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, @04:51PM
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.