Der chinesische Menschenversuch

Donnerstag 6.12.2018

Das Nuffield Council distanziert sich nun auch, es wurde auch Zeit

The possibilities raised by heritable genome editing could have significant implications for individuals and for all of society. We do not know enough about the safety of these procedures or welfare implications. It’s crucial that action is taken now to support research on safety, facilitate public debate, and put in place appropriate governance.
In July, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics published a report on the ethical and social issues raised by heritable genome editing interventions. We concluded that their use could be morally permissible in some circumstances. These circumstances do not, however, exist at present, anywhere. In our report we have discussed what these circumstances might be, but it is now for the wider society to agree them, and to define what governance measures should apply.
We recommended that any use of genome editing interventions should be guided by two overarching principles: they must be intended to secure, and be consistent with, the welfare of the future person; and they should not increase disadvantage, discrimination or division in society. More work needs to be done to establish whether these principles can be met.
Pete Mills, Assistant Director, added:
“Coming on the eve of the second international summit on genome editing, this announcement looks like a cynical attempt to seize headlines. If the claims are true, it is a premature, inexplicable and possibly reckless intervention that may threaten the responsible development of future applications of genome editing.”

Die Bild Schlagzeile heute

Chinesischer Wissenschaftler wird vermisst

bisher gab es nur die verunglückte Formulierung von “Gott gespielt“.

Das ist ja wohl blasphemisch. Gott würfelt nicht. Und Gott spielt nicht. Die chinesische Nachrichtensperre scheint im übrigen zu greifen. Mit etwas Abstand nun auch zwei Pulitzer Preisträgerinnen der NYT

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 … Dr. He has not submitted his data, nor has he identified the children or parents, other than to provide first names for the twin girls, Lulu and Nana; these may be pseudonyms. We won’t know for many years if Crispr affected genes other than CCR₅. Nor can we gauge the health of the babies now or in the future. And, of course, we do not know if other scientists will be emboldened to try their own experiments editing the genes of human embryos.

Das Business soll weiter gehen, Nature heute

So, how can the gene-editing community set up a better system? A starting point would be a global registry (or national registries) set up by funders or governments to record preclinical research that involves gene editing in human embryos.

He brauchte Security letzte Woche in Hongkong, so Science

For his talk at last week’s summit, He Jiankui was accompanied by security guards because of threats…
On the eve of the International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, China, last week, He, a researcher at nearby Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, had dinner at the city’s Le Méridien Cyberport with a few of the meeting’s organizers. The news of He’s claim had just broken, and shock waves were starting to reverberate. But the reports were still so fresh that the diners sat in the restaurant without being disturbed. “He arrived almost defiant,” says Jennifer Doudna … After more than an hour of questioning, He had had enough. “He just seemed surprised that people were reacting negatively about this,” Doudna says. “By the end of the dinner he was pretty upset and left quite abruptly.” … I got the strong impression that he saw Robert Edwards as a kind of hero, a paradigm breaker, a disrupter, and that he wanted to model himself after that … What’s more, He has not yet tested whether HIV can infect cells taken from the girls.”

China distanziert sich massiv von He (Bloomberg)

Less expected was the reaction of the Chinese government. On Nov. 29, Xu Nanping, vice minister of science and technology, told state TV that authorities had halted work at He’s lab and planned “a comprehensive and objective investigation of the facts of the incident.” Vice Minister of Industry and Information Technology Huai Jinpeng said the government intended to take a “zero-tolerance attitude in dealing with dishonorable behavior” in research and would bar He from a national science award for which he was a candidate.
Those signs that China may restrict genetic research more than previously thought mark a sharp contrast with the country’s approach to artificial intelligence…
An immediate response is needed, Doudna stresses. “I’d love to see the national science academies from several countries within a month come up with a set of draft guidelines that would be somehow affiliated with a RAC-like body,” she says. Daley agrees. “We have to aspire to some kind of a universal agreement amongst scientists and clinicians about what’s permissible,” he says. “Those who violate those international norms are held out in stark relief.”