Monday , May 16 2022

Scientists have not stopped investigating gender-edited babies from DNA monkeying



[ad_1]

HONG KONG – This year, a renowned Chinese researcher emerged in an elite meeting in Berkeley, California; In which scientists and labels were discussing a new technology, the field was revealed. Genes that make up "editing" DNA chains that make up the life plan.

Young scientist He Jiankui saw the power of this tool called CRISPR, not only its genes, but also its path.

In visits to the United States, he was looking for pioneers in the CRISPR, such as Dr. Jennifer Doudna, Berkeley, Stanford University, and Dr. Matthew Porteus of the University of California, and great thinkers for his use, as the ethics of Doctor Stanford William Hurlbut.

Last week, surprised researchers investigated an international conference that surprised them, because they helped organize a stunning conversation: the world's first gene-edited babies contributed, despite the genuinely scientific consensus, the genetic modifications that were given to future generations did not try at this point.

The French National Institute of Health Francis Collins called a "congenital" "Experience" called "a scientist who seemed to be a hero who was apparently". In fact, he crossed each line, scientifically and ethically. "

But nobody stopped him. How can that be?

On October 9, 2018, photo, an embryologist, Qin Jinzhou, who worked with Jiankui scientist, was involved in the group, Cas9 protein and PCSK9 sgRNA injected embryo among microbial plants in Shenzhen, southern China laboratory in Guandong province. The Chinese government stopped working on Thursday, November 29, 2018, in 2018 to make the first gen-edited babies in the world. (AP Photo / Mark Schiefelbein)

To be honest, scientists say it's not the way to stop monkeying with DNA in a way that is not law or standard. CRISPR is cheap and easy to use, which is why scientists were worried about the fact that almost all of the technology was invented.

And there is a long history of scientific research and medicine when researchers began to experience experiments that overcame fear or fear, some of which nowadays lead to common practices such as in vitro fertilization.

Genetic reproductive purposes are effectively prohibited in most United States and Europe. In China, the ministry guidelines prohibit embryonic research "violating ethical or moral principles".

It turns out It was not exactly tight-lipped about its goals. He earned international experts from Stanford and Rice University where he studied and elsewhere seeking advice before and during the experiment.

Scientists who knew your thoughts talked about? Can they undo?

The answers are not clear

"It does not fall into the category of legal responsibility, but ethical responsibility," Collins said. He said he did not speak "it does not seem to be responsible for a scientist".

The Chinese National Health Commission, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and its own university said they were in the dark and condemned since then.

But three Stanford scientists – former regular consultant Stephen Hurts, Stephen and Stephen He's – have had close relationships in recent years. Scientists and others knew or unexpectedly knew that they intended genetically modified babies.

Some confidants did not think he continued; Others did not pay much attention.

Stanford does not respond to a request for a conversation.

Quake, a bioengineering teacher, was one of the first pioneers. Quake said he had known over the years his former student in the village, and has been directing his emotional confidentiality years ago to try to resist AIDS virus by birth.

Quake said he gave them only one general advice and talked to senior scientists to not choose consensus justification for risks, to obtain the highest ethical standard and to publish their results in the peer-reviewed journal.

"My advice was very broad," Quak said.

Hurlbut thinks he first met in the beginning of 2017, when he and Doudna, creators of CRISPR, took part in discussing technology with leading scientists and labels.

"Somehow, our meeting ended," Hurlbut said.

Since then, he has returned to Stanford many times, and when Hurlbut said that he had "spent a lot of time", he talked about situations that could be useful for editing the genre.

Four or five years ago, Hurlbut once again said he had seen and discussed the edition of the embryonic genes to prevent HIV. Hurlbut said the change in a woman's stomach had tried to implant the embryo.

"I was surprised," he said. "I did not have a clear green job. I questioned him. I did not accept what he was doing."

Porteus learned that he had talked with Hurlbut and Hurlbutus suggested a Chinese scientist's recommendation. In February, he asked him to meet with Porteus and told him about the approval of the hospital ethics committee.

"I think I expected a better reception, and I was very negative," Porteus said. "I was angry at his naïve, I was angry at his iniquity."

Porteus said, "spoke with your senior colleagues in China."

After the meeting, "I did not listen to him and he did not have to take it," said Porteus. "I retreated, raised and wept".

In an article on obsolete twin genes, he was sent to magazines, thanks to UC Berkeley, biophysicist Mark DeWitti, "manuscript editing." DeWitt said he was deterred and questioned how he edited the paper. He said when he saw the paper, but the opinion he offered was "quite general".

He says that his work could have a second chance during pregnancy, he can not be independently confirmed, and his work has not been published.

On the other hand, another US scientist said he did not encourage, but he had a great role in the project.

Michael Deem, a professor of bioengineering at Rice University and a PhD, consulted scientists in China in 2012 and sat on board committees and had a "small stake". Two genetic companies in Shenzhen. Deem defended his actions, that the researchers had earlier experiments on animals.

"We have multiple generations of genetically edited and targeted generation genera," and many studies on other unwanted effects on other genes, Deem said. Deem said China had been screened in China by some participants to test the embryo genes edition.

Ricek said he did not know about the implication of Deem and is now investigating.

So far, most of the focus was on the rules set in China.

But that is not the whole story, said Rosario Isasi, a US-Chinese expert on the genome laws at the University of Miami.

"Examine how it happened and why it happened, as it happened," said Isasi. "How can we establish a better transparency system?"

There is no national governing body to enforce bioethics rules, but scientific institutions and universities can use other tools.

"If someone breaks these rules, scientists may refuse to publish publications that journalists may refuse, employers may refuse employment, founders may refuse money," said Hank Greely, Stanford's Law and Genetics Professor.

Greely hopes that the experiment will affect the academic mistakes, whether the regulators act or not. "What happens with the universities will be harder, and this will make everyone aware of related research alerts."

Of course, some bad starters become better at the end.

In 1980, at the University of California, Los Angeles, Professor Martin Cline was the first genetic bioterapeut in Israeli and Italian women, who did not accept UCLA.

Clinic announced its work instead of publishing it in the scientific journal and criticizing people for "genetic engineering", because safety and efficacy were not yet established in animals. Nowadays, a gene therapy method is still established, although it is quite novel.

Two years earlier, in 1978, Dr. Edwards also reportedly reported the first "test tube baby" in the world, Louise Brown. Work later won the Nobel Prize and IFV had millions of children.

And this year, Louise Brown, the two old-fashioned children, turned their attention to the 40's.

[ad_2]
Source link