CRISPR gene editing/ genetic modification on human babies

[Cresselia~~]

#crispr
#crisprbabies

Claims of world's first CRISPR genetically edited human embryo.

In response to ongoing developments related to claims that the world’s first genetically edited babies have been born in China, Dr. Jennifer Doudna, professor of chemistry and molecular & cell biology at UC Berkeley and co-inventor of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology, issued the following updated statement:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/11/26/doudna-responds-to-claim-of-first-crispr-edited-babies/



First of all, I should address that the claims of genetically edited human babies are most likely fake.

1. The doctor who used CRISPR gene editing to genetically engineer human embryos is now fired from the hospital.
1. The hospital in which the babies were born denied delivering these babies.
2. Neither the university nor the head of the hospital was informed of the experiment.
3. The head of the hospital suspected that the scientist faked the former's signature in order to start his experiment, as the former did not recall signing such papers.
4. There aren't any properly peer reviewed science journals about this-- not even in Chinese.
Therefore, it's probably fake.

But even if it is real, it's not ethical because.
1. The CRISPR gene editing technology is still in its premature stages.
2. No one knows what side effects would have on the human babies.

And this particular experiment is not that useful because:
1. The babies are said to be immune to AIDS. However, the HIV virus mutates and evolves all the time. Just because the babies are immune to current strains of the virus, does not mean the babies will be immune to future strains of the virus.

=======
Update: Yahoo Hong Kong has claimed that over 100 Chinese scientists signed a petition to ban this type of experiment in China.

Further reading:
BBC
China baby gene editing claim 'dubious'
https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-46342195?usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

Update:
The babies turn out to be real

• Home
• News
• Health
• Humans

25

INTERVIEW

29 November 2018
‘Scientists are now very sure that the babies really were gene-edited’

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...um=SOC&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1543512681

Why is gene-editing embryos so shocking, when people are already using CRISPR on adults?

Primarily because if something goes wrong you can’t stop it. And we have no way of knowing what effect it will have on the next generation. If he’d shown some transparency there would be more trust in what he was doing. But he’s been off-radar for months. He’s on unpaid leave, he’s doing this on his own.

Why do you think he targeted a gene that affects HIV risk?

His choice of gene was a terrible one. There’s a layer of almost prejudice to mutating a gene so you’re not susceptible to HIV. If it was a life-threatening disorder that has no other treatment, people would have found it more justifiable. The impression among the scientific community is that this was the low-hanging fruit, because there had been a lot of research into [this gene].

How much of a red line has been crossed?

The red line is miles behind us now. It’s no longer in sight.

 

[Surgo]

Standard biology/biomedical science rules apply here. In case you weren't paying attention, those are:

1) Any bio science claim needs to be independently verified.
2) Any bio science claim from China needs to be independently verified twice, with at least one of the verifications from outside of China.

These rules are somewhat unique to bio because their publishing characteristics are a complete shitshow.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Standard biology/biomedical science rules apply here. In case you weren't paying attention, those are:

1) Any bio science claim needs to be independently verified.
2) Any bio science claim from China needs to be independently verified twice, with at least one of the verifications from outside of China.

These rules are somewhat unique to bio because their publishing characteristics are a complete shitshow.

Never heard of rule 2.


Update: It turned out real.
‘Scientists are now very sure that the babies really were gene-edited’
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...um=SOC&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1543512681

 

[MagikaripIsOP]

I hope nothing bad happens. As far as the general concept being ethical or unethical, assuming we perfect it to a point where side effects are as likely as they normally would be, it’s great