Chinese Scientists Claim To Have Genetically Modified Human Embryos

Annanag writes: There were rumours — but now it's been confirmed. Chinese scientists have attempted the ethically questionable feat of genetically modifying human embryos. The scientists try to head off ethical concerns by using 'non-viable' embryos, which cannot result in a live birth, obtained from local fertility clinics. The study is a landmark — but also a cautionary tale.

Comments

Cautionary Tale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a cautionary tale? What horrific outcome did they have that we are supposed to learn from?

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[Austerity Empowers]

We haven't even established the "ethically questionable" part. Sounds like more neo-ludditism by people who are afraid of science or progress. We should all be born crippled by billions of years of evolutionary baggage as God intended, I guess.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[NotInHere]

This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why. Because copyright (or patents) (or even (worst of all) trade secrets) on human DNA is the worst thing that can happen to our human society. We don't want only the well born to have better genes. But of course this won't happen. There will be a strong gene copyright lobby, and it will demand DNA to be copyrightable, to make research pay off.

Also, we should think of the possible pressure future parents may be in, in giving their children the best genes. Perhaps one day (rather sooner than later) we can change genes of living humans, too, e.g. with viruses, and then at least you can revide your parent's choices about your body.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[zlives]

we can't get people to immunize their kids.... good luck!!

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[tlambert]

Why is this a cautionary tale? What horrific outcome did they have that we are supposed to learn from?

They were "horribly" able to cure B-thalassemia in 51.8% of the embryos.

We should "learn not to do this type of thing" from the post-testing not having a 100% success rate.

You know, instead of just not implanting the other 48.2% of embryos that were not successfully modified to not have the disease.

Not that they planned on implanting them anyway.

PS: I know in vitro clinic which would be screaming the "Happy, happy, Joy, joy!" song at the top of their lungs for a 51.8% pre-screening success rate on just not implanting embryos that carried the gene for Huntington's or Downs Syndrome, let alone *fixing* the damn thing.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Luckily this is in China where they are forward thinking.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[garyisabusyguy]

We can only hope to bring Christianity to China to slow them down somewhat before we are a thousand years behind them, again

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[garyisabusyguy]

Yes, think about the horrendous outcomes of Gattaca: High IQ's, no genetic illnesses, long lives... and small penises

OH THE HORROR!

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[SpaceCommander]

Completely agree. I see a lot of problems selective genetics solves in the long term. I don't think we're close to a Gatacca-like future at this point, but even if we are, and I say this as a lefty, who cares? We've solved a lot of problems and probably saved a ton in long-term health care, and increased the average IQ of the population while we were at it.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[Jack9]

The takeaway is that sooner or later, there is going to be widespread genetic modification. Many of us have known this for a very long time, some suspected, some hoped it will not happen. It will, just like we will have autonomous robots doing all manner of things, one day (all vehicles, maybe in my lifetime).

> This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why

The impetus is not to hope a pharma company will disclose information, but to start baking in the expectation in all strata of society as a normal process. Politics, capitalist endeavors, technology, and copyright is BAD for our future society. To put it simply, a struggle against the secret vs the open is BAD for society. Tuskeegee, concentration camps, and other horrifics were only possible because it's still accepted that 'state secrets' or even "personal liberty" is tied to exposed information, as if there is an invisible-acceptable moral line. You have to get people willing to listen and accept the opposite of what the US (and to an extent) European citizens' expectation of privacy allow. Would I like my home address available for anyone? Of course not. Mostly because there aren't enough protections/retributions and society EXPECTS you to be punished for having that information exposed. What we want has to change. That level of openness is something humanity needs to build toward, if we want to secure against potential abuses. Props to eu for making strides. The method of sticking our head in the sand, only to look up when there's a rumbling, will never be effective and will continue to be abused by those who understand it (we'll just spin the story).

I don't know how to get there, but we will or we will die from someone making a big enough mistake with genetics. I'll probably be long dead, but it bothers me to have such certainty about these issues and so frustrated when there's a suggestion that more forced oversight will satisfy.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[cyn1c77]

Why is this a cautionary tale? What horrific outcome did they have that we are supposed to learn from?

Well, if you read the article (I know, I know... reading them is overrated), you would have read that they were trying to modify a gene that can mutate to cause a disease. Of the 71 of 86 embryos that survived their tinkering, 54 were tested to reveal that only 28 were successfully spliced and only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. As a bonus failure, they induced a number of mutations elsewhere in the genes.

They concluded that it was a colossal failure that would result in a seriously messed up offspring and that technology is not ready for that application yet. (No consideration of if just THEIR technique was poor.) With the appropriate spin (do not try this at home), they were able to get their results published in a high citation journal.

I, for one, welcome our new genetically modified Chinese overlords.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[Stuarticus]

Sorry, as someone who is incapable of capitalising properly you have been selected for the B pool of humanity. Please report immediately for genetic remodelling.

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[michelcolman]

Stupid people tend to have a lot more kids than smart people.

Fortunately that doesn't appear to be true. Sure, quite a few geniuses with a 150 IQ have trouble finding a mate, but there are just as many people (by definition) with an IQ of only 50. How likely are they to find someone and have kids?

Closer to the average, higher intelligence definitely makes people more attractive, not less. Girls don't want to marry someone who's dumb if they can get a smarter partner. I remember reading a study demonstrating a positive correlation between IQ and procreation, but it was a few years ago and I can't find the link. Anyway, it seems to make sense, notwithstanding trailer trash with dozens of kids and business women running out of time to start a family. Apparently we're still doing OK on average.

There are plenty of other areas, especially health-related, where our genome is slowly degenerating for lack of selection since we can fix so many defects with medical procedures (or simply don't need high quality senses anymore to survive), but fortunately the evolution of intelligence appears to still be going in the right direction.

For all those other qualities that are degenerating, we'll need some kind of genetic manipulation or selection at some point, but we'll be OK for quite a while before it really becomes a problem, and by then we will have gotten over our ethical objections (apparently the Chinese are well on the way).

Re:Cautionary Tale?

[binarstu]

Just to clarify, there is no "gene for ... Downs Syndrome". Down syndrome is caused by a partial or complete extra (i.e., third) copy of chromosome 21. Thus, it is caused by a failure of meiosis during gamete development, not by a particular allele of any one gene or group of genes.

Sad state of research in the West

[guruevi]

We've been hindered by what is basically a cult ideology about unborn life that we cannot do experiments like this (legally) in the west. Now China, India and countries that do not have these religious groups hindering progress are making advances in all sorts of science. It is legal to experiment on creatures that are 98% similar to us, the embryos are practically indistinguishable from ours.

You thought cheap labor was scary...

[Tablizer]

Now we gotta compete with 1 billion people having IQ's of 300 and people skills.

Andromeda was the cautionary tale

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we can make our own sub-species of Nietzschean. Man won't that be great!

We design our hardware, why not wetware?

[sinij]

Evolution got us this far, but to go further we will have to take it into our hands. We need to become smarter, live longer, and be more rational. It will take forever and a day to get there natural way. By then all resources will be gone and we will forever be stuck on this rock.

Re:We design our hardware, why not wetware?

[Anonymous Coward]

You focus on the wrong word. Go back one more. Suck on *this* rock. Singular, specific. Mars is a second point of existence, where a catastrophic event would need to be several magnitudes larger (Sol going nova, for example), rather than just nuclear holocaust, to wipe out humans. Move beyond the solar system, and we would have more chance of surviving what nature throws at us, and what we throw at each other.

Re:We design our hardware, why not wetware?

[deviated_prevert]

You focus on the wrong word. Go back one more. Suck on *this* rock. Singular, specific. Mars is a second point of existence, where a catastrophic event would need to be several magnitudes larger (Sol going nova, for example), rather than just nuclear holocaust, to wipe out humans. Move beyond the solar system, and we would have more chance of surviving what nature throws at us, and what we throw at each other.

Well put, if I had mod points you would get em! Rather than expounding and expanding upon the theme, but what the heck here goes my karma...

One thing that always struck me as sickening was the implications of a ban on nuclear testing in outer space. If one considers the potential for extra atmospheric atomic power, testing nuclear technology in space is essential. The vacuum of space is the only safe place to constructively explode or experiment with dangerous fissile radioactive materials. Cooling reactions is not a problem neither is super-heating things without causing atmospheric pollution problems. Therefore the technology of metallurgy could advance as rapidly as our computer tech has, so could propulsion tech!

Notice there is no ban on the use of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere or where ever on planet earth during war currently proposed and supported by any of the club of nations that posses nuclear technology. Unless we get to this point of cooperation as a species and we develop as a species in a cooperative way we will never become what we were put here to be. Somehow we cannot simply come to understand the only reason why we kill each other in war has always been caused by primitive tribalism and the fight for resources, religion and social politics are just convenient excuses for the truth about wars.

The human body will need to evolve very quickly to adapt to space in fact we could become a low gravity entity. FOR all those who are scared of these assumptions, consider this question. If we have a brain and all these things are indeed possible then why do we doom ourselves to extinction by not cooperating and rapidly evolving beyond this planet! If all we do with genetics is consume the resources and over populate the planet then indeed we are doomed as a species. Our destiny is to replace ourselves with a species that does not rely upon resources that are not sustainable long term

Here is a link to a picture of a proposed prototype replacement humans

While we've been busy distracting ourselves...

[kyubre]

While we've been busy distracting ourselves with purely ideological debate that can neither demonstrate a definitive start nor end of human life, the Chinese have been busy figuring out how to make that life "better" (for various definitions of better). I've yet to hear a single argument that can define life beginning at conception, whose logic can also be applied to define the end of life.

Re:While we've been busy distracting ourselves...

[tnk1]

Actually considering ethics in science isn't what I'd call a waste of time. If we'd done that more in the past, we might not have walked into some of the shit we have to worry about today.

And as for the start of life argument, I don't see what conception has to do with death. I presume you're talking about the issue of determining if someone is really "dead" who is in a vegetative state and how that's the same as being a non-thinking bunch of cells.

It's actually not really all that difficult to separate the cases. We are all a "Ship of Theseus". A human isn't a single three dimensional object or set of objects, defined by immutable characteristics, a human is a process. We have a beginning, middle, and end. In that process we look different and are probably composed of significantly different matter, but we are still a "human" if we proceed from beginning to end as a human. When that process terminates beyond our the ability to restart it, then that human is dead.

As a human if you're irreversibly brain dead at any point after the development of an actual brain, you're not going to turn back the process. Not only that, but your brain needs to continue to operate for your fully-differentiated body to survive. You cannot go back to being able to live without the organs you have developed.

An embryo may not yet have a brain, or differentiated organs yet, but unlike a brain-dead individual, it can continue the process or living normally, if allowed to continue to develop. The fact that an embryonic form of a human needs to depend on the internal environment of a mother at that point is no more unusual or special than the fact that we need to live in an oxygen-rich atmosphere that protects us from radiation and other hazards of deep space. We are just in a form that requires that sort of environment to live in until we can transition out of it.

We remain an individual human process proceeding normally though our "execution". Humans may look like the inputs and the outputs, but what we really are is the running instance of a program that manipulates our environment. Although that may have connotations of a "soul", the idea is nothing more than what we see running on our computers every day in another form and while it does not disallow this from being a "soul", it doesn't require that religious element to be involved for it to be real.

So, very simply if the process can no longer be maintained in a running state, then that person is well and truly dead. If that process proceeds down even what appears to be abnormal lines, but it is able to continue, they are "alive", albeit outside optimal parameters. No matter the stage of development, or the result, I'd argue you should consider such a process to be a living human and ethically treat them as a human.

It is important to state that "ethically treating someone as human" doesn't preclude ending that life in extreme cases, or making alterations, but it does require us to at least make that decision about a person as if they are a person, and not as an un-person or as a "thing". That is the key point. You can use or dispose of a "thing" almost at will. There is a higher standard for disposing of or making use of a "person". Historically, most cultures have tended to want to make this distinction, and for understandable reasons.

The concept of starting "life" at conception is simply the logical place that an individual human process begins. A human sperm or an egg will not become an individual human. Nor will the dead matter that used to be a human nor will that matter which is the castoff of the process of human life. When it ceases to continue to contribute to the process, it is no longer "human". Cut your arm off, that arm isn't a human because it can't maintain human life on its own apart from the rest of its body. An embryo, though many, many times smaller than an arm or even a fingernail, is fully capable of maintaining the normal processes of life as a human in that state.

In the context of t

So worried about Orwell we forgot about Huxley...

[Shadow of Eternity]

A brave new world indeed.

Ubermesch

[mjwx]

There's a better example in history.

Whenever a race or people feel themselves superior, they take action to try to ensure that becomes a reality. You cant engineer out the human ego.

Re:Dr. Julian Bashir

[tnk1]

I'm sorry did you actually mean:

KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!

Re:RTFA

[tlambert]

2. Not only did the splicing technique not work very often (28 / 86 embryos), but it also created lots of off-target mutations in other parts of the DNA. Both of these results were not expected.

Wrong. They only tested 54 of the embryo's afterward. 28/54 is a 51.8% success rate.

The off-target mutations in the remaining 26 embryos was not only expected, it was predicted about 16 years ago, when we first started experimenting with retroviral splicing vectors.

Re:I Don't See A Problem

[tnk1]

There is the "soul" debate and that does up the ante for many people.

Scientifically, however, a fertilized egg is the first point in the process where you have a new individual. That's a rather solid line to use, even if it is rather inconvenient for certain purposes. Of course, depending you your point of view, that may be a benefit of the line, not a problem.

A lot of ethical considerations stem from what you consider to be a "human". While you can set that point anywhere you want to, the problem is also that you can set that point anywhere you want to. With the ability to genetically engineer humans, it's far too convenient to state that they're not human until you're done altering their genome at the most obvious point of intervention.

It's the sort of loophole that can be very easily exploited to alter humans in any way you wish without hindrance. Trying to set anything but the strongest legal framework against this sort of behavior will likely fail because the ability to profit is considerable. You will always have your stereotypical mad scientist or perfectly rational "Chinese scientist" who simply does not accept your ethical position as persuasive.

Right now, under our current legal understanding of "personhood", widespread genetic modification of humans for any purpose whatsoever is entirely possible, and frankly, it's likely. The Chinese researchers here show that if something is possible to do, it is going to be made to happen, which should surprise no one. The only real question is, how do we deal with that reality and what does that mean for humanity? Genetic modification of humans can go either way, I just would not expect it to go without issues.

Re:So worried about Orwell we forgot about Huxley.

[the_humeister]

Huxley's world is great:
1) Sad? Take a pill and be happy again
2) Everyone's happy with their lot in life
3) Have sex with anyone you want
4) Along with #4, no worries about unwanted pregnancies

I don't see the problem.

Re:So worried about Orwell we forgot about Huxley.

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Be brain damaged from birth and programmed to clean my house, you filthy Epsilon.

Smart vs. stupid

[tlambert]

Stupid people tend to have a lot more kids than smart people. Citation: Idiocracy

If the smart people let the stupid people out-breed them into extinction, are they actually the smart ones?

Faux pride begat foolishness

[Taco Cowboy]

Better prepare to get down from yer high horse, son

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

The above happened in the Western countries, not China

Call them;

[Lost Penguin]

GMBro?

Re:Correction ...

[garyisabusyguy]

60+ years of propaganda are hard to turn on a dime

Not quite

[s.petry]

While I'm sure you can find some zealots who believe this way, the majority of people have a different perspective. There is a reason we wish to have the ethical discussions and rules laid out (which technically exist, but China ignored them). Here is a short (not complete) list of ethical concerns. The numbers don't indicate a priority, just separating them clearly.

1. If you can manipulate genes to make someone unhealthy "healthy", you also have the ability to go the opposite direction. How can we ensure that does not happen?

2. How do you prevent cookie cutter humans and have individuals vs. a template human worker bee who people in power want?

3. How do we prevent manipulations which would generate hybrids?

4. How do you price these procedures so that all levels of society have the same options? If it's only in the hands of the rich and powerful it will not benefit society, it will only benefit those people who are rich and powerful.

5. How do you audit what other people are doing with genetic manipulation?

6. How do you punish those that break the ethical Law? Who has jurisdiction? What are the penalties?

The strong insinuation that the only people questioning ethics are Luddites is extremely offensive and disingenuous. There are a good number of people who study history and remember the last time some guy wanted perfect humans. They want some regulation to ensure that a situation similar, or worse, situation does not occur again. Or at least have the framework attempting to prevent it.

Re:Not quite

[s.petry]

Scientists don't have to answer moral questions? So you can fuck a corpse of you are scientist, as long as you claim it's for science? I realize that my example is extreme, but your statement is at least as ludicrous. Scientists DO answer ethics questions, and they must abide by ethical codes. Dr. Kevorkian was put in jail because he failed to follow the ethics of his profession.

I really can't discuss anything further while you are out in fantasy land where scientists are allowed to do what ever, when ever, without considering ethics. Come back to earth! Start with the Hippocratic Oath, then find EBEM for starters, or read a bit on bioethics. There is a whole lot of ethics in treaties we have with other nations related to science, and no it's not just weapons.

All of your concerns are fears over what might happen

0 for 2, and trust me I just pulled out the big ones. These are things that HAVE happened. People want the ethical rules in place to prevent them from happening AGAIN.

Re:So worried about Orwell we forgot about Huxley.

[wasteoid]

That sounds pneumatic!

Re:No points for second place

[thesupraman]

Perfect!
Now, from what I can tell, the majority is China followed by India India. I would suspect both are pretty much good with this, and more.

Here is my bet.
In the good ole US of A, this will quietly/'secretly' be used to build beefier quarterbacks and taller execs.
In Asia this will be publicly used to treat congenital diseases.

The US will scream in horror at what Asia is doing.

Have a nice day.

Re:RTFA

[RDW]

Wrong. They only tested 54 of the embryo's afterward. 28/54 is a 51.8% success rate.

Only if you ignore the 15/86 = 17.4% of the original series that didn't survive the process.

The off-target mutations in the remaining 26 embryos was not only expected, it was predicted about 16 years ago, when we first started experimenting with retroviral splicing vectors.

Microinjection with CRISPR/Cas9 constructs is a completely different technology to using retroviral vectors. The result is 'unexpected' because the off-target event frequency was apparently much lower when CRISPR was previously used to edit genes in mouse embryos or differentiated human cells. It's currently unclear if this result is due to some property of human embryos in general, or just of the non-viable 'tripronuclear' embryos used in this study.