[ad_1]
The controversy began when specialized publications such as the American magazine MIT Technology Review echoed the study of scientist He Jiankui, who began yesterday to stream videos on Youtube. He claimed to have changed the genes of twins.
According to the Chinese researcher, the girls Lulu and Nana "were born healthy a few weeks ago," thanks to in vitro fertilization with genetic modification technology. "this will prevent them from getting infected with HIV".
In these videos, he claims to have used the CRISPR / Cas9 technique and justifies the experience by stating that the genetic modification "is not intended to eliminate genetic diseases" but rather "to give girls the natural ability to resist a possible infection with HIV ".
To achieve his goal, he claims to have "deactivated" the CCR5 gene, which forms a protein that allows HIV to enter a cell and which, in practice, involves an improvement in DNA.
Read also: Researchers eliminate HIV in six patients with stem cell transplant
"I understand that my work is controversial, but I think families need this technology and I'm willing to accept their criticism," he said in one of the videos.
However, the University of Science and Technology South of Shenzhen City today challenged his teacher in a statement, pointing out that he was not even aware of this project.
The institution said that he felt "deeply shocked by the case" and he exhorted Himself, on leave since February of this year, to come as soon as possible to give explanations.
"The University will convene international experts to investigate this incident, which is a seriousand violation of ethics and academic standards "said the institution on the project, which also raised doubts as to its veracity, given that it has not been published so far in any scientific journal.
For its part, the Chinese press today acknowledged that the study had sparked controversy between academics and the public across the country.
The China Daily newspaper highlights concerns "about ethics and its effectiveness" and reveals that the parents of the two babies are people living with HIV, according to Bai Hua, head of Baihualin, a non-governmental organization that is not responsible for HIV. occupies people with HIV. disease,
At the same time, more than 120 academics from the Chinese scientific community said in a statement published on Sina Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter, that "any attempt" to alter human embryos through genetic modification is "crazy woman". give birth to these babies "high risk."
Read also: Reconstitute the face of a 1,600-year-old indigenous woman in Uruguay
"The government must take quick legislative measures to strictly supervise such research," Chinese scientists added.
The controversy also comes one day before researchers in this field begin an important meeting on genome modification, to be held from 27 to 29 November in Hong Kong.
On a global scale, Nature also took part in today's debate and in one article it claims that this announcement caused a "scandal" among the international scientific community and that, if true, " would represent a major advance in the use of the modification of the human genome "
"It's premature, dangerous and irresponsible," Joyce Harper, a researcher at University College London, told this publication.
"This experience exposes normal and healthy children to risks without real benefit," says the magazine.
Nature points out that this type of tool has only been used so far to study its benefits for the elimination of disease-causing mutations, and adds that the scientific community "has long called for" the creation of ethical principles long before that a case like this would come up.
In 2016, a group of Chinese scientists has become a pioneer in the use in humans, especially in patients with lung cancer, CRISPR genetic modification technology, reported by the journal Nature.
British scientists, however, have discovered that CRISPR gene modification technology it can cause more damage to the cells than previously thought, according to a study published this year by the same magazine.
[ad_2]
Source link
