Scientist declaring genetically modified babies announces second pregnancy

A Chinese researcher who claims to have helped create the world's first genetically modified babies says that a second pregnancy could be in progress.

The researcher, Shenzhen's He Jiankui, revealed the possibility of a pregnancy on Wednesday by making his first public comments on his controversial work at an international conference in Hong Kong.

He claims to havee modified the binoculars DNA born earlier this month to try to make them resistant to infection with the AIDS virus. The mainstream scientists have condemned the experiment, and universities and government groups are conducting research.

The second potential pregnancy is at a very early stage and requires more time to be monitored to determine if it will last, he said.

READ MORE:
* A Chinese scientist who publishes genes kept much of his work secret
* The claim of a Chinese scientist that babies modified by a gene are extremely worrying
* The claim of a Chinese scientist that babies modified by a gene generate an outcry

Great scientists said that there were now even more reasons to worry and more questions than answers after the conversation with Him. The conference leader described the experience as "irresponsible" and proved that the scientific community had failed to self-regulate to prevent premature efforts to change the situation. ; DNA.

Modification of DNA before or at the time of conception is highly controversial because the modifications can be inherited and can harm other genes. It is banned in some countries, including the United States, except for laboratory research.

He defended his choice of HIV rather than a deadly inherited disease as a test for gene editing, and insisted that girls be able to benefit from it.

"They need this protection because a vaccine is not available," he said.

Scientists did not buy it.

"It's a really unacceptable development," said Jennifer Doudna, a scientist at the University of California at Berkeley and one of the inventors of the CRISPR gene editing tool that he said he used. "I'm grateful for his presence today, but I do not think we've heard any answers, we still have to understand the motivation for that."

Doudna is paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports AP's Health and Science Department.

"I feel more troubled now," said David Liu of Harvard and the Broad Institute of MIT, and inventor of a variation of the gene editing tool. "This is a horrendous example of what not to do to face a promising technology that will benefit society." I hope this will never happen again. ;

There is no independent confirmation of his claim and he has not yet been published in a scientific journal where he would be controlled by experts. During the conference, he failed or refused to answer many questions, including the payment of his work, how he ensured that participants understood the risks and potential benefits, and why he had kept his job secret until the next day.

After speaking, David Baltimore, Nobel laureate of the California Institute of Technology and conference leader, said his work "would still be considered irresponsible" because it did not meet the criteria on which many scientists are concerned. were agreed several years ago before gene modification. could be considered.

"Personally, I do not think it was medically necessary.The choice of diseases on which we have heard today is much more urgent" than trying to prevent infection by HIV that way, said Baltimore.

The case shows "that there has been a failure of self-regulation on the part of the scientific community" and that the conference committee would meet and issue a statement Thursday on the future of the field Baltimore said.

Before he spoke, Dr. George Daley, Dean of Medicine at Harvard University and one of the organizers of the conference, warned against a brutal reaction to genetic modification because from the experience he had lived. The fact that the first case may have been a misstep "should in no way lead us to plunge our head into the sand and not to take into account the very, very positive aspects that could flow from a more responsible, "Daley. I said.

"Scientists going bad … that's a huge cost to the scientific community," Daley said.

Regulators have been quick to condemn the experience as being unethical and unscientific.

The National Health Commission has ordered local authorities in Guangdong Province to investigate the actions of He and his employer, the Chinese University of Science and Technology of the South, is also conducting an investigation.

Tuesday, Who Renzong of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences criticized the decision to let him speak at the conference, saying that the statement "should not be on our agenda" before d & # 39; have been examined by independent experts. That he has violated the laws on reproductive medicine in China has not been clear; Who says yes, but that "the problem is that there is no penalty".

He called on the United Nations to hold a meeting to discuss the edition of hereditary genes to promote an international agreement on when this could go.

In the meantime, more and more American scientists have reported having contacts with He and knowing or suspecting what he is doing.

Dr. Matthew Porteus, a genetic researcher at Stanford University, where he did postdoctoral research, said that he had told him in February that he was planning to 39, try editing human genes. Porteus said that he was discouraging him and told him "that it was irresponsible, that he could risk the entire field of genetic modification by doing so cavalierly".

Dr. William Hurlbut, a Stanford ethicist, said he had "spent many hours" discussing with him over the last two years about situations in which genetic modification might be appropriate.

"I knew his early work, I knew where he was heading," Hurlbut said. When he saw her four or five weeks ago, he did not say that he had attempted or managed a pregnancy with published embryos, but "I strongly suspected him" Says Hurlbut.

"I disagree with the idea of ​​coming out of the general consensus of the scientific community," said Hurlbut. If science is not considered sufficiently ready or secure, "it will create misunderstandings, discordance and mistrust".