CRISPR babies are REAL - and scientists are creating them
Well, not exactly - I'll admit, the title is just clickbait.
But to a certain extent, such a claim isn't exactly incorrect; in fact, a quick Google search would pull up dozens of articles from major news and media outlets dating back to the end of November that report how Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies.
So what exactly is going on then? On November 25, 2018, the MIT Technology Review published an article that made waves in the scientific community and went viral on social media; it described a daring effort by Chinese scientists - led by He Jiankui at the Southern University of Science and Technology - to create the world's first CRISPR gene-edited babies. During the course of November that year, records show that He's team had been recruiting prospective couples in the hopes of genetically modifying human embryos to potentially render the babies resistant to HIV. And so, it was during the last week of November that the worst fears of genetic bioethicists were realized - He claimed that one couple successfully gave birth to twin girls (known as Lulu and Nana, which are their pseudonyms to preserve anonymity), the first ever genetically modified babies.
But wait just a second - you might be thinking, "well where's the proof to substantiate this claim?" And you'd be on the right track. He's work has not yet been published in any scientific journal, meaning that other major scientists haven't been able to peer review his data; the only evidence to back his claim are a YouTube video he posted as his initial announcement and a talk he presented at a conference where he presented his findings.
In any event, the backlash against He has been both widespread and severe. He's university denied any knowledge of the experiment, and Chinese authorities were quick to denounce and suspend his research, saying that the experiment violated Chinese law and genetic guidelines when He faked an ethical review and "used potentially unsafe and ineffective gene editing methods on the children." (source). Both Jennifer Doudna and Feng Zheng - together, the two scientists most recognized for their work as pioneers in CRISPR research - opposed He's research and instead support a moratorium on embryonic modification and implantation.
One question you might be wondering - which is a question that I too have struggled with - is: why is He's research so bad anyway? After all, if successful, the work would be a monumental medical advancement. And it's important to note that the whole point of ethics is that there isn't always a right answer - so I can only give my opinion, and I encourage you to formulate your own and research your country's.
In any event, to me, this type of genetic research is problematic for a few reasons. First is that it reintroduces the idea of a slippery slope - if genetic modifications are possible and feasible, then at what point do medical applications transition into designer babies? Second is that these genetic changes are irreversible. In an era where we are still largely unsure of the potential negative implications and ramifications of CRISPR modification and don't entirely understand how to prevent mosaicism, it's both dangerous and unethical to experiment on human lives. Genetically modified genomes means that individuals live with genetic changes their entire lives, and moreover, pass on their genes to all their future generations of children. Because CRISPR modifications are still unstable and largely not understood, at best, an entire lineage of people will sustain permanent and potentially disastrous effects, and at worst, interactions between multiple people with modifications could result in catastrophic and irreversible changes to the human gene pool.
Whew, okay. That was a lot. Sorry for the long blog post (I promise the next ones will be shorter); I would've included this in the topic synopsis if it weren't for the fact that He's research became public literally a week after I had to submit my final draft.
Anyway, here's a list of additional articles for you to read, if you're interested (but no pressure, they're pretty long):
http://time.com/5466967/crispr-twins-lives/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612465/crispr-inventor-feng-zhang-calls-for-moratorium-on-baby-making/
Feel free to comment below how your country reacted to the news, what it believes regarding genetic modification as a whole, and any solutions it may have to address the ongoing ethical issues!
But to a certain extent, such a claim isn't exactly incorrect; in fact, a quick Google search would pull up dozens of articles from major news and media outlets dating back to the end of November that report how Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies.
So what exactly is going on then? On November 25, 2018, the MIT Technology Review published an article that made waves in the scientific community and went viral on social media; it described a daring effort by Chinese scientists - led by He Jiankui at the Southern University of Science and Technology - to create the world's first CRISPR gene-edited babies. During the course of November that year, records show that He's team had been recruiting prospective couples in the hopes of genetically modifying human embryos to potentially render the babies resistant to HIV. And so, it was during the last week of November that the worst fears of genetic bioethicists were realized - He claimed that one couple successfully gave birth to twin girls (known as Lulu and Nana, which are their pseudonyms to preserve anonymity), the first ever genetically modified babies.
But wait just a second - you might be thinking, "well where's the proof to substantiate this claim?" And you'd be on the right track. He's work has not yet been published in any scientific journal, meaning that other major scientists haven't been able to peer review his data; the only evidence to back his claim are a YouTube video he posted as his initial announcement and a talk he presented at a conference where he presented his findings.
In any event, the backlash against He has been both widespread and severe. He's university denied any knowledge of the experiment, and Chinese authorities were quick to denounce and suspend his research, saying that the experiment violated Chinese law and genetic guidelines when He faked an ethical review and "used potentially unsafe and ineffective gene editing methods on the children." (source). Both Jennifer Doudna and Feng Zheng - together, the two scientists most recognized for their work as pioneers in CRISPR research - opposed He's research and instead support a moratorium on embryonic modification and implantation.
One question you might be wondering - which is a question that I too have struggled with - is: why is He's research so bad anyway? After all, if successful, the work would be a monumental medical advancement. And it's important to note that the whole point of ethics is that there isn't always a right answer - so I can only give my opinion, and I encourage you to formulate your own and research your country's.
In any event, to me, this type of genetic research is problematic for a few reasons. First is that it reintroduces the idea of a slippery slope - if genetic modifications are possible and feasible, then at what point do medical applications transition into designer babies? Second is that these genetic changes are irreversible. In an era where we are still largely unsure of the potential negative implications and ramifications of CRISPR modification and don't entirely understand how to prevent mosaicism, it's both dangerous and unethical to experiment on human lives. Genetically modified genomes means that individuals live with genetic changes their entire lives, and moreover, pass on their genes to all their future generations of children. Because CRISPR modifications are still unstable and largely not understood, at best, an entire lineage of people will sustain permanent and potentially disastrous effects, and at worst, interactions between multiple people with modifications could result in catastrophic and irreversible changes to the human gene pool.
Whew, okay. That was a lot. Sorry for the long blog post (I promise the next ones will be shorter); I would've included this in the topic synopsis if it weren't for the fact that He's research became public literally a week after I had to submit my final draft.
Anyway, here's a list of additional articles for you to read, if you're interested (but no pressure, they're pretty long):
http://time.com/5466967/crispr-twins-lives/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612465/crispr-inventor-feng-zhang-calls-for-moratorium-on-baby-making/
Feel free to comment below how your country reacted to the news, what it believes regarding genetic modification as a whole, and any solutions it may have to address the ongoing ethical issues!
Good morning! As part of their goal to promote scientific progress, Belgium does permit studies on germline modifications, given that these experiments are first approved by the country's gene modification ethics committees. Belgium also allows for embryos to be genetically modified and placed in a woman only if the embryo has been modified for therapeutic reasons. Though Belgium is hesitant about He Jiankui's decision to implant these modified embryos inside women for birth, we do understand the necessity of such experiments in order to further international knowledge within this unknown field. Belgium understands the importance of public opinion in this matter, especially with the uncertainty surrounding potential consequences. As such, we aim to develop solutions that can assuage international concerns while still maintaining the pursuit for scientific progress. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteGood evening! I will be representing the delegation of France. France believes He Jiankui's decision to alter genes to prevent HIV was in the best interest. However, as a nation, France's government believes CRISPR and other gene editing techniques need to be heavily regulated before implementation. The public of France has somewhat of a negative outlook on He Jiankui's work as well as the work of many French institutes in the altering of genes within human embryos. This is due to the fact that the public feels as though these clinical trials are unsafe, will cause irreversible damage, and is a hinderance on the rights of humans. The French government realizes this and is actively taking steps within its nation to improve the safety and effectiveness of these gene therapy trials to assure the public that this technology will benefit mankind in the near future, but needs to be further developed as of right now. Thus, France has established the Agence Nationale de Securite de Medicament et des Produits de Sante (ANSM) to regulate the ethical implications of various gene therapy trials on humans and human embryos. As for designer babies, France believes we need to implement gene editing into cases where the embryo has a harmful, incurable, genetic disease. Hence, France wishes to further develop comprehensive solutions to improve gene editing so we can implement this technology to treat incurable diseases.
ReplyDeleteHey everyone! The United States of America sees the measures taken by He Jiankui as irresponsible and a violation of the basic self-regulating bioethics guidlines set by the First International Summit on Human Genome Editing. The United States stands by the statements made by the Second International Summit that “it would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of heritable ‘germline’ editing at that time.” The process of germline editing is not a medical necessity in the United States’, specifically the FDA’s, view. Somatic editing, however, is favorable and preserves the natural variation of human development and has a lower chance of harming future generations. Somatic treatments such as Imlygic, a treatment that modifies the herpes virus to attack melanoma cells, have been approved by the FDA for clinical trials. The FDA views somatic treatments as a biological drug or device based on how it operates and this model should be applied in the regulation and approval process for clinical trials in order to stimulate growth and innovation. Additionally, embryonic treatments should be researched but with strict regulations such as the disposal of gametes and embryos in 14 days. Overall, the United States sees genomic medicine as a promising form of medicine for the future. However, we must tread carefully and find a balance between regulations and innovation.
ReplyDeleteGreetings fellow delegates.
ReplyDeletePeru believes that He Jiankui's actions are not responsible at all in thinking about the environment. Peru is a country that has completely banned the importation of all genetically modified foods, so we consider this experiment to be a complete violation of biodiversity and mother nature itself. One scientist, "Alejandro Argumedo of the ANDES Association in Cusco, says he worries about the physiological effects the introduction of GMOs would have on Peru’s native species. He says Peru has one of the top 10 biodiversities in the world, and it needs to be protected. To combat the crop diseases that Peruvian farmers suffer, he looks to diversification instead of GM seeds" (Peru Bans Monsanto and GMOs). Seeing how genetic modification could affect our country, Peru believes that applying genetic modification to humans could be dangerous as well.
Greetings, and good evening, fellow delegates!
ReplyDeleteMy name is Aparna Ganapathi Basavapatna and my counterpart Siri Tantry and I are incredibly excited to meet you. As Honduras, we believe that He Jiankui's experiment, though having a good motive, was medically unethical. Honduras is plagued by the disease dengue, which is spread by mosquitoes. These female mosquitoes like sweeter blood, which is found in the blood types of O. Even though gene editing could be used on the population of Honduras for the greater good, by editing genes that carry the blood type O to make them carry the blood type A or B instead, we believe it is wrong. The reason is that since gene editing is a relatively new technology, and it is not regulated. We believe that it is not ethical adding permanent changes to the human gene pool and stake the lives of many people as Dr. Jiankui has done.
To end, we'll go by saying, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
We're incredibly excited to meet you all and looking forward to the weekend!