Tension at the heart of the CRIPSR's indignation at the top on genome editing

I am currently at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Publishing, where the controversial Jiankui scientist, CRIPSR, presented his research just a few hours ago. He also answered questions from gene experts Robin Lovell-Badge (Crick Institute) and Matt Porteus (Stanford), as well as many audience members and media.

It was only two days since the first time that Jiankui Il used the CRIPSR to edit human embryos was released, and that binoculars, Lulu and Nana, were born.

Read more:
A researcher claims that CRISPR-edited twins are born. How will science react?

The atmosphere of the meeting is tense. Before these reports, those working in the field were convinced that the world was evolving as one – progressing cautiously with CRISPR gene modification technology.

But all of a sudden, the forbidden fruit has been picked and some even fear that public confidence will weaken.

Jiankui He's focused on eliminating a gene called CCR5, essential for the HIV virus to enter the cells. It was designed to mimic a natural mutation that confers resistance to HIV. This work is now pending and an uncomfortable international discussion has begun.

The stories and a video published by Jiankui He in which he explains the apparent work have created a widespread condemnation for scientific and ethical reasons.

If the statements are correct and certainly plausible, the CRIPSR is used for the first time to create permanent changes in the human genome that would be pbaded on to future generations.

Jiankui He is himself experienced in the use of CRIPSR. He first performed pilot experiments on mice, monkeys, and then non-viable human embryos. He also stated that he performed a genomic badysis on embryos before implantation and indicated that he had recruited and worked with six other couples in this trial before his break. One of the extra women may be at the very beginning of pregnancy.

Read more:
The first babies in the world published by gene? Premature, dangerous and irresponsible

International consensus

China is a major scientific power. The capabilities of Chinese researchers are highly respected, but if the international consensus on transparency and caution in gene editing does not hold, the future is difficult to predict.

The host institution in Jiankui He, the Southern University of Science and Technology, issued a statement that he was on leave at the time of the trial and had not been held in their institution.

Currently, other Chinese researchers present at the conference are among the most critical critics of this work. Several said that it violates the rules governing genetic research in China.

Whatever the case may be, the results seem clear. Today's presentation suggests that it was a carefully planned and executed project, in which Jiankui He carefully communicated his results, first by video, and then continued his conference talk to share his data. . Details on the process, specific mutations, and badysis used to screen for potentially harmful "potentially harmful" genomic changes have also been presented today.

On the data presented, it appears that the editing of the genome has been performed. Although the mutations themselves do not end up mimicking the natural mutations of the CCR5, so we can not say – and we can never know – whether the twins are resistant to HIV.

He also indicated that the work had been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

A lot of questions

The panelists, Robin Lovell-Badge and Matt Porteus, asked questions of Jiankui He after completing the presentation. The entire presentation and questions / answers can be viewed here.

Summit Chair Nobel laureate David Baltimore spoke after the meeting. He expressed concern that his work was not meeting the commitments made at the first Gene Publishing Summit held three years ago, and in particular

it would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germ line modification until the safety concerns have been addressed.

He added:

I do not think it's a transparent process. We only learned about it after the fact and after the birth of the children. Personally, I do not think it's medically necessary.

And further:

I think the scientific community has failed in its process of self-regulation because of a lack of transparency.

He emphasized that these comments came entirely from himself.

A statement from the summit organizers will be published tomorrow and I hope that she will reiterate the need for caution, transparency in planning and transparency.

And, in spite of the shock, this is what I hope to have: in the end, the CRISPR technology is slow, expensive and is used at the level of individuals and not populations.

There will be no tsunami but there will be much to discuss. And we will have time, as we did when other expensive medical events occurred – heart transplants, test tube babies, and somatic gene therapy. It's more important, but I think we can always come back to a consensus and find the right path.