Most notably, STAT has learned that Rice biophysicist Michael Deem was named as the senior author on a paper about the work that was submitted to Nature in late November… “As a prominent scientist from an elite university in the U.S., Deem’s presence is likely to have a significant role in persuading potential candidates to jump on board,” said Jia Ping, a human rights lawyer who is founder and chief executive officer of the Beijing-based nongovernmental organization Health Governance Initiative. They would not have known that neither Deem nor He had any experience conducting clinical trials.
Und jetzt kommt noch ein weiteres Puzzlestück – die Zeitschriften, die das Manuskript zum Review hatten.
One paper — submitted to Nature along with the CRISPR-babies paper in late November — modified the CCR5 gene, which encodes a protein that helps HIV enter and infect cells, the same gene He claimed he had altered in the twins to protect them against infection with the AIDS-causing virus. The other paper, which reported on the editing of the PCSK9 gene that encodes a protein that helps regulate the level of cholesterol in the bloodstream, was submitted to Science Translational Medicine. Both were rejected.
Die NYT mit einem seltsamen Titel “Should Scientists Toy With the Secret to Life?” aber ganz gutem Text.
virtually unaddressed in the many CRISPR discussions and reports and white papers so far, is what specific scientific tests must be done to determine whether edits made in a human embryo are “safe.”
Sicherheit ist natürlich eine fundamentale Frage, Braun/Schickl/Dabrock S.8 zum Trotz.
Harvard University scientist George Church, …, said it might not be the last time a lone wolf acts. “We either allow or outlaw,” he said. “If the latter, then we may drive it underground — just as it is moving from hypothetical speculation to rigorous testing.”
“normative Kraft des Faktischen” finde ich genauso wenig überzeugend wie “schiefe Ebene” Argumente.
Nina Fram zeigt dass die bisherige ethische Argumentation von Eigeninteresse getrieben war, bei He sowieso, aber auch bei der Biotech Community. Oder in anderen Worten, man darf es Forschern nicht überlassen, ihre eigenen Regeln aufzustellen.
But when leading voices such as NIH Director Francis Collins assert that He’s work “represents a deeply disturbing willingness by Dr. He and his team to flout international ethical norms,” what are they actually expressing concern about? Who determines what are the ethics of altering human life? We believe that the alarm being sounded by the scientific community isn’t really about ethics. It’s about protecting a particular form of scientific self-governance, which the “ethics” discourse supports. What are currently treated as matters of research ethics are in fact political and social questions of fundamental human importance. Key decisions about when and how it will be appropriate to make inheritable changes to human beings currently lie in the hands of scientists. Although ethics are repeatedly invoked, the most prominent condemnations of He’s actions don’t actually address whether it’s ethical to tinker with human life through gene editing. A largely ignored part of the story are the five “draft ethical principles” of He’s lab at the Southern University of Science and Technology of China.
Gleich ob man ihr damit folgen mag oder nicht: Es ist der wichtigste Diskussionsbeitrag bisher in diesem Jahr.