Chinese Scientist Visa Brings Gene Editing Ethics Back Into the Spotlight
Do you support or oppose gene editing?
What’s the story?
- Hong Kong revoked the visa of a controversial gene therapy scientist, He Jiankui, less than a day after it was granted.
- The visa, originally granted under Hong Kong’s new talent scheme to attract professionals to the city, was revoked because the Chinese scientist lied about his criminal record.
- In 2018, He Jiankui edited the genes of twin girls to be HIV-resistant. He was found guilty of violating Chinese regulations on scientific research and practicing medicine without a license and sentenced to three years in prison and a 3 million yuan ($US 432,000) fine.
- The news drew global attention to the ethics of gene editing, a form of genetic engineering that can result in beneficial and harmful heritable changes spanning multiple generations.
Opportunities for gene editing
- Certain gene editing technologies show promise in preventing and treating hereditary diseases such as Huntington's disease, cancer, muscular dystrophy, and cystic fibrosis.
- One modern gene editing tool, CRISPR, shows potential in cancer research and treatment. It cuts DNA at precise locations, which is then repaired by natural DNA repair mechanisms, resulting in a permanent change in the sequence. The technology’s pioneers, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020.
- In an interview with Nobel Prize Conversations, Emmanuelle said:
“One should not underestimate the fact that CRISPR-Cas9, even though it is a wonderful tool, it would be extremely difficult to get the technology to modify more than one gene at a time. So I think, let’s say, indeed unfortunately we may see unfortunate and really unwanted experiments.”
Arguments against gene editing
- Researchers found that 80% of Americans oppose using reproductive technology for non-health reasons.
- While gene editing holds an opportunity for improving human health, there are concerns that a select few bad actors could exploit it. Some fear that privileged individuals seeking greater reproductive control would take advantage of the technology, leading to the creation of genetically modified humans, colloquially referred to as "designer babies."
- Many Americans worry that gene editing will reduce human diversity and increase social inequality. Others question the ethics of human germline editing, as future generations would inherit any changes.
- Feng Zhang, a neuroscientist who helped pioneer CRISPR, told the Belfer Center at Harvard Kennedy School:
“Society needs to figure out if we all want to do this, if this is good for society, and that takes time. If we do, we need to have guidelines first so that the people who do this work can proceed in a responsible way, with the right oversight and quality controls.”
- On the future impact of gene editing on society, technologist Bruce McCabe said:
“Germline engineering and gene editing will wreak havoc on a localized level, impacting hundreds of children at times. But it will not lead to the emergence of a super species, or transhumanism. People will see germline engineering coming into conflict with our survival as a species, and it won’t be pretty."
Do you support or oppose gene editing?
- Laura Woods
(Photo Credit: iStock/Natali_Mis)
The Latest
-
Feds Claim Civil Rights Violation on Waste System in Black CommunityWhat's the story? Lowndes County, Alabama, a majority Black community, has long been relying on outdated pipes to pump human read more... Environment -
Biden Admin Seeks to Change Misleading Recycling LogoWhat's the story? The familiar recycling logo, with its triangular chasing arrows, has been a universal symbol for five decades. read more... Environment -
AI's Risk to Democracy - TrackerGenerative AI poses a significant risk to democracy. One that we need to address rapidly before significant harm is done. Most read more... Artificial Intelligence -
Countries Are Banning Vapes - Should More Do the Same?What’s the story? Countries worldwide are introducing legislation to ban or restrict vapes due to concerns over their popularity read more... Food & Agriculture
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
The risks of unintended consequences from edited genes is the greatest worrry that I have. Once an edited gene is introduced to the human genome it can conceivably by propogated to future generations. How all of the genes interact is not fully understood and the 'junk space' of genes has been found to effect the life processes thought to be solely controlled by a few specific genes.
Gene editing should not solely be at the discretion of a single scientist or group without informed consent by a panel of knowledgeable scientist experts to minimize the potential of any long term impact.
The human genome has been tailored by hundreds of thousand years of evolution to become what it is, and if you go back to beginnings of life, the human genome has been tailored by hundreds of millions of years altogether. Mistakes take a long time to weed out by evolutionary processes.
Any treatments to cure debilitating genetic diseases need to be carefully monitored and fully assessed over long enough trial periods to assure that the genetic fix does not cause harm by side effects - such as curing that disease but introducing something worse in it's place.
I recall the issues with thalidomide which was widely administered to pregnant women, many of whom gave birth horribly deformed babies. The trials for the use of thalidomide always administered the drug at roughly the the same time of day, I believe it was in the morning. It turns out that thalidomide interacts differently with diurnal hormones and that those folks who took their medicine at different times of the day suffered the birth defects. An unintended consequence not fully appreciated becuase the trails were constrained.
Genetic editing treatments are divided into 2 types, treating existing diseases, and preventing inherited diseases. To date all clinical trials have been to treat existing diseases like cancer and none have been to treat inherited diseases which would require manipulating human embryos which involves many ethical issues.
Following existing regulatory regulations for clinical trials, and eventual treatment review & approvals should make sure genetic editing to treat existing diseases is not misused.
However, clinical trials for inherited diseases will require new regulatory frameworks due to the ethical issues in working with embryos. The only known experiment working with embryos was in China to create HIV resistance genetics but was heavily criticized around the world as it lack justification since HIV treatments exist. This type of genetic modification should be restricted to diseases with no known treatments.
“Since CRISPR-based genome editing was first demonstrated in 2013, there have been over a dozen clinical trials for CRISPR-enabled therapeutics, including treatments for blood disorders, cancers, and even childhood blindness “
"However, in 2018, before ethical questions around germline editing could make significant progress, He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China announced that he had used CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genomes of two human embryos. The edit he attempted to introduce was to break the human CCR5 gene, which encodes a protein used by HIV during infection. These embryos were implanted and carried to term, leading to the first babies born with heritable genome edits. The experiment was heavily criticized for its lack of transparency and its lack of clarity on whether the parents were properly informed of the risks. It was also criticized for its lack of justification given the existence of other safe and approved preventative measures for HIV, and given the lack of understanding of the risks of knocking out this gene."
https://sciencepolicyreview.org/2020/08/therapeutic-gene-editing-is-here/
My Grandfather had Huntington's, one of my aunt's, my Mother, my brother, my nephew inherited it. It is a bad thing to inherit it. It is so disabling. My Mother was a very healthy women, but lived twenty five years as a vegetable. My brother, my aunt, my nephew did not live near that long along with my Grandfather. It is sad we have scientists who venture out on their own, discrediting scientists who are working towards ending disabilities diseases. And the public only sees those clowns who were doing this for profit.
China is now embracing MRNA because the standard way of make vaccines is not working
It does not matter whether you support gene editing or not. It's being done. And it will continue to be done here and all around the world.
All we can do is to make these researchers act as safely and responsibly as possible.
Let God do what he does
"Do you support or oppose gene editing?" This question needs a 'maybe' response. Gene editing can have some wonderful benefits, as in the case of sickle cell disease. But it is undoubted that someone will break the ethical barrier to genetically engineer humans for non-disease purposes. Once that is done, there is no turning back. So that much be prevented.
Support for researching exsisting diseases only, provided it is done safely.
While I understand the concern that the elite will 'clone' the good genes, Indomfeel there may be something of value to eliminate the genes that are hereditary and debilitating.
I believe there should be guidelines as not to create a world of only upper elite or trophy babies.
New science....
Like stem cell research, the people opposed don't fully understand it.
We have no business messing with what the DIVINE created. The only exception would be to improve the health problems that exist. But that in itself can cause a lot of problems since each and everyone of us has similar yet different body chemistry and reactions to medications. We need to learn to deal with what life hands us even if we don't like it. Think of it as a "learning tool" to improve your own existance. And the government doesn't even have to pay for it. I refer to it as learning from life experiences, wins, and losses. We are supposed to learn from mistakes and improve ourselves. But that take guts, or courage if your prefer. Life will continue on with or without us.
I support limited gene editing, but not widespread use yet. The young woman in the US who has had her sickle-cell seemingly cured from gene editing gives me hope, and I think more test patients like her should be pursued and monitored for safety and effectiveness.
However, the dangerous experiments that a Chinese scientist conducted on babies a few years ago are too much, and we're not ready for that yet.
I see lots of promise on this technology, but let's keep experimenting slowly until we're sure it's safe for all.
Generally support, but with restrictions for unethical usage.
If we can edit out diseases.
I support RESEARCH into gene editing, with actual application to human beings prohibited for now.
Just because we know HOW doesn't mean we should DO IT! Whether you believe in God or not, that doesn't give us the right to play at creation!