SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the crack-a-few-eggs-to-make-an-omelette dept.
Second Paper to Show Human Embryo Editing
Second Chinese team reports gene editing in human embryos
Researchers in China have reported editing the genes of human embryos to try to make them resistant to HIV infection. Their paper — which used CRISPR-editing tools in non-viable embryos that were destroyed after three days — is only the second published claim of gene editing in human embryos.
The mutation that was introduced is the naturally occurring variant in the CCR5 gene seen in some people resistant to AIDS progression.
Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing (DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0710-8)
Chinese Team Uses CRISPR to Genetically Modify Human Embryo
Chinese team uses CRISPR to genetically modify human embryo
In this latest effort, the Chinese team reports that they obtained 213 fertilized eggs from a fertility clinic, which had been deemed unsuitable for in vitro therapy. The women who had donated the eggs all gave permission for the embryos to be used for genetic research, on condition that the embryos would not be allowed to mature into a human being. The team used the CRISPR technique to edit genes, adding a mutation that causes damage to an immune cell gene called CCR5—such cells that are damaged naturally have been found to lead to HIV resistance. Thus the point of the research was to learn more about the possibility of producing human babies that would be immune to HIV. The team reports that just 4 out of 26 of the embryos that were edited were modified successfully—some still contained genes that had not been modified, and others had resulted in unexpected gene mutations. All of the embryos were destroyed after three days. Due to the results, it is not clear what has been learned from the experiments, except that some groups, particularly in China, are willing to conduct such research despite international condemnation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @04:06PM
If someone finds their genetic code sacred, tampering with it taboo, that's their business. They shouldn't have the right to stop anyone else from conducting ethical research. It would be unethical if you could prove that the eventual humans created with these modifications suffered some terrible side-effects, or had increased risks of disease, for example. "It's unethical because I find it morally obscene" is circular, and arbitrarily specific to your moral code. So you can't impose it on others.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 12 2016, @04:38PM
Indeed. You are right.
There are real ethical questions, though.
If one was to blindly modify the DNA of a blastocyst, then implant it and allow it to develop into a baby, that could be argued to have ethical parallels to performing unnecessary surgery on a newborn for the sake of science. Specifically, without overwhelming moral imperative for the sake of that individual, you're potentially sacrificing their livelihood and happiness to learn. Medical ethics have long established that this is unacceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @04:51PM
Using the gene modification from TFA is illustrative. It's a mutation that occurs naturally in the population. It has a specific advantage we know about: HIV resistance. So why not make all new babies HIV resistant? We make all new babies resistant against measles. Well we actually wait a few years before giving some vaccines, but we'd do it earlier if we could. And vaccines are not without risks, but no one seriously argues that they're unethical. The people who do are rightly regarded as cranks, and irresponsible parents putting their own children and the children of others at risk.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 12 2016, @04:55PM
The only question, and I ask out of genuine ignorance, is how do you assay the risk to clinical trial participants? If you can answer that, you can treat it like any other experimental preventative medicine.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 12 2016, @10:04PM
For one, vaccines don't alter the germ line. Let's say you want to perform such a procedure. Are you prepared to cover all costs including supporting them and their children if it turns out that something really bad happens at age 40 as a result?
Keep in mind, it's not just the targeted modification. The study in TFA found that the procedure frequently induced additional unwanted mutations. It's a good thing they had the sense not to try actually letting any of the tests become a living human.
While vaccination is not entirely without risk, that risk is well characterized and is less than the risk of measles itself.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:26AM
That is probably true now but what about the beginning of vaccinations? How did we know that the vaccinated children would survive past 40 years?
BTW, the first vaccination was likely also done in China 1000 CE [historyofvaccines.org].
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 13 2016, @03:48AM
Neverminding the different standards of ethics in 11th century China, given the form of the inoculation (essentially a weakened smallpox), the innoculant actually was well understood and was clearly not worse than smallpox. They were well aware of the consequences of a mild case of smallpox throughout the life of the patient.
As for the second smallpox vaccine, cowpox was also well known at the time. It was much safer than the first vaccine since there was little risk of a hot dose causing serious illness.
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Tuesday April 12 2016, @04:57PM
Would it be ethical to not check for dangerous DNA flaws, not fix them, and let a human being being born with severe defects as a result of this careless behaviour?
Bert
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 12 2016, @05:00PM
In fact, we do that to some extent today. I'd personally consider an abortion for certain easily diagnosed conditions.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:36AM
I once went to see some paintings, pictures and installations by a very sick artist. They were mostly masochistic in nature. He used his work to overcome his almost permanent pain due to some genetic condition and was scheduled to die young. Now get this. He was 5th, I think, child in the family and all his seniors had the same and already died. What shall we say about parents; morally wise.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @05:35PM
Keep doing that and there will be fewer humans born with severe defects.
If you do not view human embryos as sacred enough not to mess about with, then you should also see the logic and greater benefit of eliminating defective ones early. There's no real need for them. We have more than enough around.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kanweg on Tuesday April 12 2016, @04:59PM
I have a question for you: Would it be ethical to not check for dangerous DNA flaws, not fix them, and let a human being being born with severe defects as a result of this careless behaviour?
Bert
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday April 12 2016, @05:26PM
Those two concepts are totally different because one causes unnecessary suffering for no benefit. A genetically enhanced person will have an easier life, and thus the risks are well worth the potential tradeoffs you foresee.
We already make value judgements based on fetal genetics. This is why the number of retarded children is declining in most areas.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]