HONG KONG, CHINA-On the eve of the international summit of the genome editing, a Chinese researcher has surprised the fact that the twin children born in these months change the genome for a future for children and children. The change is intended for children's cells to be resistant to HIV infection, according to scientist, He Jiankui, at the Southern Science and Technology University, Shenzhen, China.
The aforementioned claim was still published on paper, nowadays there has been a strong criticism, with some scientists and bioethics, it was called "premature", "ethically problematic" and even "monster". The Chinese Society for Cell Biology published a "report against China's government's detailed laws and regulations and a report against the Chinese scientific community's consensus," and the University launched a research study that "seriously curbed academic research". and academic regulations ".
Other scientists demanded the trial and justification details prior to the verdict.
The Associated Press (AP) said the broadcasts had seven pairs of childhood in fertility treatment, as a result of pregnancy. In all cases, father HIV was infected; mothers were negative. The objective was, naturally, a genetic change in a limited number of people related to the resistance to HIV infection. Specifically, he eliminated the region of a cell-receptor called CCR5 using the renowned genome-editing technique called CRISPR-Cas9.
The Human Genome Editorial Summit begins Tuesday and many researchers, when tagged and politically attended, were claimed through media reports. Congressional organizers told reporters that they had more details on the dealer.
Scientists are studying the use of CRISPR-Cas9 for treatment for people with genetic diseases, such as muscular dystrophy and sickle cell disease. The CCR5 receptor is also changing with adult immune cells infected with HIV. But in these cases, the so-called somatic cells, sperm or egg-like genes are an edition; These changes are not passed on to the patient's children.
This research gradually gave way, began to change the genome at the beginning of the embryo, sperm and eggs, which caused germinal growth and transformation. This work is effectively limited to the United States and other countries. Whether it's in China's regulatory environment it's clear.
The work has not yet been published. On Wednesday, the genesis edition wants to talk about the top, but the organizers were not sure whether or not he wanted to discuss the experiment. He just published some videos on YouTube to justify the experiment, called "genic surgery" and explained how it was done. He invited the viewers to send their lab comments and send two babies called Lula and Nana.
However, many scientists say that this experiment was an early and potential benefit that was not worth the risk. "Not good, no good or no good. Scientists are generally obliged to discover ethical and social issues that surround the work we do. This report returns to Stone Age," at the Kent University of Genetics Darren Griffin in Canterbury, Britain, said a statement in the UK Science Media Center (SMC).
The critically acclaimed accomplishments were scientifically and ethically justified. From a sperm there are few cases of documented transmission of the embryo; All children born to HIV are infected with their mother. And there is more way to reduce the risk of father transmission, such as sperm washing. In addition, the HIV infection is treatable. "Currently, the symptoms of liver infections are kept under control and live millions of liver disease worldwide," said Dusko Ilic, King's College London scientists. He said in another SMC statement.
"Gene editing is an experimental and is still related to external mutations, including genetic problems in the first place and later, including cancer development," says Julian Savulescu, Oxford University of Technology, in the United Kingdom. "This experiment shows normal healthy babies the risks of editing genes without actual real benefits," he says. Sarah Chan, a bioethics from the University of Edinburgh, worries about the early use of genetic editing before considering social aspects of work threatens to "compromise the relationship between science and society … and the global world of valuable therapies may be over the years."
Since Jennifer Doudna, from California University of California, Berkeley, is a pioneer in CRISPR, she does not publish her work, and she suggests it in a statement today. However, "Although the independent study confirms today's news, it is necessary to strengthen the urgent configuration of human embryos' genes, in which the medical needs are clear and there is no viable alternative to a medical device, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences "wrote Doudna.
Apparently, he advanced the criticism, Boldly claimed in one of these videos, to help his team profoundly reflect on how to tackle the risks of family genetic diseases. "We believe that ethics is part of our history," says He, who calls the "designer baby" epitope.
When Richard Hynes, a cancer investigator at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, coordinated by the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, said Doudna, "set strict conditions" before committing genomes. : A serious medical measure and should not have been fulfilled; the effort should be properly monitored and monitored appropriately; and parents had to give their consent.
The Bioethics report published by the Nuffield Council in the United Kingdom in July published a similar effect in July. "We need to know all these questions to hear from what we have to do," says Hynes. Alta Charo is a bioethics from Madison, Wisconsin University. Of course, the National Academy report mentions the potential target for CCR5 gene edition. Whether the current experiment justifies "a risk benefit analysis," he says.