[ad_1]
Lulu and Nana are their names, the two children from China who are several weeks old and whose genome has been modified. The twins are in good health and with their parents, reports the geneticist He Jiankui in a video – but most importantly, their genetic material has been successfully rebuilt. Until now, the researcher has implanted embryos in seven women with HIV-infected partners, where the CCR5 receptor, essential for HIV infection, has been removed with the help of CRISPR-Cas9 system. One of the test subjects has now given birth to twins: If that were true, Nana and Lulu would be at least largely protected against HIV.
That is true, but it is not clear. Most experts are so reserved and skeptical: apart from the video and the next two Entries in a government database for clinical trials are not yet published. On the basis of the limited information available, geneticist Gaetan Burgio of the National University of Australia concludes the experiment failedHowever, without independent publication, no final judgment is possible. In any case, the BBC writes that no institution involved in the so-called experiment has confirmed the report: even the University of Genetic Sciences, University of Science and Technology from China, Shenzhen, do not know it. Until now, you can not rule out that it's an air show number.
Nevertheless, there are already violent demonstrations in the professional world. If the statement is correct, He Jiankui and his team would not have simply introduced a genetic modification to humans that will be pbaded on to future generations – which is widely dismissed as contrary to the rule of thumb. Ethical and forbidden in many countries. Moreover, the technique is not mature. Serious consequences such as cancer and other genetic disorders due to unwanted changes from other parts of the genome are possible. Finally, unlike serious hereditary diseases, the serious intervention is not really justified by medical reasons: the embryos were in good health and the HIV infection is medically easy to treat.
Even if the report is wrong, the experts worry about permanent damage. The statement seems to be specifically designed to cause maximum shock and controversy, for example criticized molecular biologist Sarah Chan of the University of Edinburgh in a blog post. It's irresponsible and unethical, no matter whether it's true or not. The public may be able to turn away from gene therapy for the benefit of the general population, she fears if their engagement is not discussed carefully with all parties.
[ad_2]
Source link
