US Scientist Who Edited Human Embryos With CRISPR Responds To Critics (technologyreview.com)

Facing criticism from fellow scientists, the researcher behind the world's largest effort to edit human embryos with CRISPR is vowing to continue his efforts to develop what he calls "IVF gene therapy." MIT Technology Review: Shoukhrat Mitalipov, of Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, drew global headlines last August when he reported successfully repairing a genetic mutation in dozens of human embryos, which were later destroyed as part of the experiment. The laboratory findings on early-stage embryos, he said, had brought the eventual birth of the first genetically modified humans "much closer" to reality. The breakthrough drew wide attention, including from critics who quickly pounced, calling it biologically implausible and potentially the result of careless errors and artifacts. Today, those critics are getting an unusual hearing in the journal Nature, which is publishing two critiques of the Oregon research as well as a lengthy reply from Mitalipov and 31 of his coworkers in South Korea, China, and the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. The scientific sparring centers on CRISPR's well-known tendency to introduce unseen damage into a cell's DNA.

[...] Mitalipov remains intent on proving that CRISPR can work safely on embryos. In an interview, Mitalipov said he believes it will take five to 10 years before the process is ready to attempt in an IVF center. The revolutionary medical technology being pursued is a way to adjust an embryo's DNA to remove disease risks. It is sometimes called germline gene editing because any DNA fixes a baby is born with would then be passed down to future generations through that person's germ cells, the egg or sperm. For its initial research, the Oregon team recruited women around Portland and paid them $5,000 each to undergo an egg retrieval. With those eggs the team created more than 160 embryos for CRISPR experiments. Mitalipov said his Oregon center continues to obtain eggs in an ongoing effort to confirm his results and extend them in new directions.

Comments

An important point to keep in mind...

[morethanapapercert]

From the summary (this being Slashdot, I can't be bothered to actually read TFA), the criticism is all based on the researchers methodology and statistical rigour when analysing the resultant data. Not the ethics or morality of such experiments. For the record, I have no ethical problem with experiments of this nature, provided the embryos are terminated before a certain point in their development. In my opinion, that is before the sixth week, so that the spinal cord and brain haven't properly developed yet. In my opinion, it is our brains that make us human and until the developing collection of cells has developed a brain complex enough to react to stimuli, it isn't a human being.

That being the case, I think this is crucial research with enormous potential for good (as with any new tech, balanced by potential for harm). One of my children has a severe genetic defect, once that confines him to a wheelchair and will condemn him to a slow, lingering death sometime in his twenties. CRISPR is the leading candidate for treating his condition, but the odds are that it won't be ready for clinical use in time to save his life. His defect can already be detected in vivo and fixing it in in vitro is an important step before treating embryos in vivo that are intended to be brought to term. Saying we're five years away from clinical use of this technology and technique is the same as saying we are five years away from eliminating a whole host of crippling genetic defects.

I do understand and share the concerns about designer babies, eugenics and unknown long term effects of such medically unnecessary tinkering. But given the parsimonious approach the medical profession has to using new techniques, I think we'll see a well established track record of treating birth defects long before the industry embraces those techniques for selecting desirable traits.