The World Health Organization no longer says genetically modified babies

Largest in the world The public health authority has considered the most official statement to date on the use of Crispr to alter the DNA of human babies. Eight months after a rogue Chinese scientist revealed that he had secretly created the world's first gene-edited children, the World Health Organization is calling on countries to end any experiment that would lead to the birth of a greater number of edited human beings. On Friday, the WHO Director-General issued a statement urging "the regulators of all countries no longer authorize any work in this area until their implications have been duly considered".

While remaining clear of the general moratorium demanded by many scientists in the hours and days following the revelation of his controversial work by Chinese scientist He Jiankui in November, WHO's position is a powerful reproach to his works. It remains to be seen whether this will have a powerful deterrent effect on those who want to follow in his footsteps.

"I congratulate the WHO for taking a stand on what seems to be the good side of the problem," says Fyodor Urnov, gene editing scientist at the Altius Institute for Biomedical Sciences in Seattle. and at the University of California at Berkeley. (In 2015, Urnov co-wrote a perspective in Nature titled Do not modify the human germ lineHe thinks that technology is not only premature, but medically useless. "So the healthier the health authorities are, the better it is. And this position is as clear as possible. But these are just people operating in the established regulatory frameworks and, by definition, that can not explain what a rogue actor can do. "

The modification of the human germ line is already effectively banned in the United States because of a law prohibiting the US Food and Drug Administration from even considering applications for clinical trials involving genetically engineered embryos changed. But in Russia, at least one scientist has begun planning the Crispr trial in IVF clinics to prevent hereditary deafness. And since Crispr components, unlike enriched plutonium, can be easily purchased on the Internet for research purposes, WHO can do nothing to prevent unscrupulous scientists from hiring IVF doctors to set up underground clinics. mounting for embryos. However, the WHO position could be a blow to efforts beyond the desire to test gene editing at the embryo level.

"Even though it may not have the force of law, the WHO has interesting powers," says Carolyn Brokowski, badociate researcher and bioethicist at Yale Medical School, who has studied more than 60 reports and ethical statements. published by the international community. community on the modification of the human germ line since 2015. "Given the current uncertainty, it would be unfortunate for any country or institution to do anything that is contraindicated by WHO. Overall, I hope this will loosen enthusiasm for the advancement of this technology. "

The recommendation comes from the 18-member WHO Expert Advisory Committee for the editing of the human genome, which it established in December. The committee made this ruling at a meeting in Geneva in March, suggesting that the WHO create a transparent global registry for all experiments related to the editing of the human genome. At present, more than 20 clinical trials around the world use a different, less controversial type of editing, which involves modifying the so-called somatic cell DNA (white blood cells and bone marrow cells, rather spermatozoa or ova). In the United States, two gene editing companies have announced that they are beginning to recruit and treat patients for the first time. Editas Medicine has partnered with Allergen to treat a form of hereditary blindness by injecting Crispr components into patients' eyes. And like NPR reported Monday, Crispr Therapeutics and Vertex began injecting billions of Crispr-published cells into sickle cell patients in Nashville.

The members of the WHO Advisory Committee could not be contacted. In a March interview ScienceCommittee Co-Chair Margaret Hamburg gave little details on the proposed registry, but said it should include both somatic cell and germline experiments when the time comes. She pointed out that the committee had a "broader accusation" than simply declaring a moratorium. It plans to detail the new global standards to be followed by the countries, a list of what would be needed to progress responsibly in the testing of technology in humans. This process should take another 15 to 18 months.

The development of such details would help to fill a void. Previous reports of National Academies of Science and Medicine on the modification of the human germline had described it as "irresponsible" unless the procedure would prove safe and effective and that it would not be safe. it responds to a serious and unmet need. But he did not specify how exactly these things could be measured. Nor has it explicitly approved a moratorium. And this allowed scientists like Him to make their own judgment about what to do to keep going. In fact, he even quoted the 2017 report of the US academies to conclude that gene-modified children were finally eligible in his insurance to hospital ethics reviewers.

Scientists like Jennifer Doudna, the co-creator of Urnov and Crispr, now believe that the scientific community was perhaps too complacent, too naive. But they hope that the WHO statement will remove any ambiguity. "With a statement like this that makes it clear that there should be no use of the germ line modification in the man at the clinic at that time, it is becoming more and more difficult for anyone to pretend he did not know or did not exist at all in the publication. recommendations, "says Doudna, biochemist at UC Berkeley. The hope, she says, is not that governments are eager to ban it altogether, which could be difficult to cancel afterwards. Instead, she hopes that government agencies can help enforce the recommendations of the WHO and similar authorities. "Unlike a moratorium, it invites conversation, which is really crucial right now, because there is no doubt in my mind that the interest in modifying the human germline is not going away."

More great cable stories