World’s First Gene-edited Babies? Premature, Dangerous and Irresponsible
26 Nov 2018 – A scientist in China claims to have produced the world’s first genome-edited babies by altering their DNA to increase their resistance to HIV. Aside from the lack of verifiable evidence for this non peer-reviewed claim, this research is premature, dangerous and irresponsible.
He Jiankui from the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen (which has reportedly since suspended him) said he edited the DNA of seven embryos being used for fertility treatment, so far resulting in the birth of one set of twin girls. He says he used the tool known as CRISPR to delete the embryos’ CCR5 gene (C-C motif chemokine receptor 5), mutations in which are linked to resistance to HIV infection.
If true, this is a significant advance in genetic science, but there are some very serious problems with this news. First, the research has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal so we cannot be sure of the exact details of what has been done. Instead, the scientist made the claims to the Associated Press news organisation, and the journalists involved haven’t been able to independently verify them. The parents of the allegedly gene-edited babies declined to be interviewed or identified.
Second, we know there can be significant problems with using existing gene-editing technology on human embryos. The main two issues are mosaicism, where the edited DNA does not appear in every cell of the embryo, and off-target effects, where other parts of the genome may also have been edited with unknown consequences.
Before genome editing becomes a clinical treatment, it is essential that scientists resolve both of these issues and eliminate other potential adverse effects on the embryo. We need comprehensive studies to show that genome editing is not going to cause harm to the future people it helps create. Any children born as a result of genome editing will also need long-term follow up. It would be vital to see the preliminary work that He has done to confirm that his technique has eliminated mosaicism and off-target effects, and it is surprising that he has not published this.
There is also a question over why gene-editing was used to tackle the particular issue of HIV transmission in this case. The reports suggest that the couples involved in the study were made up of HIV-positive men who had the infection under control and HIV-negative women. The risk of transmission of HIV for these couples would have been negligible, and there are well-established ways to prevent HIV transmission to the offspring of HIV-positive couples.
Finally, there is the wider ethical debate, which the scientist in this case has chosen to ignore. I was a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics working group. We spent 20 months examining all aspects of genome editing and published our report this summer. Our conclusion was that we needed a public debate before gene editing on embryos was carried out because this procedure takes reproduction to a new level.
Do we really need gene editing?
Most reports suggest that the potential main use of genome editing would be therapeutic genome editing to prevent the transmission of genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. In most cases, couples at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their children are able to prevent transmission using established techniques of screening before birth or even before an embryo is implanted via IVF. So perhaps editing embryos for therapeutic reasons is not the way forward.
But genome editing could also more controversially used for genetic enhancements, such as ensuring children have a particular desirable characteristic such as a certain eye colour. This raises even more ethical questions.
We also need legislation. In the UK, for example, the use of genome editing would be regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and would currently be illegal. Before this technique becomes a treatment, governments need to pass laws that will control and regulate it otherwise it could easily be misused.
With all this in mind, any research in this area needs to be peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature, with all the necessary preliminary work, so that we can make a valued analysis of the technique. In bypassing this process, He has made our job much harder.
Joyce Harper – Professor of Reproductive Science, UCL
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons license.
DISCLAIMER: In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
ASIA & THE PACIFIC:
- Young Woman Dies in Fourth ‘Period Hut’ Tragedy This Year in Nepal
- Hawaiian Annexation
- It’s Time to Trust the Taliban
- Disaster Capitalism in Brazil: Mining Greed Produces a Horrific Death Toll
- Brazil Dissolves Its Ministry of Culture
- CNN Brazil Will Have an Evangelical Pastor, Billionaire Edir Macedo from IURD, as CEO
ORGANIC, GMO, GENETIC ENGINEERING:
- French Court Cancels Monsanto Weedkiller Permit on Safety Grounds
- Opening Pandora’s Box: Gene Editing and Its Consequences
- China’s “Golem Babies”: There Is another Agenda