ethics A Chinese scientist is now under fire from the scientific community (even from his own colleagues) for claiming to create CRISPR-edited infants

[straight_stewie]

I really wanted his name to be Soong. 

[Sauron]

If his procedure works reliably that's probably a good thing - but he definitely shouldn't have played with the lives of newborn children before knowing that. This also raises the question: were these the first children he tested this on, or are they the first who survived...?

 

Also, Gattaca anyone...? Does this mean the babies must be conceived in a laboratory for this to work?

[cj09beira]

i dont like how we do these genetic changes, as the side effects can take decades to show themselves, and they are not that patient we endup with only partially tested changes, which if we are not careful could have some serious consequences down the line

[captain_to_fire]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

If his procedure works reliably that's probably a good thing

Not exactly and could cause some harm. Changing the CCR5 receptor to the mutated CCR5-δ32 can make an individual more susceptible to West Nile virus. 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

This also raises the question: were these the first children he tested this on, or are they the first who survived...?

Which is why I think there's a chance that it's a fraud. 

[Sauron]

17 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Not exactly and could cause some harm. Changing the CCR5 receptor to the mutated CCR5-δ32 can make an individual more susceptible to West Nile virus.

Well, in that case I'd classify it as "not working"

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

If his procedure works reliably that's probably a good thing - but he definitely shouldn't have played with the lives of newborn children before knowing that. This also raises the question: were these the first children he tested this on, or are they the first who survived...?

 

Also, Gattaca anyone...? Does this mean the babies must be conceived in a laboratory for this to work?

The issue is there's no way of knowing the answer to these (or indeed any other) questions without risking the lives of humans in a testing scenario and human testing is outright banned everywhere (unless you're testing on yourself).

 

I can see the positive in this from the scientific perspective, assuming this is confirmed they now have 2 subjects they can study long term which will undoubtedly provide us with great knowledge however as he choose to alter both children there still can be no comparitive data collected so anything we can learn will be subject to restrictions anyway.

 

Unfortunately him doing this risks the entire genre of genetic engineering being shut down entirely. CRISPR had so many possibilities and thanks to the actions of one man all that might now be for nothing.

 

He's nothing but a glory hunter, he didn't do this to help science, he did this to become the known as the first.

[Teddy07]

22 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

well this is deeply unsetteling and i hope its a hoax

Why?

Your attitude is like in the old days when they said "cars?" We have horses. It is the future but some people won't accept it. 

Sure it might be illegal in the west because they ride on their high horses but it doesn´t matter because you can simply move to countries like China and let the procedure be done there.

[williamcll]

We transhumanism now

[Bananasplit_00]

3 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

Why?

Your attitude is like in the old days when they said "cars?" We have horses. It is the future but some people won't accept it. 

Sure it might be illegal in the west because they ride on their high horses but it doesn´t matter because you can simply move to countries like China and let the procedure be done there.

what part of the word unethical is lost on you?

[Teddy07]

26 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

what part of the word unethical is lost on you?

what part of the word why is lost on you? LOL

 

I see nothing unethical there.

[Master Disaster]

28 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

what part of the word why is lost on you? LOL

 

I see nothing unethical there.

Ethics/ˈɛθɪks/
noun

1) Moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

 

Moral/ˈmɒr(ə)l/
adjective

1) Concernedwith the principles of right and wrong behaviour.
2) Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.

 

Human testing is outright banned (even in China I think). If you see nothing unethical about his actions then why have his colleagues and his place of work all come out and condemned his actions?

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Human testing is outright banned

Isnt it legal? Afaik im needs to go a lot of test phases before it can even be considered to be tested on humans. 

 

This though is just way out of line. Its no ethical to use humans to experiment using what is pretty much bleeding edge.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

The issue is there's no way of knowing the answer to these (or indeed any other) questions without risking the lives of humans in a testing scenario and human testing is outright banned everywhere (unless you're testing on yourself).

It's not true that human testing is banned - it's only banned if you can't be reasonably sure there won't be horrible consequences. All medications must be tested on humans at some point, but usually the scientists don't just go and do it and inform everyone else after the fact.

 

I would also argue trying to cure AIDS this way is probably not a great idea - the edit would need to happen long before the child has a chance to be infected with HIV and it seems like the child would have to be conceived in a lab, which means most people wouldn't have a chance to get it, especially in poor countries. Also, wouldn't such an "edited" person still be able to contract and spread the virus despite being (maybe) immune to the nasty effects? I can maybe see human gene editing being useful to cure genetic diseases in fetuses that are known to be affected, but this...?

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

Why?

Your attitude is like in the old days when they said "cars?" We have horses. It is the future but some people won't accept it.

Your attitude is like that of a guy splicing dinosaurs with frogs to make an amusement park.

 

Having the ability to do something that was previously impossible doesn't automatically give you the right to do it.

[Bananasplit_00]

36 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

what part of the word why is lost on you? LOL

 

I see nothing unethical there.

yes, genetically edeting with unknown effects on unborn children isnt unethical... right, not like thats shunned by pretty much the entire scientific comunity because its outright wrong according to almost everyone.

 

we dont know what else could have been impacted by the editing, we know what was suposedly edited in and that some people have that part, but we dont know what other effects edeting that in with CRISPR could have.

[Master Disaster]

12 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Isnt it legal? Afaik im needs to go a lot of test phases before it can even be considered to be tested on humans. 

 

This though is just way out of line. Its no ethical to use humans to experiment using what is pretty much bleeding edge.

Afaik it's banned outright everywhere unless its performed with the relevant authorities permission and under very strict scientific conditions. I think fairly recently scientists in the USA were granted permission to perform some very basic human CRISPR testing. Now obviously theres nothing to say he didn't have authority from the Chinese government to do this but that doesn't make the experiment right.

 

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It's not true that human testing is banned - it's only banned if you can't be reasonably sure there won't be horrible consequences. All medications must be tested on humans at some point, but usually the scientist don't just go and do it and inform everyone else after the fact.

 

I would also argue trying to cure AIDS this way is probably not a great idea - the edit would need to happen long before the child has a chance to be infected with HIV and it seems like the child would have to be conceived in a lab, which means most people wouldn't have a chance to get it, especially in poor countries. Also, wouldn't such an "edited" person still be able to contract and spread the virus despite being (maybe) immune to the nasty effects? I can maybe see human gene editing being useful to cure genetic diseases in fetuses that are known to be affected, but this...?

Your attitude is like that of a guy splicing dinosaurs with frogs to make an amusement park.

 

Having the ability to do something that was previously impossible doesn't automatically give you the right to do it.

Yeah see above, I understand there are exceptions and permission for human testing can be granted under strict conditions but in general you're not allowed to test on humans.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

I think there's some seriously steep staircases to actually go to human trials in proper cases

As it should be

6 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

what's different about this case is growing the human instead of testing on an existing human, so... (kinda surprised no one has done the meta on the standards to meet before starting on "creation" lab tests ._. maybe we need more blade runner movies)

There already is a movie that hits a lot closer to home in this case:

 

It's literally about a guy being born the "classic" way in a world where everyone is engineered in a lab.

[crystal6tak]

Hoax or not, I'm glad this situation happened. I don't know what the current guidelines are for genetically editing embryos. But if it's mostly negative where fundings are rejected and ethical committee approval are likely rejections, then I applaud this man for stepping up and pushing us forward. Even if his experiment is dubious, it'll have caused a stir into possibly changing our minds on our approach to genetically editing embryos. (For better or for worse). If the experiment is a success though, hot damn this man is doing god's work! (Literally!)

[WkdPaul]

22 hours ago, ElfenSky said:

Because historically more regulations results in less freedom, even when they are made with the best of intentions, would be my assumption. People in general don't like the government interfering with their (personal) lives/decisions. Mind you, in this case I'm for stricter testing and regulations of this tech. Like you said, the black market implications of it are horrible.

There's a difference between regulating things that relates people's freedoms (like firearms or freedom of speech) and regulating companies (pollution (see Koch Ind. river pollution), or false advertisement (see Kellogg's false claims about Mini-Wheat and Rice Krispies), or in this case, potentially dangerous medical procedures (or any medical procedure really, someone pretending to be a doctor, or giving medical advice could get in lots of trouble in most countries around the world).

 

In this case, regulation make sense and should be enforced without any doubts, it isn't about people's freedom but rather to try to keep everyone safe.

 

And BTW, I haven't read the whole article, but my wife (who is Chinese) told me that apparently the Chinese government isn't happy about this at all ... not sure if the death sentence is waiting for him but he's in lots of trouble for sure!

[captain_to_fire]

26 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Isnt it legal? Afaik im needs to go a lot of test phases before it can even be considered to be tested on humans. 

 

This though is just way out of line. Its no ethical to use humans to experiment using what is pretty much bleeding edge.

I think you’re confusing outright human embryo gene editing which is not regulated at all with the typical drug clinical trials especially stages 3 and 4 which involves human subjects and approval can take up to 15 years  and is heavily regulated by many countries including the US.  https://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/default.htm

 

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I would also argue trying to cure AIDS this way is probably not a great idea - the edit would need to happen long before the child has a chance to be infected with HIV

There are two ways to cure HIV in theory using CRISPR:

• Inducing a CCR5-δ32 mutation to a human embryo so that the virus can no longer infect CD4+ cells. (The controversial one)
• Using CRISPR-Cas9 to specifically delete the HIV genome inside infected CD4+ cells or inserting the Cas9 enzyme to non-infected CD4+ cells so that it can protect itself when the HIV invades. This one is more ethical and the likes of US actually has funded research about this. 

I’m actually in favor of using gene editing techniques like CRISPR in the quest for curing HIV/AIDS because current drug therapy while greatly prolongs the lives of HIV positive individuals, it is expensive and has unwanted side effects and it’s not a cure, Only that Jiankui He ruined it by making absurd claims. 

 

[RejZoR]

The main problem is that such engineered people might be our demise if things are not controlled. Because frankly, I don't think we know about genetics enough to be doing "tests" in the wild. Sure there can be benefits, but we're not there yet quite frankly.

[Sauron]

48 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Using CRISPR-Cas9 to specifically delete the HIV genome inside infected CD4+ cells or inserting the Cas9 enzyme to non-infected CD4+ cells so that it can protect itself when the HIV invades. This one is more ethical and the likes of US actually has funded research about this.

Well, this would make a lot more sense...

[Guest]

The main problem with CRISPR-Cas9 is that it is highly specific so although you can edit or remove genes quite easily, it is extremely difficult to target many cells, hence the need for the procedure at an embryonic stage. CCR5 is a receptor in WBCs that allow them to reach the site of inflammation, but more importantly is the receptor used by HIV to gain access to the cell to inject their genome. By even having a small mutation in the gene, presumably as a result of the bubonic plague, this has adapted the recognition site so the HIV cannot bind to the receptor and hence cannot gain access to the cell. IMO this won't be a huge leap forward in terms of scientific discovery - its easy peasy, but in terms of ethical considerations it is something me must discuss. Is it ethical to treat individuals for HIV before they are born? Should we have this amenable too many other curable diseases through genetics, such as breast and lung cancer metastasis through ARF6? The main issue is that its pretty hard to ask someone if they would like to be treated if they are floating around in a test tube. 

 

But remember CRISPR/Cas9 is extremely accurate, and more prominently allows for editing of cassettes, not just removal as in other tools (RNAi etc). A little simplified blurb I wrote a while ago: 

Quote

 

"CRISPR gene editing makes use of the CRISPR-Cas systems already naturally occuring in bacteria. Natural CRISPR systems input foreign DNA sequences into “CRISPR” arrays. These arrays produce crRNAs with protospacer regions, that complement the foreign DNA sites. The crRNAs then hybridise to form tracrRNAs, which are encoded by the same system. crRNA and tracrRNA will associate with the Cas9 nuclease. The crRNA-tracrRNA:Cas9 complex recognise the same foreign DNA that bear the protospacer sequence and cleave it from the bacterium’s genome so the foreign DNA will never transcribe. An engineered variant of this process makes use of a fusion between the crRNA and tracrRNA sequence. The fusion, known as gRNA, will associate with Cas9 to mediate cleavage of a target DNA site that are complementary to the 5’ 20nt of the gRNA and are next to the PAM sequence.

 

CRISPR can also be used however to alter gene sequence or expression, rather than simply cleaving the gene (Or inhibiting as in RNAi). A Cas9 nuclease can create double-strand breaks at DNA target sites using gRNA to direct the Cas9 nuclease. Cas9 contains RucV and and HNH nuclease domains. A Cas9 nickase is created by mutation of the RucV nuclease domain with a D10A mutation (Introduced in the CRISPR editing process). The nickase cleaves the DNA strand that is complementary go the gRNA molecule. Another Cas9 mutation is created by the mutation of the HNH nuclease domain, with a H840A mutation. This new nickase will cleave DNA that does not interact with the gRNA. You can use a paired nickase strategy to improve Cas9 specificity using two D10A Cas9 nickases, which are directed by two appropriately orientated gRNA molecules. This directs to the induction of two nickases that when both introduced together will generate a 5’ overhang and reduce the expression of the target gene. "

 

So essentially you use the nickases to target the gene location and induce a 5' overhang, which will induce homologous recombination to incorporate the gRNA. I think, it's been a while. If I'm wrong please let me know. 

[corrado33]

Deus EX HERE WE FREAKING COME.

[Falkentyne]

More like, genetically engineered supermen, here we come!

 

 

[yolosnail]

Either this is a hoax or the scientist is incredibly stupid.

 

It would have been in his best interest to keep it quiet, and secretly try and infect them with HIV, that way he can know if it has worked or not. That way if it didn't work, they were 'accidentally' infected at the hospital and if it does work, they wouldn't know, at which point he could go through the proper regulatory channels.

 

At least that's what I would have done.