[ad_1]
According to Associated Press, Nobel laureate and biologist Craig Mello was aware of a pregnancy in China involving genetically modified babies for months before the news was made public. The fact that a renowned scientist is aware of this highly unethical work but chooses to remain silent is a source of serious concern and a sign that the culture around questionable research must switch.
As Candice Choi and Marilynn Marchione report for the AP, Mello has served on the Scientific Advisory Board of Direct Genomics, a company owned by geneticist He Jiankui, the researcher behind the controversial and possibly criminal work of gene editing. In April 2018, a scientist from the South Shenzhen University of Science and Technology sent an email to Mello to inform her of her pregnancy. Mello reacted by condemning the work, but he remained HI's scientific adviser, who did not participate in the experiment, for eight months, resigning only after the announcement of the new publication on genetically modified babies. l & # 39; AP. Mello has not yet responded to a request for comment from Gizmodo.
At a conference on human genome editing in Hong Kong last November, he admitted to having modified the DNA of the embryos with the CRISPR editing tool and then implanted them in their mother's womb. Twin babies were born at the beginning of November with apparent immunity to HIV / AIDS as a result of CCR5 gene withdrawal. A second pregnancy was also revealed by He at the conference. The research, although still unconfirmed, has been strongly criticized because of the current premature state of gene modification technology, the fact that the research was not found medically necessary, and that long-term effects of the modification are unknown, among many other concerns.
As it stands, most countries, including China and the United States, allow researchers to alter the DNA of human embryos, but induce pregnancy with modified embryos is strictly verboten. A recent investigation by the Chinese authorities revealed that, in addition to violating this prohibition, he had broken the law for "fame and personal gain", including forging ethical certificates and simulating laboratory work. He was apprehended by the security authorities and will be "severely treated," according to Chinese state media.
The AP has obtained emails between Mello and He via a public registration application. As the match between the two shows, Mello, winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize for Genetic Research, criticized He's work. In an email from April 2018 titled "Success!", He wrote to Mello:
Dear Craig,
Good news! The women [sic] is pregnant, the success of the genome edition! The embryo with the CCR5 gene published was grafted to women 12 days ago, and today the pregnancy is confirmed!
What did Mello answer:
I'm happy for you, but I prefer not to be kept informed about it. I think this is not a real unmet medical need and I therefore do not support the use of CRISPR for this indication. You are risking the health of the child you are publishing and, to my knowledge, there is no significant risk of [HIV/AIDS] transmission to the embryo with IVF. In fact, treatment itself feeds fear of HIV and stigma that is not based on medical facts. I just do not see why you do that.
I wish the best of luck to your patient for a healthy pregnancy.
Despite his reservations, Mello stayed in Direct Genomics – and he apparently kept silent about his dishonest research. Mello refused AP's interview request, but his university, the University of Mbadachusetts Medical School, provided the PA with a statement in which he indicated that his conversations with He were "hypothetical and vast" and that he was unaware that he was able to edit human genes. According to the report of the PA:
According to a statement provided by Mello University, he spoke to Mello during a break at a corporate meeting in November 2017 to discuss the possibility of using the powerful CRISPR gene editing tool. to prevent HIV infection from parent to child. According to the statement, Mello said he had no idea of his intention to do it himself.
That being said, Mello asked a colleague to give him advice on "the risks of HIV transmission in children for a therapy he's considering" and Mello attended a meeting of Direct Genomics in China about a week before the Hong Kong conference, reports the AP.
This episode is obviously not good, and it highlights the obligations of scientists to speak when evidence of unethical work is emerging. In the AP article, bioethicist Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin, who co-led the Hong Kong conference, reportedly said "it was not clear" how someone like Mello " could have expressed concerns "about the He project. This is an absurd statement since a simple tweet, for example, could have alerted the world, given Mello's position of choice in the scientific community. But there are also more formal and discreet channels of denunciation.
"When you hear about something like this, you have to report any unethical conduct," said Gizmodo Arthur Caplan, bioethicist at the NYU School of Medicine. "At a minimum, you should go to the researcher's home institution, find the dean or his / her immediate supervisor and voice your concerns. Ask them if they are aware of this research and have approved it. "
Another option, Caplan said, is for the concerned scientist to alert his peer group by asking his colleagues if they have heard of this research. Together, he said, the group could send a public letter detailing the knowledge gained, explaining the problematic nature of the work and condemning the research. In addition, "the letter should recommend not to submit a book or publish details in scientific journals," said Caplan. "In the end, you do not want to give them [the unethical researcher] a platform."
Kerry Bowman, a bioethicist at the University of Toronto, says Mello's action shows how a problematic moratorium on gene editing in the embryo can be attributed to the fact that prominent scientists are not willing to act for such a reckless act and a violation of ethics.
"Inaction and silence suggest a culture of limited ethical concern," Bowman told Gizmodo. "The true ethic of research is not just about what people do in research, but what they are part of, and what they do."
It is obviously important to highlight the individuals who have lost everything and should have known better, but the most important thing is that the scientific community should learn from this incident and create a culture in which it is unacceptable to remain silent.
[Associated Press]Source link
