Der chinesische Menschenversuch

Samstag, 1.12.2018

Bisher findet nur ein einziger Genetiker He’s Versuche richtig: George Church, wer hat es auch anders erwartet.

I’d just as well not hang myself out to dry with someone I barely know, but I feel an obligation to be balanced about it. I’m sitting in the middle and everyone else is so extreme that it makes me look like his buddy. He’s just an acquaintance. But it seems like a bullying situation to me. The most serious thing I’ve heard is that he didn’t do the paperwork right.

Es geht hier aber eigentlich nicht um irgendwelches Papier, sondern um Menschen. Es scheint, wir müssen in der Genetik viele profilierungssüchtige Mitmenschen aushalten wie  Craig Venter  oder James Watson, selbst Verbrecher wie William French Anderson, Hwang Woo-suk oder Severini Antinori.


That’s because there are real limits to what CRISPR can do, at least right now. Scientists have recently learned that the approach to gene editing can inadvertently wipe out and rearrange large swaths of DNA in ways that may imperil human health. That follows recent studies showing that CRISPR-edited cells can inadvertently trigger cancer.

Keine Reaktion bis jetzt von Louise Brown

Screenshot Website


…if we are separated into the enhanced and unenhanced, respect for the dignity of every human life will be diminished. So will personal responsibility. If we don’t make it in life because we are unenhanced, it’s not our fault. And if we do because we are enhanced, we don’t get the credit. … Then there is the threat to women’s equality. If genetic engineering can offer the promise of eliminating disease, it will also allow parents to choose the sex of their child. That could lead to greater sex discrimination. … It will also lead to an explosion in the number of discarded children. For every child born via in vitro fertilization, there are multiple fetuses which are created but never used. Today, the Department of Health and Human Services reports, there are more than 600,000 cryogenically frozen embryos in the US. If genetic engineering through in vitro fertilization becomes common, that number will skyrocket, sparking a profound moral crisis.

Die FAZ hat nun auch den “Ethik”-Artikel zu dem unsäglichen “Trumpismus”

Eine Ethik-Lehrstunde für das Establishment, vom Tabubrecher höchstselbst. Kein Witz! Man glaubt es nicht. Kann es wirklich sein, dass Dr. He, jener Wissenschaftler, der am Montag nach allen Regeln der PR-Kunst und ohne jede Rücksicht auf Standesregeln die Geburt von genmanipulierten Zwillingen als gezielten Tabubruch inszeniert hat und seinerseits jeden Berufsethos hat vermissen lassen? Ist es also möglich, dass ebendieser Gen-Guerillero der weltweiten Wissenschaftltergemeinde ernsthaft eine Anleitung für ethisches Handeln in der Reproduktionsmedizin vorlegt?

Kommentar unter dem FAZ Artikel

Empörung vorne – stille Freude hinten
Es wundert mich nicht, dass genau so ein Eingriff jetzt gemacht wurde, sobald die technischen Voraussetzungen dafür geschaffen sind. Freiwillige Einschränkungen oder Unterlassungen aus moralischen, ethischen usw Gründen funktionieren in der Menschheit eben leider nicht.

Twitter Hashtags, ab sofort hat He auch einen Fake Account

leider am nächsten Tag auch schon wieder gelöscht.

##crisprbabies #scicomm #crispr #geneediting #HeJiankui #kingkongvogel #LucidQuest #followthepatient #genetherapy #apocalypse #baby #controversy #Harvard #University #science #sciencemm #editing #dna #biology #neuroscience #molecularbiology #cas9 #crisprcas9 #Bio ##dream #practice #Russia #Geneticsschool #genetics #artificialintelligence #virtualreality #augmentedreality #mixedreality #medicalscience #bigdata

He Jiankui (oder ein Mitarbeiter) registriert ein weiteres Trial . Da komme ich mir vor wie 9/11 wo niemand wusste, wieviel Flugzeuge denn nun entführt wurden.

Gene therapy is to replace or correct the defective genes of patients by genetic engineering technology, so as to achieve the goal of eradicating hereditary diseases. In 2017, the first gene therapy was approved in the United States, and the first human genome editing clinical trial started. In this study, we will use the most popular CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology and its derivative single base mutation technology to carry out exploratory experiments on the abandoned human embryo samples (mainly 3PN samples) from the assisted reproduction process. The donors of the human embryos are consent informed. At present, we have selected the CCR5 and PCSK9 genes as the research targets. Through this study, point mutations in diseases are accurately repaired to prevent the disease, or to regulate the expression of the pathogenic gene, so as to cure the related diseases. At the same time, the related samples will be sequenced in depth, and the related genes can be analyzed to reveal the mechanism of infertility to improve the pregnancy outcome of infertility.

Practical Ethics Blog

The basic principles of research ethics are:
Risk should be reasonable (See Savulescu & Hope, The Ethics of Research). This includes that risks are minimized and that there are proportionate benefits. There would have been less expected harm if embryos with lethal disorders were used. Any child produced would stand to derive a very significant benefit: having their life saved. Lulu and Nana derive no direct benefit: HIV can be prevented in numerous ways, including by protected sexual intercourse. Yet they were exposed to significant risk of off target mutations and cancer. The benefits to them are not proportionate to the risk.
Consent should be obtained. Clearly embryos cannot consent. Research on incompetent participants can be ethical if it is minimal risk or the benefits are proportional to the risks. This would only be the case if the embryo had a lethal disorder, and not when the embryo and future child only stands to be harmed with no direct benefit.