[ad_1]
Speaking at a genetics conference in Hong Kong earlier in the day, Chinese scientist He Jiankui said he was "proud" of having created the first genetically-born babies modified in the world, despite the almost universal condemnations of his peers. Speaking publicly today for the first time, the scientist has provided new details about his unauthorized clandestine project, including the news of a pregnant woman from a published embryo.
On Monday, an Associated Press report on the first babies in the world to be changed by a gene – binoculars dubbed Lula and Nana – shook the scientific community, but not in the right way. Chinese scientist He Jiankui admitted using the CRISPR / cas9 gene editing tool to modify human embryos, in the hope of making them HIV-resistant. He said the girls, born earlier this month, are "normal and healthy," but critics say it's still too early to judge. Although outside scientists have not yet confirmed that he has actually genetically engineered human embryos, if the claims are true, the experiment represents a major violation of the research ethic .
His achievements, so to speak, have been largely condemned by scientists and ethicists, who have been the subject of many disputes. CRISPR, for example, has already been used to modify human embryos, but much is still unknown about this pioneering biotechnology and its long-term adverse effects on the health of genetically modified humans. In the United States, for example, scientists are allowed to alter the DNA of embryos for research purposes, but published embryos can not be implanted in the mother's womb and must be destroyed. The US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine believe that gene editing is a good idea in principle: it is far too early to start making genetically modified babies. It can take years, decades, or even an entire generation before all the risks are known.
Given this nascent stage of human gene modification technology, he was convicted for conducting a high-risk, medically unnecessary experiment and for his very clandestine research. The scientist allegedly violated established scientific and ethical standards and failed to make his work transparent, and it is unclear whether the parents understood the nature of the procedure.
The Chinese government ordered the opening of an investigation into the incident. The Southern University, Shenzhen Southern University of Science and Technology, issued a statement in which it declared that it behaved "using CRISPR / Cas9 to edit human embryos, which constitutes a violation severe academic ethics and codes of conduct. conduct."
"For this particular case, I'm proud, actually."
And in another major turning point, New Scientist reported earlier in the day that he said "there is another potential pregnancy," although he warned that it was still in its infancy.
The goal of this gene editing experiment was to create immunity against HIV / AIDS directly in human DNA. To do this, he used CRISPR / cas9 to disable CCR5, a gene that produces a protein that makes cells vulnerable to the AIDS virus. Assuming the experiment will work as expected – still a big one – the twins will go into history as the first genetically improved people. Indeed, this modification can be considered as an improvement, and not as a therapy, although a strong argument can be advanced: in the case of interventions such as immunity, no distinction can be made. or need to be done.
During his speech, he said that girls would be monitored for the next 18 years, during which time they would be badessed for unintended mutations and unexpected side effects, and confirmed their resistance to HIV. . As AP announced earlier this week, eight couples were enrolled in the trial and one of them dropped out of school. All men participating in the study were HIV-positive, but women did not. He explained that one of the main reasons behind the experience was to provide these couples with children genetically immunized against HIV.
In his speech today, he said that 30 embryos had been created during the trial, 70% of which had been published by a gene, reported New Scientist. The trial is now suspended due to the widespread reaction (regardless of the status of the recently announced pregnant woman). The birth of the twins was the culmination of a three-year project, which involved mice, monkeys and, eventually, human embryos, he explained. The details of the trial have been sent to an unnamed peer-reviewed scientific journal – which seems a little late, since the girls are already born.
Professor He said the parents had been "informed of the consequences," adding that they had "the option to leave the trial without implantation or to choose the embryos," reported the NYT. "The couple chose to implant these embryos to initiate pregnancy on two embryos," He said. The mother refused amniocentesis during her pregnancy to look for genetic abnormalities, which was done after the girls' birth.
During a round table after his presentation, the scientist was confronted with a host of questions and criticisms from Summit delegates.
When asked why he felt it was necessary to carry out the experiment in secret – what he did, for example, by giving up the normal channels of communication and not seeking the approval of the authorities Chinese regulators – he spoke to several experts about this possibility, reported New Scientist, although he provided little detail about the content of these conversations or the names of the people involved. He also admitted that the Southern University of Science and Technology was not informed of the work; the scientist is currently on leave without pay and he did not tell the university that his research funds were used for this unauthorized gene editing experiment. And as AP announced earlier this week, it waited until early November to list research in the Chinese clinical trial registry. The medical staff involved in the project thought to perform a normal IVF for couples, the only difference being the inclusion of genome mapping.
"Why do so many secrets around this, especially if you know the general feeling that reigns in the scientific community, is that we should not start yet?" Asked Robin Lovell-Badge, professor of genetics and embryology at the Francis Crick Institute in London. during the group discussion, as indicated by the NYT. "You now know that the accusation is that you broke the law. If you had involved the Chinese authorities, they might have said you could not do it. "
David Baltimore, a California Institute of Technology geneticist and Nobel laureate, also spoke during question period, pointing out that this episode was a "failure of self-regulation by the scientific community," invoking the lack of transparency. And even if he had gone through the proper channels, Baltimore said the experiment "would still be considered irresponsible," because of the premature status of gene editing by humans, adding that she was not "medically necessary".
Indeed, there are other methods to protect the offspring of an HIV-infected parent, such as medications that keep the disease in remission. At the summit, he proposed a different perspective, saying that the couple had "lost all hope of life" and that "with this protection [the father] sent a message saying that he would work hard, earn money and take care of his two daughters and his wife all this life. These statements betray that he misunderstands medical ethics, offering a weak excuse in which the psychological needs of parents, however. authentic, are placed before the needs of future children; doctors should never engage in illegal activities and endanger human lives for reasons such as this one.
As for the statement that babies are "normal and healthy," it's impossible to know for the moment, even though their DNA now seems normal. Untargeted mutations in other genes – a known problem with CRISPR – are still possible, the effects of which may be later. In addition, modified genes may appear in some cells, but not in all – a condition known as mosaicism. Importantly, these changes were made to germ cells, which means that this trait is now inherited. If serious abnormalities were detected in the genes of these twins, it could prevent them from having children, for fear of transmitting deleterious traits to the next generation.
The problem with Professor He's actions is not that he's engaged in editing human genes, it's that he acted prematurely.
Finally, it is important to answer another major concern badociated with this research, namely the perspective of so-called baby designers. Indeed, the benefit of editing human genes is that parents get greater control over the genome of their offspring. But it is feared that genetic therapies, such as the elimination of genetic diseases, will eventually give way to genetic improvements.
Some conservative bioethicists warn that parents will use this technology to provide their children with superior intelligence and memory, or select specific physical characteristics such as hair and eye color. There is no doubt that we will need to be cautious before entering this unexplored genetic territory, but we should not exclude this possibility. The selection of human traits, in which specific improvements are chosen by parents, could be a good thing, such as giving our offspring an intrinsic immunity against diseases such as HIV / AIDS.
The problem with Professor He's actions is not that he's engaged in editing human genes, it's that he acted prematurely. And by many. Let's hope he has not irrevocably tarnished this incredible prospect with his irresponsible and selfish actions.
[New York Times, New Scientist]Source link
