems odd because the Chinese women i see around are very tall.

          Chinese average height appears to be different by location in China, possibly due to wealth. The non-location distinct "China" is said to be 5'8".

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:05PM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:05PM (#773047) Homepage Journal

      Recall the Mao Suit.

      IIRC evolution would result in ever smaller Chinese citizens, eventually leading the People's Liberation Army to invade the US in a matchbox full of green dust.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by TheFool on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:54PM (4 children)

      by TheFool (7105) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:54PM (#773072)

      I don't know about any of these, but I personally like the theory that the Chinese government kidnapped him and he's now being forced to carry out his research in some secret underground facility somewhere. He'll resurface in about 20 years with a genetically engineered army of super-soldiers.

      • (Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:03PM (3 children)

        by arslan (3462) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:03PM (#773124)

        Or Captain China, like in Captain America The First Avenger... this might be the universe in Marvel's multi-verse where the super heroes are predominantly oriental instead of predominantly anglo.

        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:39PM (1 child)

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:39PM (#773146)

          Oh gods that sounds tedious. Just like the last 50 cheap superhero movies Marvel have rolled out.

          Will probably get made.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:42PM (#773183)

            Heh! You reckon if the 50 superhero movies were not cheap they would be good?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:01AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:01AM (#773195)

          The Chinaverse will have about the same proportion of black superheroes, in order to deepen the friendship with African vassal states.

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:42AM

      by legont (4179) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:42AM (#773256)

      It probably does not matter if it is true or not; not much anyway. Now the Pandora box is open and everybody have to do it because there is no guarantee that others don't, while it is obviously possible; in secret mind you.

      The race for a perfect solder is on.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:50PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:50PM (#773035)

    How the fuck does a university have that power?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:56PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:56PM (#773039) Journal

      From the Wikipedia article:

      One day later, on 4 December, the Associated Press reported he had reached out to them to reveal the government of China had removed his license to do any future experiments and he could "not touch a test tube", but that he was not under house arrest or missing. [citation needed]

      I did a search but didn't see that info confirmed anywhere.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:29PM (4 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:29PM (#773059) Journal

      China is not a federalist country. Legally, there's only one government with lots of departments. And it's frequently accused of having an inconsistent and non-specific jurisprudence; that is to say that critics say there's no equivalent to "common law" where laws and enforcement work in the same way every time*. While I'm definitely two million percent not a Chinese lawyer, it would not surprise me to learn that enforcement power is granted to all kinds of government officials you wouldn't expect from the way the US system works: specific departments empowered by acts of congress to enforce specific subsets of the law, combined with local "keeping the peace" police who enforce all laws.

      *I know this isn't what the "common" in common law means. Common law is just an example of a system of jurisprudence.

      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:26PM (2 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:26PM (#773173)

        Common Law is called that because it only applies to the common people.

        I am not a lawyer, but I do play one on the Internet.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:20AM (#773204)

          Did you read the asterisk?

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:04AM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:04AM (#773241) Journal

            Also their "well actually" is technically wrong, the worst kind of wrong.

            It only applied to common people. In the US, clergy are tried under common law, not clerical law.

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:55AM

        by legont (4179) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:55AM (#773260)

        It's more interesting than that. The country is boiling. There are 500 protests going on per day; some are better described as revolts.

        There is a profession "revolt organizer"; it works like this. Say one's child is raped by local police and no justice to be found. Parents go to a revolt organizer, pay some deposit, and the guy starts a revolt of *correct* size. When government comes to suppress, he negotiates the settlement, which includes payment to the family shared with the organizer.

        One can start reading from here https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/how-china-stays-stable-despite-500-protests-every-day/250940/ [theatlantic.com]

        P.S. Law also exists, but it is not sufficient to rule the country. It is a Confucian law, mind you, where judge has way more power over law than in western countries.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:51PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:51PM (#773036)

    His parents forgot to have him gene-edited for higher resistance to Embarrassed Government Officials Syndrome.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:52PM (#773069)

    "other scientists concerned that it raises ethical questions that will taint other work in the field"

    Riiiight...

    They're just bitchy because they wanted to be first and a scientific nobody jumped the line to be first. He will forever be famous, and they won't be. There was a complicated political fight for the right to be first, and somebody decided that it would be easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask permission.

    "He didn't follow proper procedure! How dare he!" says the person who wanted that spot in the limelight.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:56PM (2 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday December 11 2018, @08:56PM (#773075) Journal

    There's definitely a "WHO's/He's on first" joke in there somewhere.

    Of course, it wouldn't be even slightly funny, but it's there!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:21PM (#773091)

    He claims 80% efficiency and actually *more* embryos survived than usual if treated with the DNA chopping enzyme:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IXy47dWNQApcNLW-bTSfYD2vxBZZ5UIf/view [google.com]

    This study is BS.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:48PM (#773155)

    How do you like when people are disappeared by governments? Would you yourself like to end up disappeared? Your mother, brother, daughter?

    Honest nations who don't do this should condemn such practices with the harshest possible language. And people everywhere should stand for human rights.

  • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:11PM

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:11PM (#773610) Journal

    This is an excellent warning to others. When you complete your gene editing experiments or cloning experiments you must publish your results pseudonymously. Doing so under your real name is a danger to your reputation, career, and life.

    It is folly to think this isn't being researched quietly in labs around the world. The entire point of gene editing is to be able to get rid of pesky things like diseases, deformities, and death. That is why we poured billions of dollars into the field. "Designer Babies" makes for a lovely clickbait headline, but there is some truth behind it. As a parent I am more than willing to pay for a better than random chance my child will live beyond 100 years, have above-average intelligence, and be free of major illnesses. What parent wouldn't want that for their children?

    I recognize there is a risk to permanently changing the human germline. I'll be far more concerned about that risk when there aren't 7 billion backup copies of it. Evolution is a stone cold bitch. If our gene edits are garbage then she will sort it out.

(1)