He Went To Prison for Gene-Editing Babies. Now He's Planning To Do It Again (wired.com) 27
He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who served three years in prison after creating the world's first gene-edited babies in 2018, is now preparing for another attempt at germline editing -- this time to prevent Alzheimer's disease. In an interview, He said he has established an independent lab in south Beijing and raised $7 million from private donors to fund research into introducing a protective genetic mutation found in Icelandic populations.
The three girls born from his original experiment are now in primary school and healthy, according to He. Since germline editing remains banned in China, He said he plans to conduct future human trials in South Africa and has already spoken with contacts there. He estimates he needs two more years to complete mouse and monkey studies before seeking regulatory approval abroad. He said his lab is developing techniques to make 12 simultaneous genetic edits in a single embryo, targeting genes associated with cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV, and other conditions. He is currently working on human cell lines and has not yet begun embryo experiments.
The three girls born from his original experiment are now in primary school and healthy, according to He. Since germline editing remains banned in China, He said he plans to conduct future human trials in South Africa and has already spoken with contacts there. He estimates he needs two more years to complete mouse and monkey studies before seeking regulatory approval abroad. He said his lab is developing techniques to make 12 simultaneous genetic edits in a single embryo, targeting genes associated with cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV, and other conditions. He is currently working on human cell lines and has not yet begun embryo experiments.
Prisons (Score:1)
Obviously prisons don't work for sick people - he should be locked up in a psycho ward.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Neither do impeachments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dystopia (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dystopia (Score:5, Insightful)
It's gonna happen, I'm just the messenger. Even if big nations ban it, small nations or private islands will pursue it because rich people want to tweak their babies and will bribe or buy governments to get it.
Khaaaan! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Khaaaan! (Score:4, Funny)
Khan: "But Kirk, I can give you real hair so you don't have to wear dead tribbles anymore!"
Re: (Score:2)
Khan will also have the captain's chair on the bridge reupholstered in fine, Corinthian leather.
Re: (Score:1)
Turns out there is no such thing as "Corinthian leather", it's a marketing gimmick made up by Chrysler.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"I read from a fine Corinthian script." Actually he got a free LeBaron from Chrysler and had high praise for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
He claimed such on a talk-show, but maybe it wasn't the LeBaron on second thought.
Re: (Score:1)
Come to the city of Rapture! (Score:5, Funny)
Come to the utopian city of Rapture [wikipedia.org]! Where the artist does not fear the censor, where the scientist is not be bound by petty morality, where the great are not be constrained by the small! Want to be stronger, faster, smarter? Plasmids are the key! Book your flight now, use the promotion code GATTACA [wikipedia.org] for a 10% discount!
Re: (Score:1)
He claims that (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised if they are. There are a lot of genetic repair and biological coping mechanisms that could be compensating for the chainsaw-approach that this guy takes. But, this guy's "I give you my word" is NOT to be trusted. And his next plan is just as hare-brained. We barely have a clue about the underlying mechanisms of Alzheimer's. Even if he succeeds, we wouldn't even know it until the babies grow into old age. Given the rate at which biological sciences are advancing nowadays, Alzheimers will probably be completely treatable by then.
I'm not anti-science. I'm all for CRISPR research in both animals and humans. There are a lot of people with genetic issues that are going to end their lives miserably and early. For a lot of people in this situation, taking some risks with CRISPR treatments is totally justified, for the sake of the patient, and they can make the choice themselves. Any useful science that we get out of it is just a big bonus.
There are a million promising research areas using CRISPR that we should be pursuing, that don't involve shotgun-germline-editing-of-human-babies, complete with an Aliens-style darkened lab filled with lines of illuminated fluid-filled tubes containing preserved failed human hybrid experiments. I suspect this guy's brain is miswired somehow.
Getting rid of Alzherimer's is bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know people have a kneejerk reaction to gene editing (see all the Gattaca references), but wouldn't getting rid of this debilitating affliction be a good thing? Should we let the human population be afflicted with this?
If this guy would somehow find a way to edit out whatever it is that causes cancer, would people react the same way?
Re:Getting rid of Alzherimer's is bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe.
The classic case is Sickle Cell, which protects against Malaria.
Is eliminating Malaria a good thing? Not if it means giving everyone Sickle Cell Anemia.
Is Eliminating Sickle Cell Anemia a good thing? Not if it means wide spread Malaria epidemics.
As a pro-technologist I'm all for having the option to edit genes, but it's something that needs to be studied over generations to determine "goodness".
Re: (Score:1)
IINM, sickle-shaped blood- cells mean you have a copy of the immunity gene from both parents. While it gives one protection from malaria, it also has nasty side-effects. The ideal is to have just one copy of the gene so one doesn't have those side-effects but still has malaria protection. Gene editing can remove one of the pair.
Re:Getting rid of Alzherimer's is bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "somehow" ... If a leading cancer scientist murders his wife because he didn't like the way she cooked his dinner, should they be put in jail? What if that scientist had gone on to cure cancer? Nobody on slashdot argued to let Hans Reiser off because he made a file system they liked. You can't justify a Dr. Mengele evading justice based on the outcome of their work, there must be consequences in society for people with callous disregard for human life even if there's a short term penalty.
Note: unlike most of the luddites here though, I believe CRISPR can be considered pretty safe and the genes being targeted are worthy of it.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to point out. Regarding his previous attempt -- the edit didn't work perfectly. It's likely in my opinion that although the two kids will have a reduced risk of getting HIV/AIDS .. they may still be susceptible but less than before.
CRISPR has advanced a bit since then, so he should be better able to make the exactly needed edits today.
Re: (Score:1)
wouldn't getting rid of this debilitating affliction be a good thing?
Not necessarily. Making genetic decisions on individual level is highly dangerous and could easily lead to extinction. For example, a genetic modification that would make one immune to most diseases or greatly prolong lifespan at the significant penalty to fertility would be a good choice individually but may lead to depopulation and extinction.