SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
We Have an Official Update From The University Behind The CRISPR Baby Scientist
The Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, has released an official statement distancing itself from the work of geneticist He Jiankui, who is employed at the institution as an associate professor. In a brief statement on its website, the university noted that He, who has been on leave since February of this year, did not perform the work at the university, or during university hours. Nor was the university or its biology department aware of the work.
"The Southern University of Science and Technology strictly requires scientific research to abide by and comply with international academic ethics and academic norms in accordance with national laws and regulations," the statement reads.
The hype surrounding this technology makes these stocks particularly speculative. On the negative side, these same companies saw their stocks plunge earlier this year after a scientific publication highlighted a potential cancer risk in the use of Crispr. As for the latest news, it's pretty difficult to construct a positive narrative out of it, though it appears investors are doing just that. This is a dubious claim from a scientist that appears to have been operating without full sanction. It's unclear if he edited embryos at all or successfully, so it's a stretch to see this as validation of Crispr, let alone of the way that these public biotechs are using it.
If anything, this development exposes the broader risks of the technology in a way that could lead to regulatory and scientific scrutiny. Theoretically, the furor about editing embryos could stall development of Crispr for that use, leading to more opportunity and a longer commercial runway for the more circumscribed work these companies are doing. But that's pretty unstable ground for investing.
First Genome-Edited Babies? If it's safe, then it's ethical. No need for a global moratorium.
One problem with CRISPR editing is that it sometimes introduces mutations far from the gene at which it is aimed at correcting. Such off-target mutations could obviously cause other problems. Researchers are working hard to make CRISPR editing ever more precise. If parents were given the choice of implanting either edited or unedited embryos, and if they were adequately informed about the risks of using CRISPR technology, then that is where decisions about the ethics of using this technology should properly rest. There is no need for global moratorium.
takyon: This story offers more details about He Jiankui and what he was doing in the years and months leading up to the reveal.
See also: Gene-Edited Twins in China Still Face Risk of HIV Infection
Outrage Over Human Gene Editing Will Fade Fast
'Of course it's not ethical': shock at gene-edited baby claims
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:06PM (13 children)
What an ethical nightmare.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:36PM (11 children)
Gene-Edited Twins in China Still Face Risk of HIV Infection [bloomberg.com]
Still, how much of the outrage is due to scientists afraid of having their funding teat dry up and not getting to write the club rules themselves?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:28PM (1 child)
I bet that any government funding lost because they did something controversial will be made-up for by the venture capitalists who want the IP for gene-edited children. I bet that will be a a multi-billion dollar market.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:29PM
Good. Maybe they can help advance the field.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:58PM (7 children)
Pretty much none? I'm sure there are a few assholes out there, but my guess is that most scientists realize there are incredibly complex ethical issues along with very possible genetic issues that could result from mass gene manipulation.
We don't even fully understand genetics yet! Discoveries are still being made. Seems like a terrible idea to mess around with the building blocks of life without some better understanding.
I much prefer selective breeding, though homogenous genetics creates its own set of potential problems.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:54PM (6 children)
If we waited until we fully understood things before messing with them we'd never get anywhere. And yes, every technology has the potential to mess with or shorten people's lives, this isn't a special case.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:04AM (5 children)
> this isn't a special case.
Yes it is, because you are dealing with humans, and not only that, but the humans are unable to give consent.
If the embryos have their DNA tampered with to reduce the chances of them getting AIDS, but they end up with other mutations that cause them more suffering in life, what then?
You can't undo the gene editing, you can't just kill them and try again, and they have to live with the results of your experimentation for the rest of their lives, which may have been considerably shortened due to the meddling.
It is different if you already have a born human being with a condition, who is able to consent to some "hail Mary" experimental treatment to cue them of their condition, because they are aware of the risks, and are aware of their current suffering, and feel the risk is worth it. The unborn have no such ability to consent at the point they are tampered with.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:22AM
Children don't get to choose who their parents are, or how old their parents are when they conceive, etc. If they are dealt a genetic shit sandwich, they have to live with it. Newborns and young children with illnesses, genetic or not, also do not get to choose what kind of treatment they get or consent to it. In many countries, the unborn have no right to live, period (i.e. abortion is legal to some degree). Parents are fucking and creating their own little experiments. There should be no embryo gene editing ban based on this lack of supposed "consent".
Now, there may be a compelling reason for embryo gene editing to be forbidden: the CRISPR process is known to cause unacceptable rates of errors, so the editing may not be an improvement. If it's possible to edit a bunch of embryos at once and then screen them for errors, then that could be a workaround. Or we could wait until the editing techniques get better, and it appears that they will. The special case will be the guy who decided to boldly forge ahead with today's flawed techniques. And we will learn from this special case, since these two or three children will undoubtedly be studied closely.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Thursday November 29 2018, @01:35AM
Consent? What consent? They can be killed without their consent all right. In fact they are somebody's else body if I believe liberals and that body can take whatever drugs it wants.
Better start fixing ethics issues at some other stage. Can't have it both ways.
What happened here is that somebody forced the issue, which is good.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 29 2018, @03:59AM
He already said "has the potential to mess with or shorten people's lives". There aren't any other sort of people at present. And "unable to give consent" doesn't mean a thing when you're a fetus.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:17AM
Every technological change has the same potential consequences. Change a line of code in a car? Do it right, things improve. Do it wrong and unwilling nonconsenting people could die or be permanently injured.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @05:36PM
babies and children are the responsibility of the parents. parents need no approval from "society"(brainwashed slaves) or the parasites of the state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @02:35AM
HIV causes AIDS, but HIV doesn't equal AIDS.
Long-term non-progressers (that have a mutated CCR5) can get HIV, but it doesn't progress to AIDS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @02:32AM
One problem is the risk of something going wrong for a low chance of benefit.
Vertical transmission of HIV is already preventable with antivirals and this therapy is already possible in adults (editing genes of bone marrow, which will then produce CCR5 null T cells).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:07PM
All I want to know is how many embryos were exposed to this stuff and at what stage (how many cells).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:34PM (6 children)
I for one welcome our new Chinese superhuman overlords.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:43PM (2 children)
Hopefully this technology doesn't reach northern India.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:09PM (1 child)
If the Chinese send the Monkey party, they will reach Northern India.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:51PM
China IS North India.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:25PM (2 children)
No matter how much finger wagging religionists or ethicists engage in, it's going to happen and if it happens in China, then well, your joke will be a reality.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:34PM (1 child)
Chinese media is throwing him under the bus, and a Chinese official indicated that he might have broken the law.
Maybe they are more mad about him doing it in secret than doing it at all. Or maybe the outrage is a show. Guess we'll find out.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday November 29 2018, @01:45AM
Regardless, the race for a super soldier is on.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:53PM (8 children)
So...there's obvious reasons why parents have to give consent for these sorts of things instead of their children, or particularly an unborn embryo. However, there's also limits to that. In some US states a child can't even get a freakin' tattoo with their parents' consent, because we've decided that this would be too great of a risk for too little benefit. But vaccines generally go the other way, you're more or less required to give that procedure to your child -- because it's low risk with a huge benefit and we can't wait until the kid turns 18. So...using CRISPR to boost virus immunity seems fine, as long as that's all it does. What about using CRISPR to give your kid blue eyes -- is that ethical? What if doing those makes them sterile? Can we quantify the risk involved in different procedures well enough to say which ones are sufficiently low-risk to allow without the consent of the subject?
This isn't a PC where if your software fucks up you reinstall the OS or even just trash the system and buy a new one. The thing you are creating here has rights and responsibilities. You better be damn sure you don't make a mistake...and I'm quite certain we can't do that today, and I'm pretty sure we have no idea when or even if that might one day be possible. I'm not saying I don't think it'll ever happen -- I do think we'll get there someday -- but we aren't even close right now....
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:02PM (6 children)
I think we're pretty damn close to linking groups of genes to desired traits. Maybe this info is being assembled right now, but rather than being published is being kept a trade secret.
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis#Ethical_issues [wikipedia.org]
The practical stumbling block and one of the main ethical concerns is the precision of the CRISPR technique used. Hundreds of scientists are working on improving that.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:30PM (5 children)
You're wrong. The rate of progress in the field hasn't slowed down anywhere near the point we can say it's time to start experimenting on humans. They're still finding new hereditary mechanism regularly. New epogenetics mechanism 5 years ago. A whole new pseudo dna strand 2 years ago. Junk dna getting triggered last year. Now males are shown to pass mitochondrial dna... Combine just the last few years and the data set tripled. And there still so much to learn from just analyzing what we've gathered.
This is a huge mistake. We don't even know how to quantify the errors the process introduces since it's just that new. Not only it's bad medicine for taking unacceptable risks, it's bad science for not rigorously enough trying to isolate the variables.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:56PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday November 29 2018, @02:31AM (1 child)
Genetic defects aren't related to the parents' ages; they're linked to the parents genetics in the same way that skin, eye & hair color are. The birth defects that are sometimes linked to the parents' ages are the random non-heritable mutations like Down Syndrome, VACTERL Association (which I have), CHARGE Syndrome, and so forth.
There's also a huge difference between random chance causing problems for somebody, and another person deliberately doing it. It's common for kids to be injured or killed in accidents of all kinds, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for a person to do something they know will risk seriously harming or killing the child — and anyone who attempts to defend those actions by saying "but kids get hurt/killed all the time" is rightly regarded as being a sociopath incapable of empathy.
(Score: 2, Informative) by shrewdsheep on Thursday November 29 2018, @09:59AM
Roughly speaking, risk for chromosomal aberrations increases with maternal age (the mother pre-arranges chromosomes shortly after birth, ready for cell division, when the late eggs have to be in that state for decades). Risk of point mutations increases with paternal age (the copy rate per day in men is in the exa-byte range, if not larger for producing sperm; making that many copies over decades accumulates mistakes).
Chromosomal aberrations can be heritable when induced by translocations in parents. Also they can be passed on by affected individuals but due to reduced fertility usually they are not. If the point mutation was inherited it can be passed on. The "sporadic" case (single individual in the family) usually had a somatic mutation (i.e. arose after conception and does not affect gonads).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday November 29 2018, @05:00AM
That's an interest take. We have an ethics blockade. I like the term.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 29 2018, @02:42PM
Even the critics don't agree with you:
Science Summit Denounces Gene-Edited Babies Claim, But Rejects Moratorium [npr.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @05:44PM
"But vaccines generally go the other way, you're more or less required to give that procedure to your child -- because it's low risk with a huge benefit and we can't wait until the kid turns 18."
NWO scum and their brainwashed minions would like you to believe that you are required to inject that likely/possible bioweapon into your child. It's risks are purposely covered up and the enemies of free humanity want to make sure and dose your kid before they develop into a threat to the controllers' power.
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:24PM (1 child)
Might be handy to have a little genetically engineered Chinaman to help around the house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @05:55PM
he would just spy on you and pee in your cokes...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:26AM (3 children)
We have had two fine summaries in a row that are possible explanations for the origin of Eth! And I think there was a third just a bit prior? Science be just amazing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @03:43AM (2 children)
Also amazing is the amount of ethical furor over this experiment on humans. But very little furor when the same experiments are run on "lower animals" and plants.
Who will stand against GMO crops (which are causing a lot of collateral damage already in certain areas)? I'm guessing it won't be the same group of people...and yet the experiments are very similar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @10:43AM (1 child)
> GMO crops (which are causing a lot of collateral damage already in certain areas)
Well, then. Present your statistics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:37AM
Whoosh, you missed the irony...
Similar experiments, yet wildly different reactions from different human groups.