Chinese Scientist Says He's First To Create Genetically Modified Babies Using CRISPR (npr.org) 142
For the first time, a scientist claims to have used a powerful new gene-editing technique to create genetically modified human babies. From a report: The scientist, He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, says he used human embryos modified with the gene-editing technique CRISPR to create twin girls. "Two beautiful little Chinese girls name Lulu and Nana came crying into the world as healthy as any other babies a few weeks ago." He says in a video posted online. "The babies are home now with their mom Grace and their dad Mark." He says his team performed "gene surgery" on embryos created from their parents' sperm and eggs to protect the children from the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, which causes AIDS. The children' father is HIV-positive. "When Lulu and Nana were just a single cell, this surgery removed a doorway through which HIV enter to infect people," He says in the video, one of several posted online to justify and explain the work. Because the research has not yet been published in a scientific journal or carefully vetted by other scientists, many researchers and bioethicists remain cautious about the claim.
Re: Very unlikely (Score:4, Interesting)
One guy was already cured of HIV through a bone marrow transplant from another individual with genetic immunity to the disease. To use CRISPR to make the genetic tweak doesn't seem all that farfetched.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but HIV is not genetic so why was the father being HIV positive a problem considering, as I understood it, we're talking in vitro here?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, while other countries are still enforcing their naive ethics-based bans, the Chinese just power ahead. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese mutant overlords.
Re: Very unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Innate resistance to HIV [wikipedia.org] is well known. The gene that causes it has been identified, and 23andMe will even tell you if you have that gene.
With an HIV positive dad, the benefit to these GMO babies outweighs the risks.
Re: (Score:3)
The effect of gene modifying in human may not even show up for a long time. We still have to wait for at least another 20-30 years or even human life time. At least these twin girls would be the first guinea pig for the whole human race (regardless the ethical issue which may rise in the future).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck's sake... we've got seven billion on this planet and people are helping AIDS victims reproduce??
What in the flying fuck...
It seems like we should help everyone or no one. Tell me how AIDS victims are less deserving than someone who waited until she was 40. The only tier of people that's more deserving is those who had no hand in making their situation, such as those with birth defects or gay couples.
Re:Very unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorta what you said, but also not.
From the article you linked
The second step of virus entry and the first absolutely required for infection entails binding of Env to its primary receptor,the host protein CD4 (Maddon et al. 1986; McDougal et al. 1986). Env is a heavily glycosylated trimer of gp120 and gp41 heterodimers.
Note the "absolutely required"
The third step of virus entry, coreceptor binding, is widely thought to be the trigger that activates the membrane fusionpotential of Env. HIV strains can be broadly classified based on their coreceptor usage. Viruses that use the chemokine receptor CCR5 are termed R5 HIV, those that use CXCR4 are termed X4 HIV, and viruses that can use both coreceptors are called R5X4HIV (Berger et al. 1998). There is no compelling evidence that coreceptors other than CCR5 and CXCR4 play important roles in supporting infection of HIV-1 in vivo. With rare exception, only R5 and R5X4 viruses are transmitted between individuals (Keele et al. 2008), likely owing to multiple imperfect but overlapping host restrictions on X4 HIV transmission (reviewed in Margolis and Shattock 2006).
The NPR.org article says that the researcher blocked the CCR5 pathway, So if the father has the R5 or R5X4 HIV variant, then the genetic modification will indeed prevent the daughter's getting infected from their dad.
If I recall correctly, this "fix" would also cause the daughters to be immune to the bubonic plague (Yersinia pestis). I suspect that what he did was copy the CCR5 delta 32 mutation into the embryo. it's a mutation known not to be harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All your base pairs belong to us!
Re: (Score:2)
Does the gene patent owner own the children? (Score:2)
Or maybe the grandchildren -- farmers are not allowed to breed seed.
Re: (Score:2)
We will see. Possibly. But since nobody in the West is doing this type research, it is kind of hard to be sure. But even if it is fake, the reactions to the news will be very interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese recently let it be known that they will now start respect and enforce IP laws. That means they are in the process of moving beyond stealing because they are overtaking the west. The west has gotten fat, lazy, stupid and only interested in its own, homemade problems. Not saying the Chinese model of modern society is something to aspire to (I do not think so, the "social score" idea is right out of a 3rd Reich playbook...), but it is something that seems to begin to work and produce results. And
Twin study chance missed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should that have been done? You realize this was done to save the lives of the children, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Should have only done this to one twin, imho, it would be a great case study on side effects.
The video implies that they were from separate ova and sperm. So they are fraternal twins, and only share ~50% of their DNA. That far outweighs any genetic difference caused by the gene edit.
Re: (Score:2)
The video implies that they were from separate ova and sperm. So they are fraternal twins, and only share ~50% of their DNA. That far outweighs any genetic difference caused by the gene edit.
On average fraternal twins (or you could think of them just as siblings who aren't temporally separated) share 50% of their DNA. On a case by case basis, it can wildly vary, however. Theoretically it spans from 0% to 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to sound like this but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't trust any science claims coming out of China anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No it isn't. If done carefully and ethically genetic research and modification has the potential save lives and end untold human suffering. From your post you would have us abandon entire lines of scientific research base on the works of some evil wack job 70 years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Gotta agree with jwhyche. Learn some basic ethics... if you aren't hurting or using anybody, it's not evil. Mengele's experiments were unethical because he was hurting people. Not because he was studying genetics. This attempt to prevent HIV is focused on helping people and not hurting anybody.
Also, logic: saying genetics is evil because Mengele was into genetics is a rather obvious fallacy. I think it's classified as an "Association Fallacy", closely related to the (hah hah) "Genetic Fallacy".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have to forgive Rick. He had a traumatic event a year ago and hasn't quite got over it.
Re: (Score:3)
No one will forgive you for being a sociopath though will they?
Rick, no need to bring in the sock puppets. If you have something to say, man up and say it. Don't hide behind some anonymous coward id. That is just bad form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky, you need to get a grip buddy. I know you don't like to be wrong, but you are. Spend some time researching subject, get a better ideal on what you are talking about. Avoid the nazi comparisons too. You lost your argument the moment you mentioned Mengele.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mmmmm, the butt hurt, strong in this one, it is. I'm really trying to stay on the level with you here. We don't want to let my inner troll out and have him drag you back under that bridge. I'm going to take the high road here and walk away. Figuratively speaking of course.
Re: (Score:2)
If done carefully and ethically, it can also destroy species and ecologies. Unintended consequences are inevitable.
Re: (Score:3)
All science can have unintended consequences. That is the nature of science. Galileo and Copernicus had the unintended consequence of bringing us out of the dark ages of superstition, well most of us. People like Rick would rather let children die of horrible diseases, like cystic fibrosis or Sickle Cell, than seek a cure for them. I imagine they do this because they are afraid of some thing they don't understand.
It's the unethical use of genetic or the irresponsible that must be stopped. Curing child
Re: (Score:2)
> All science can have unintended consequences. That is the nature of science.
Yes, it's why I mentioned the potential damages of ethical research. Caution, and even a healthy level of paranoia, are needed for genetic work that may change a recipient's health, lifespan, and behavior decades after the original application of the technology. We're seeing this today, in mainland China, where genetic testing led parents living under the "one child" policies to abort female fetuses. While the policy has been r
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The first comment wasn't racist, but yours is.
And I have experienced what you describe (specifically students from China in my MS curriculum). What I found to be the common denominator among the ones I spoke with was that they came from wealthy families, and didn't make it into any of the most prestigious Chinese universities.
So perhaps what you noticed is that a self selected group of wealthy kids who were not smart enough or connected enough to get into their preferred university end up not being the bes
Re: Hate to sound like this but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not f*cking racism when it's been proven over and over again.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Chinese+f... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Chinese kids? (Score:4, Funny)
Are these Chinese names? Shit, am I being racist?
Re:Chinese kids? (Score:4, Informative)
Parents: Grace, Mark
Are these Chinese names?
It is very common for Chinese people to adopt an English name to use when communicating in English.
Chinese has phonemes that do not exist in English, and is a tonal language, so Chinese names are often very difficult for native English speakers to properly pronounce. Using an English name makes communication smoother, and also signals that they are attempting a cultural fit rather than just learning the language.
Shit, am I being racist?
No. A language is not a race.
Re: (Score:2)
Change your names to fit Bill but never expect Bill and his kind to do the same...
Au contraire. I have a Chinese name. My wife is Chinese, so I use her surname, and the first hanzi of her given name, but replace the final hanzi.
It is the name I use in China, it is printed on my business card, and it was printed on my residence card when I lived in Shanghai.
Please buckle your setbelts and remain seated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read up on PGD.
Analyzing a batch of embryos' genetics and selecting ones that have desirable traits is one thing. Enhanced selective breeding. Actually editing the genes is a completely different ballgame. And hasn't been done in human embryos that were carried to term, as far as I can tell.
You're a bit slow or uninformed.
You know it's not necessary to be dick to prove a point, right?
Re: (Score:2)
How about the gene for the ability to process lactose? I believe (but am willing to be corrected) that the gene is mostly European in origin. If you want that particular set of features, you'd choose "disease genes" that would fit the European "profile", and hope for the best.
Vote me down if you wish.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What if they visit California? (Score:4, Funny)
Will they have to have CONTAINS GMO tattoos?
KAIJU! (Score:2)
Not really news (Score:1)
as China has a tendency to proclaim the most outrageous achievements in all things on a weekly basis to show the world how amazing they are :|
Re: (Score:2)
Verify, then Trust (Score:2)
Hasn't been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, probably another fake.
what could go wrong? (Score:2)
Long Term (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious about long-term testing for these twins if they've developed true permanent HIV immunity and if they're able to pass it along to offspring. Also, if there are any unintended consequences of this modification.
What they are doing is removing a receptor that the HIV virus requires for cellular entry. Since it is being removed at the level of DNA, it should be heritable.
There are known consequences for removal of this receptor - namely greater susceptibility to some other infections such as West Nile Virus; and possibly reduced ability to suppress immune response.
Where are the parents from? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to force evolution I guess (Score:2)
Certainly there are some ethical concerns - ie what if the modifications cause a child to be born with massive defects, extreme pain, or a short
Re: (Score:1)
That's race-car flying saucer sex cult [wikipedia.org], bub!