Saturday , December 4 2021

No foolproof way to keep a lid on the technology of gene editing: scientists


Marilynn Marchione and Christina Larson, The Associated Press

Published Sunday, 2 & # 39; December, 2018 9:56 AM EST

HONG KONG – Last last year, Chinese researcher little known emerged in & # 39; elite meeting in & # 39; Berkeley, California, where scientists and etiċisti discussing technology left the field at its heart – tools emerging for "editing" genes, the DNA strings that make up life plan.

The small scientist, is Jiankui, saw the power of & # 39; this tool, called CRISPR, to transform not only genes, but also his own career.

In visits to the United States, it looked like Jennifer Doudna CRISPR pioneers of & # 39; University & # 39; California, Berkeley, and Dr. Matthew Porteus of & # 39; Stanford University, and great thinkers on its use, such as Dr. Dr. William Stanford ethics HURLBUT.

The last week, those shocked we will change researchers is issued international conference helped organize with astonishing statement: He said he helped the first babies published by the world's genes, despite clear scientific consensus that genetic changes can be passed on to future generations should not be tried in & # 39; this point.

U.S. National Institutes of Health Francis Collins called the experiment & # 39; He & # 39; s "misadventure of & # 39; large type" – starring "scientist apparently believed was a hero. In fact, he crossed a line, scientifically and ethically. "

But nobody waqaflu. How can & # 39; is it?

To be fair, scientists say m & # 39; there is no way to stop anyone intending to travel with DNA, regardless of what laws or standards are in place. CRISPR is cheap and easy to use – which is why scientists began to worry almost as soon as the technology was invented something like this will happen.

And there is a long history in science and researchers drug launch experiments prematurely were satisfied with skorn or b & # 39; moriżmu – some of them led to what are now common practices, such as in vitro fertilization.

The gene for editing purposes & # 39; reproduction is prohibited by & # 39; effectively in the US and in & # 39; most of Europe. In China, the ministerial guidelines prohibit embryo research "violates ethical or moral principles."

It turns out it was not exactly tight-lipped about his goals. He undertook international experts at the Universities & # 39; Stanford and Rice, which had made studies & # 39; postgraduate, and x & # 39; elsewhere, seek advice before and during the experiment.

If scientists were aware of the plans & # 39; He spoke? Can & # 39; is iddispjegah?

The answers are not clear.

"Do not fall into the category of & # 39; legal responsibility, but ethical responsibility," said Collins. He said he did not speak "does not seem scientist to take responsibility".

The National Commission of Health of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences and the university itself & # 39; He said they were in the dark and then condemnation.

But three scientists & # 39; Stanford – HURLBUT, Porteus and former adviser fellowship & # 39; He, Stephen Quake – had extensive contact with him over the last few years. They and other scientists knew or issuspettaw b & # 39; powerful way that He had intended to genetically edited to make babies.

Some do not think it is confident follow; others have raised concerns that have not been met.

Stanford did not respond to a request for an interview.

Quake, professor of bio-engineering, was one of the first he knew about the ambition & # 39; He. Quake said he met & # 39; to & # 39; He during the years when his former student was in town, and that He confided his interest a few years ago in editing & # 39; embryos for live birth to try to make them resistant to the AIDS virus .

Quake said that only general advice and persuaded him to talk to & # 39; principal scientists, to select situations where there is consensus that the risks are justified, to meet the highest standards & # 39; ethics and to publish its results in & # 39; reviewed journal peer.

"My advice was widely & # 39; very" Quake said.

HURLBUT think meeting & # 39; to & # 39; the first early in 2017 when he and Doudna, co-inventor of & # 39; CRISPR, had the first three meetings with & # 39; and leading scientists to discuss ethical technology.

"B & # 39; any way, it ended up in our meeting," said HURLBUT.

Since then, he had returned several times to Stanford, and HURLBUT said "spent & # 39; many hours' talk with & # 39; He about situations where gene editing can & # 39; appropriate.

Four & # 39; or five weeks ago, said HURLBUT He came to see it again and discussed editing gene embryo to try to prevent HIV. HURLBUT said he suspected that He was tried modified plant embryo in the womb of & # 39; wife.

"I amonetu him," he said. "I did not light his work. I sfidatlu it. Do not approve what he was doing."

Porteus said he knew that He was talking with & # 39; HURLBUT HURLBUT discouraged and assume that x-Chinese scientist. In February, asked to meet & # 39; to & # 39; Porteus and said it had obtained approval from board & # 39; ethics hospital to go & # 39; forward.

"I think I was expecting more receptive, and very negative account", Porteus said. "I am angry b & # 39; urged his, I was angry with his carelessness."

Porteus said He urged "to go talk with your Chinese senior colleagues."

Following that meeting, "not already heard about it and assumed it was not going to proceed," said Porteus. "B & # 39; retrospective way, I have a hue and cry."

F & # 39; & # 39 draft, an article about the twin girls edited by genes, which is planned to submit to journals, he thanked UC Berkeley biophysicist Mark DeWitt for "editing of the manuscript." DeWitt said he tried to dissuade him and appealed to edit the paper. He said he saw the card, but the feedback offered was "pretty general".

His demands, including his work resulted in a second pregnancy, can not be confirmed by & # 39; independently and his work has not been published.

B & # 39; contrast, another US scientist said that not only urged He however had a major role in the project.

Michael Deem, professor of bio-engineering at the University & # 39; Rice and degree consultant & # 39; his doctorate, said he had worked with & # 39; is because that the scientist again & # 39; back to China around 2012 and is relying on the advisory boards and maintain "a small part" in & # 39; Washington. Deem defended the actions of & # 39; He said that the team & # 39; Research from previous experiments on animals.

"We have multiple generations & # 39; animals genetically modified and produced viable offspring", and a lot of research on the unintended effects on other genes, said Deem. Deem also said to have been present in China when some participants in the study gave their consent to try editing gene embryo.

Ross said he had no knowledge about the involvement of & # 39; Deem now investigating.

S & # 39; now the most & # 39; attention focused on regulatory gaps in China.

But that is not the whole story, said Rosario Isasi, an expert on genomics law in the United States and China at the University & # 39; Miami.

"Let's focus on how it happened and why it happened, and the way it happened," said Isasi. "How can we establish a system to better transparency?"

M & # 39; there is no international governing body to enforce the rules of bioethics, but scientific bodies and universities can use other tools.

"If someone violates those rules, scientists may expel, the journal may refuse to publish, employers can & # 39; refuse to employ, financers may refuse to finance", said Hank GREELY, professor the law and genetics at & # 39; Standford.

GREELY expects experiment & # 39; He has effects & # 39; ripple in academia, whether or not regulate. "Universities will take a harder look at x & # 39; is going on. This incident will put everyone on alert about any related research."

Of course, sometimes bad start can & # 39; & # 39 replaced in, a better end.

In 1980, the University & # 39; California, Los Angeles, the professor Martin Cline been sanctioned to carry out the first gene therapy on two women in Israel and in Italy because it was not obtained approval to try it in & # 39; UCLA.

Cline announced his work rather than publish it in & # 39; scientific journal, and has faced criticism for trying to "genetic engineering" on people when safety and effectiveness have not been established in animals. Now the gene therapy is a method of & # 39; treatment established, although it is still fairly new.

Two years before, in 1978, the Dr. Robert Edwards has been denounced in the same way when announced by the first press "baby test tube" in the world, Louise Brown. The work earned after Nobel Prize, and IFV helped millions to have a baby.

And this year, Louise Brown – mother & # 39; two sons, designed with outdated way – turned 40 years old.


Larson reported from Washington, D.C.


Associated Press This series was produced in partnership with Scientific Education Department Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link