[ad_1]
The "baby designer" experience was made public in a series of videos on YouTube.
A Chinese scientist on Monday set off an alert, shock and confusion among the scientific community claiming to have modified the DNA of human embryos to create a twin. A few weeks ago, Lulu and Nana, two girls, were born "in the world as healthy as all other babies".
The controversial experiment, made public by the media and the videos posted by He Jiankui of Southern University of Science and Technology of China, has been criticized by many scientists around the world as premature and called " rogue human experimentation ". More than 120 Chinese scientists have described the experiment as "crazy" in a letter, adding that it was a blow to the global reputation of Chinese science. Southern University said in a statement that it would investigate the experiment, which appears to have "seriously violated ethics and academic codes of conduct".
His unverified statement is on the eve of an international summit dedicated to emerging science and ethics around powerful tools that offer scientists unprecedented potential for modifying traits and eliminate genetic diseases – but that made fear "baby designers". By altering the DNA of human embryos, scientists do not only alter the genes of a single person, but all their potential offspring, which actually modifies the human species.
"You have here a scientist who changes the human race and you have a video about it on YouTube, paperless [scientific]. It's almost surreal," said Eric Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute, who said that he saw some of the data behind the experience. "This guy needs to have a remarkable chutzpah to keep going, essentially for the first time in history, he used this powerful tool in a reckless way for no good reason."
As a trained physicist, he told The Associated Press that embryos from seven in vitro fertilized couples have been published. He said he used a tool called CRISPR-Cas9 to perform targeted cuts in the DNA – to disable a gene allowing HIV to infect the cells – with a successful pregnancy up to the next day. now.
He did not respond to attempts to contact him by e-mail or telephone.
"I think it just shows that it's time to talk about the ethics of genome editing because the world can not wait," Insoo Hyun, bioethicist of the Case Western Reserve University. "We do not know to what extent this is true or verified.That's all kinds of … rumors at this point … but in terms of scientific and medical justification, I do not think there is any a."
According to a description of the experiment published online, he created embryos from couples whose father was infected with HIV. The use of this technology has immediately been a problem for ethicists because there are other ways to prevent HIV transmission to the fetus and many believe that the first applications of gene editing should be reserved for deadly diseases without treatment. . In a video posted on YouTube, he said that a single gene had been modified, but that gene editing introduces unintended genetic effects that may cause concern, whether for children themselves. same or for the human gene pool, if the children grow up to succeed. on their genes.
In a series of videos posted on YouTube, he explained that his experience had worked well and that gene editing had not made any involuntary changes to the children's DNA, but M Topol said that it was "frankly not possible" to do it.
He too, founder and president of Direct Genomics, a DNA sequencing company, sought to differentiate himself from those who would want to be reckless. use the ability to modify the genome to create designer babies.
"Gene surgery is and should remain a healing technology, improving IQ or choosing the color of the hair or eyes is not what a loving parent does, it should be banned" says in the # 39, one of the videos. "I understand that my work will be controversial, but I believe that families need this technology and I am ready to accept criticism."
The public announcement was very unconventional, with no supporting data to verify the claims and no submission to the traditional peer review process. This posed serious questions to scientists about respect for traditional monitoring channels, as well as what to believe from experience and results.
Jennifer Doudna, one of the pioneers of genome editing at the University of California, Berkeley, said that the experiment seemed to constitute a "clean break" between caution and rigor. transparent approach recommended by international leaders.
"Lack of transparency and disregard for risk are deeply worrying," Doudna said. "There are safe and effective ways to protect children from HIV transmission, so the study, as reported, does not seem to address an unmet medical need."
Feng Zhang, one of the leaders of the Broad Institute, called for a moratorium. on the implantation of published embryos until the security requirements have been defined.
"If that is true, it is an extremely premature and questionable experience in the creation of genetically modified children," said Jeffrey Kahn, director of the Johns Institute of Bioethics Hopkins Berman. "There is a lot to understand and discuss about monitoring or the lack of monitoring."
At the last meeting of the International Summit on Gene Publishing, in 2015, scientists who convened the meeting concluded with a statement calling it "irresponsible to proceed with human modification". embryos until there is a broad societal consensus on the appropriateness of any proposed use.
"Although each nation has the power to regulate activities under its jurisdiction, the human genome is shared by all nations," the statement said. 19659003] Matthew Porteus, pediatrician and stem cell scientist at Stanford University, a member of the organizing committee of the Hong Kong meeting, said the announcement highlighted weaknesses in the current regulatory system. "This is not how I would like to see science progress, I have serious concerns," Porteus said.
The Southern University of Science and Technology, the institution in which he is on leave without pay, issued a statement condemning the experiment, declaring the university was "deeply shocked" by the new and had convened an emergency meeting. The research was conducted off campus and the university was not aware of the project, according to the university.
"At the dawn of the Second International Summit on Genome Publishing, this announcement sounds like a cynical attempt to make headlines," said Pete Mills, deputy director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics , an independent body that stated that the use of gene editing techniques in a way that could change the human species could be allowed under certain circumstances – but that these circumstances do not exist . "If the claims are true, it is a premature, inexplicable and perhaps reckless intervention that could threaten the responsible development of future applications of genome editing."
(With the exception of the title, this story was not published by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
[ad_2]
Source link
