Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Scientist Who Gene-Edited Babies Fired by University (reuters.com)
A Chinese scientist who created what he said were the world's first "gene-edited" babies evaded oversight and broke ethical boundaries in a quest for fame and fortune, state media said on Monday, as his former university said he had been fired.
From a report: He Jiankui said in November that he used a gene-editing technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 to alter the embryonic genes of twin girls born that month, sparking an international outcry about the ethics and safety of such research. Hundreds of Chinese and international scientists condemned He and said any application of gene editing on human embryos for reproductive purposes was unethical. Chinese authorities also denounced He and issued a temporary halt to research activities involving the editing of human genes.
He had "deliberately evaded oversight" with the intent of creating a gene-edited baby "for the purpose of reproduction," according to the initial findings of an investigating team set up by the Health Commission of China in southern Guangdong province, Xinhua news agency reported. [...] The Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in the city of Shenzhen, said in a statement on its website that He had been fired.
He had "deliberately evaded oversight" with the intent of creating a gene-edited baby "for the purpose of reproduction," according to the initial findings of an investigating team set up by the Health Commission of China in southern Guangdong province, Xinhua news agency reported. [...] The Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in the city of Shenzhen, said in a statement on its website that He had been fired.
Unethical? I'm not so sure. What if gene editing is the only way we come up with to defeat some of the worst diseases in humanity? Cancer, ALS, Diabetes, heart disease. Was he wreckless? Sure. But is there a balance to be struck between the snails pace of government approved medical research Ana what he did? I think so.
How many lives would have been saved if we had less stringent rules in place for drug research? I read that the US caused tens of thousands of deaths because it hadn't approved beta-blockers for use in the public.
I'm all for safety for drugs reaching the public, but surely we can quicken the pace in the research field far before it becomes publically available?
I think the question of ethics comes into play because of what you're doing at the gene level rather than abiding by established rules of testing and governance.
..... you know, I just spent some time asking myself why I consider the first two unethical and I can't come up with an immediate rational explanation. Let's say 500 years from now, everyone had green eyes, brown hair, and a lighter skin color and maybe even spoke one language. We would be a completely homogeneous society. Racism would be all but eliminated.
When I think of unethical behavior and gene editing, I think of things like:
- Modifying genes so that certain aesthetic characters are artificially promoted (e.g. blue eyes, blonde hair)
- Certain skin tones (is that even possible? I dunno)
Things I would NOT consider unethical: - Eliminating diseases (sickle cell, popensity for cancers etc.)
Is that a bad thing? I'm a person of color and I'm not so sure it's a bad thing (tm).
There is one reason for the FDA having slow approval, thalidomide.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Forget super babies, can they make catgirls yet?
Ugh, it would be really nice if slashdot had an edit function.
"I don't think so. This is no different than genetically engineering crops. Eliminating disease, making people smarter, taller, or whatever is perfectly fine. And I think gene editing is the only way the human race can advance beyond our ape heritage."
We don't understand what we are doing well enough. One day we might crack the code well enough to reliably do those things but we are nowhere near that. At present what we are doing is more like gathering up a bunch of pottery and smashing it up to make mosaics. Most of the field runs on the assumption they don't need to understand how it works, they can just use the pieces that are already out there and combine them in new ways. They are half right, there is a huge library of genetic information already out there but humanity definitely needs to understand how it works. The individual doing the combining won't need to in the end but only because they are working from rules and primitives defined by people with a better understanding.
Look at STDs already in the wild and our success at getting rid of them. We can't even stop the ones that kill off the people who get them. Changes like this could sterilize whole populations, changes like you suggest could have impacts that don't surface until several generations later. Not everything happens right away you know. Almost every gene we study enough turns out to be connected in a complicated web with other biologic functions.
Our understanding of the effects of what we are doing and what we are doing is probably on par with the drug industry circa 1780ce.
"This is no different than genetically engineering crops."
And would you feel that way if you were the subject rather the subsequent beneficiary of the experiment? Make no mistake, this is a well established phenomenon with medicine. There is a very real slippery slope and in the end it isn't you who will decide what you or your subsequent offspring are subjected to but the interests of "the greater good." Those might be contrary to the interests of nearly every individual who makes up the greater population. People all too quickly lose sight of the fact that the group is nothing but a collection of individuals and the logic you support which screws over another individual will be turned against you sooner or later.
He was fired for being dumb enough to admit it / being caught.