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."

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 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.