Prof. Oliver beat me to the punch regarding talking about Dr. Jiankiu, but I wanted to write my weekly report on it so I figured I'd bring it up anyway.
https://m.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2182964/china-confirms-gene-edited-babies-blames-scientist-he-jiankui
The fact that this is, presuming these assumptions are correct, now no longer science fiction is simply baffling to me. It makes me wonder, even though this doctor will most likely be reprimanded for his actions, what kind of ethical applications could this be used for? In this article, it Dr. Jiankiu is chastised for his application of the CRISPR software to mitigate the potential of the HIV disease in babies, not due to its lack of usefulness, but because of his misguided motives. The article describes the gene for HIV resistance to be fairly simple, and explains his task to be a reach for "low-hanging fruit," in the sense that he easily could have chosen to target a different gene with a more world wide application, and did this simply because he could. For example, targeting genes to ensure that the child is not born with a severe mental disease, such as autism, would be a more universally relevant application of this technology, as it has a relatively equal chance of affliction towards any child. HIV is something that can be avoided through lifestyle choices, and therefore is not nearly as important, or even ethically administrable in the field of medicine.
That being said, I believe that this is a fantastic advancement in the field of medicine. Although Dr. Jiankiu went about this some would say the wrong way, I honestly believe that he is regardless a visionary, perhaps a reckless one at that, that sees a bigger future for all of us. While what he did went against federal regulations and is and should be deemed unethical, knowing that our genetics can be altered for the greater good is, in my opinion, better than us all sitting around, asking the question, "What if?" Perhaps I may be a bit biased, since it does not directly affect the rest of us across the ocean, but I believe that what Dr. Jiankiu accomplished was a necessary evil in the advancement of medicine. As far as the health of the babies, that is still to be determined, but barring they are not adversely affected by this genetic editing, this has the potential to bring about good.
"Why are scientists up in arms?
ReplyDeleteChanging the genes in an embryo means changing genes in every cell. If the method succeeds, the baby will have alterations that will be inherited by all of the child’s progeny. And that, scientists agree, is a serious undertaking that must be done with great deliberation and only to treat a serious disease for which there are no other options — if it is to be done at all.
Instead, Dr. He went ahead and disabled a perfectly normal gene, CCR₅. While people who are born with both copies of CCR₅ disabled are resistant to H.I.V., they are more susceptible to West Nile virus and Japanese encephalitis. And there are simpler and safer ways to prevent H.I.V. infection.
More worrying, Crispr often inadvertently alters genes other than the one being targeted, and there are also circumstances, called mosaicism, where some cells contain the edited gene and others do not. Dr. He claimed in a video that Crispr did not affect other genes in the twins and that the babies were “born normally and healthy,” but there is no way to know if that is true.
In fact, some of the data Dr. He presented at a conference in Hong Kong, after he announced the birth of the twins, is concerning, several scientists said. For one thing, it indicates that he was able to disable both copies of the CCR₅ gene in only one of the twins, whom Dr. He identified as “Nana.” In the other twin, “Lulu,” only one copy of CCR₅ was disabled, providing limited, if any, protection against H.I.V., but Dr. He implanted the embryo anyway. He said he informed the parents and they wanted both embryos implanted.
Some scientists said the data Dr. He presented also suggested several potential issues resulting from the editing process.
Most importantly, said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania who reviewed the data, “there’s clear evidence of mosaicism” in the edited embryos of both twins. “I was so furious,” Dr. Musunuru said. “This would have been disturbing anyway — gene-edited babies. It made it a hundred times worse knowing that he had totally mosaic embryos. It’s as if you took the embryos and dipped them in acid and said ‘You know what, I’m just going to go ahead with the implantation anyway.’ It’s not that much different.”
While it is unclear if the babies themselves ended up with a mosaic patchwork of cells, Dr. Musunuru said the data shows that Lulu’s placenta was mosaic, which is not a good sign.
Finally, it is not known if his study subjects knew what they were agreeing to. The consent they signed was for an AIDS vaccine development project, and it did not mention all the risks of disabling CCR₅. It said that if Crispr altered other genes, “the project team is not responsible for the risk.”
What are the potential implications?
Many scientists are concerned that Dr. He’s experiment could have a chilling effect on support for legitimate and valuable gene-editing research..."
Continues: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/health/crispr-gene-editing-embryos.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer
I totally agree that CRISPR is exciting and promising, but also share the worry about a "chilling effect" when politicians and other populist anti-science types crusade against rogue "evil scientists" etc. Norms, as we keep learning in the political sphere, are essential for stability and progress, and their violation creates chaos.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s intereting you brought up populist leaders and their common use of misininformation in regards to speaking to the public. I think we should look at the trend of marganlized groups being used as guiniue pigs. In my global politics class we just reviewed the correlation between inequality and political power according to the FSI. In my opinion there should be regulations when conducting human experiments, such as looking at the demographics that are targeted and or signing up, and allowing there to be thorough research presented to the participants.
DeleteIf you are interested in the topic of human experimentation, how do you feel about cellular line theft? The case today is currently old news but its relevance lives to this day. Henrietta Lacks had her cervical cancer cells biopsied and grown with out her permission. They even made a movie out of the court case her family filed. They were just cells, does a person have the right to know what happens to parts of their body that are no longer on them?
DeleteA link on the scientific implications
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2013/08/07/hela-cells-a-new-chapter-in-an-enduring-story/
A link on the social implications
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/henrietta-lackss-family-wants-compensation-for-her-cells/2017/02/14/816481ba-f302-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.d4711b30c9d9
Advancements with the CRISPR technology is amazing and could be used in numerous ways to benefit mankind and wipe out genetic diseases. However, I have my concerns with this technology. My main concern is how far is too far when it comes to modifying genes? Where should we draw the line?
ReplyDeleteThere are also the less advanced methods of genetic discrimination. Karyotyping is a method of looking at the chromosomes, looking for damaged chromosomes that can sometimes mean that progeny of the patient might result in mental deficiency or physical issues. In the Netherlands and other European countries there has been a push against the birth of children with Down Syndrome. There is nothing that causes a person with Down Syndrome pain, especially in this climate. Eugenics, or the control of reproduction, is always a tricky subject. As an Autistic individual, I struggle with lots of issues. Where technology is today, I cannot be "fixed" as some communities look for. Children could be prevented from having Autism, this does not help anyone.
ReplyDeleteoops, here are my links
ReplyDeletehttps://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/22/huffpost-columnist-netherlands-pushing-moral-duty-abort-syndrome-babies/
https://www.spuc.org.uk/news/news-stories/2017/january/dutch-health-minister-society-should-accept-screening-out-of-children-with-downs-syndrome
http://blogs.kentplace.org/bioethicsproject/2017/05/25/want-deaf-child-parental-responsibilities-cultural-aspects-harm-choosing-flawed-embryo/
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to a similar case study regarding one that I mentioned in class. Deaf parents choosing to genetically modify an embryo, selecting the deafness trait for their child. I don't believe this falls into the category of elitist members of society choosing for favorable characteristics or features, it still raises questions of ethical concern. By deciding that the child will be born deaf the parents rationalize their own desires to be projected into the life of their child. Not to state that growing up deaf is a detrimental aspect of life. but to be forced to be deaf without ever having the opportunity to have a choice in the matter is where I believe the boundary is crossed.