Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Science

A Third CRISPR Baby May Have Already Been Born in China (technologyreview.com) 114

Posted by msmash from the meanwhile-in-China dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, held in Hong Kong last November, was meant to debate the pros and cons of genetically engineering humans. Instead, the proceedings were turned upside down by the revelation that He Jiankui, a Chinese biophysicist, had already done it. He'd gone ahead and edited the DNA of twin girls with the powerful gene modification tool called CRISPR. Then the Chinese scientist sprang a further surprise on the shocked gene-editing experts. A second Chinese woman, he said, was pregnant with yet another CRISPR baby. An early pregnancy test had confirmed it.

That third CRISPR baby is now due to be born at any moment -- if he or she hasn't come crying into the world already. Seven months have passed since the Hong Kong summit, but because the pregnancy was already under way by then, it is now at term, according to William Hurlbut, a Stanford University physician and ethicist who was in regular communication with He starting in 2017 and is familiar with the time line of events. Hurlbut knows the day the third baby was conceived but won't make it public, because of the risk the information could identify the parents and child.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Third CRISPR Baby May Have Already Been Born in China More

A Third CRISPR Baby May Have Already Been Born in China

Comments Filter:

  • Khannnnnnnn (Score:5, Funny)

    by darthsilun ( 3993753 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @11:01AM (#58867214)
    Seems fitting.

    • Except for the fact that a lot of people forget the Fiction part of Science Fiction.
      In order for Science Fiction to sell and be read, it will still need a solid solid story.
      This means there needs to be some sort of conflict to be overcome.
      Having story where a an unborn baby has a genetic defect, but it was corrected and the baby was born healthy and became a productive member of society, and because the problem was fixed in the genetic level the next generation didn't have that defect, wouldn't sell that we

      • Eventually we are going to gain sufficient knowledge of genetics that we're going to be able to alter the complex series of genetic and developmental processes that lead to greater cognition, memory and the like. I don't think the underlying theme of Khan was merely that he was genetically superior, but clearly his knowledge of military tactics, politics and general history was substantial, indicating that not only did he have superiority gained through genetic manipulation, but also had a superior educatio

        • And NONE of that matters!

          To think that the ultra rich/ultra powerful people are going to care about the ethics or morality of ensuring their bloodline is a vastly superior one to everybody else on this planet is sheer folly. They didn't get to where they are by caring about the needs of others.

          This technology needs to be tightly controlled and regulated, and even then it won't stop some of them.

          We're in a race to genetic superiority if you're not already a billionaire you've already fucking lost.

          • I look at it this way. China is an autocratic regime. It really sees no moral imperative in these sorts of experiments, but that absolute lack of concern for moral or ethical quandaries will probably end up benefiting everyone else. They're far more willing to have thousands of monsters created as they hone their craft. It's rather like how Nazi twin experiments and hypothermia experiments ended up in medical journals after the war. What the Nazis did in their medical experiments boggles the mind at the she

          • Re:Khannnnnnnn (Score:4, Interesting)

            by The Cynical Critic ( 1294574 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @12:53PM (#58867830)
            Considering that evolution and basic pair bonding, in both humans and animals, is trying to achieve the same end result (producing the best offspring possible) I'm not sure there is actually that much of an argument against human gene editing. If you're going to tell people they can't genetically edit their children to produce the best offspring possible then you also have to tell them not to have children with people they're attracted to because it also comes with an element of trying to produce the best offspring possible, albeit subconsciously.

            No, the fear around "designer babies" is fundamentally just a fear of you and your own non-designer children being left behind and a fear of what unnaturally intelligent and physically attractive people may be capable of. When you boil it down even further it's really just envy of people who would be getting an advantage over yourself and your children that you consider unfair.
            • It's a little disingenuous to ascribe all of the controversy over a potential speciation event into jealousy. Sure for now it'll be all "tall and handsome" but quickly it'll be designer purple eyes, disease immunity and so on that makes current income disparity seem like a quaint from of classism. Then the bioengineered viruses that target these people, then who knows.
              • You do remember that all the three kids so far have all been edited for disease immunity. More specifically the HIV immunity/resistance causing mutation carried by about 10% of Europeans and 1% of the total world population. (Apparently the reason why it's so much more common among Europeans is that it also provided immunity to the black death, which killed about 60% of the total population of Europe in the 14th centry)

                The reality is that an significant inequality brought on by genetics already exists. Y
                • True, it is hard to argue we shouldn't let some people better their offspring. Yet, I don't think chimps are jealous of humans even as they are slowly being driven extinct by them. Transhumanism is scary in its own right. I don't know if that means we have to try to stop it, but I think the reaction is more complex than jealousy. We kind of have to do it if we ever want to colonize other planets, or maybe we'll ruin Earth too fast to get that far either way.
                  • Considering how little of substance there really is against being able and allowed to edit the genes of your children when compared to how strong the sentiment against it is, there has to be something people don't want to express or acknowledge behind it. As such the only thing that makes any modicum of sense is jealousy as the only other alternative, the religious argument about how this is playing god, would make this an issue of the religious right, when it isn't.
      • You may act like engineering "designer babies" is science fiction, but the reality is that research into genetics for other purposes has gotten us to the point that we already know enough of at least the genes involved in things like height and intelligence. Thus we are already be able to produce children with distinct advantages in these aspects compared to children with the same parents without these genetic changes.

        However these things would require a quite extensive series of generic nips and tucks t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

          Turns out the genes for higher intelligence also tend to positively influence health and longevity. Why would we NOT want to improve the prospects of future humanity?

      • For example factors as simple as our height while has genetic components (All my family is under 6 feet in height, so I never expected I would grow up to be over 6 feet tall)

        Oddly enough, both of my grandfathers were over 6 feet tall and both my grandmothers were under 5 feet tall. And all of their children (both the men and the women) were average size.

        But every male grandchild they had was over 6 feet tall....

      • Or we could fix our fscked up culture that judges a manâ(TM)s worth with a yardstick.

  • If those babies have them, will they be allowed to sue the scientists? Would the Chinese court system even allow it?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He shall not allow birth defects.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      That sounds like a great way to become an organ donor in China. Chinese authorities won't even let people speak contrary messages. What do you think suing them is?

  • Why China? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Headw1nd ( 829599 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @11:16AM (#58867320)
    So the question I have with this is considering how this was done completely outside any legal framework, in without any real oversight (ethical or otherwise) why China would be the first place we would see this? China isn't really known for extreme tolerance of people who bend or break the rules, especially those willing to come right out and say they did it. I would expect somewhere with a more laissez faire outlook to be the first, or maybe somewhere where the government isn't such an omnipresent force. Is there something about China I'm missing here?

    • There have been many instances of technology outpacing the laws so I really doubt there were any laws on the books that would cover something like this. Here is an interesting article.

      https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]

    • It probably depends on which laws are broken. I assume the China government either approves of this or doesn't care. If they were engineering babies to have a permanent tattoo that said "Remember Tiamann", you can be sure they'd squash that like a grape.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        The ruling elite in China have one thing on their minds and that is Global Domination. They don't plan on doing it Hitler style with guns, tanks, and submarines, nor do they plan to do it British empire style by owning the seas but rather they want to be the technological masters and the global market makers. They want a world where if you don't trade with China on China's terms you don't matter.

        So you better believe they perfectly happy to look the other way if Chinese geneticists do a little experimenta

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The above post is *exactly* why nations are now giving the middle finger to the English speaking countries...so full of hubris and utter bullshit, no clue about other cultures and yet...claiming you know what the Chinese leadership are thinking...OMG ROFL

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Empiric ( 675968 )

      You're missing that there is absolutely no reason to assume any ethics whatsoever are present by the fact something is a "country". China is a totalitarian dictatorship-by-committee, within which "ethical good" is "whatever serves the Party's interests" and "ethical evil" is "whatever doesn't serve the Party's interests".

      Cloning humans is simply a way to reinforce the notion people are simply reproducible meat to serve the Party at its whim.

      The notion of any non-material ("spiritual") reality as a factor i

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        I think we might consider the notion that the CCP isn't really against CRISPR for making babies if they think they can co-opt it to make more CCP-Compliant babies that have fewer wishes to think for themselves. Free and independent thought is a danger for the CCP and why Taiwan gives them the collywobbles. Another danger for the CCP is that Chinese become so disgusted being treated like trained bunnies that they find ways to sabotage The State. Right now, that does not seem to be an issue but this mostly be

    • Their "legal framework" is related to the state itself, not what's happening outside of politics and power.

      And they want to be on top technologically, and, regardless of morals, this type of thing puts them there for certain aspects.

    • There more extreme intolerance of deviation is, the more willing to break any norms the populace will have.

    • Re:Why China? (Score:4, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @12:05PM (#58867570) Homepage Journal

      Apparently it just wasn't illegal in China. When they heard about the first two they started drafting a law to make the doctor doing the editing responsible if anything went wrong, but it's not clear if they are also seeking to ban genetic enhancement in general.

      Basically their legal system hasn't developed to the point where such things are regulated by default, and clearly this guy didn't think it was a big deal as he was happy to present it at a major conference in Hong Kong.

    • Wow - I think you have a really mistaken idea of what China is like. China is the Wild West. There are few rules, and those are very rarely enforced. As long as you stay out of politics, and avoid stepping on the toes of the powerful, nobody gives a damn what you do.

      • This. +1

      • and for the Major Kong reference.

      • While the west worries about moral issues, China just gets on with it.

        Eventually they might produce a genetic variation that really produces a benefit. Like being able to work longer without breaks, or to avoid confrontations with authority. Everybody will want an enhanced baby like that, and those babies can pass on their genes naturally.

        Only trouble is that unlike rats, it take a long time to breed a human. So you really need to get it out artificially at scale to make a difference. Quite doable thou

  • A Third CRISPR Baby May Have Already Been Born (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @11:40AM (#58867450)

    A Third CRISPR Baby May Have Already Been Born in China

    I hope its crispier than the last one...

  • Does anyone seriously think that China is *not* trying like hell in secret to create super soldiers, super scientists, and whatever-the-fuck-else with new molecular biology techniques like Crispr? I mean, these are people who harvest organs from their prison population. I fully expect to see news in the next few years that they've been doing large-scale superbaby programs starting about 15 minutes after they stole the IP needed to do Crispr years ago. I don't know why the news media gives any shrift to thei

    • Does anyone seriously think that China is *not* trying like hell in secret to create super soldiers, super scientists, and whatever-the-fuck-else with new molecular biology techniques like Crispr?

      And why shouldn't they be? It's not like there's some sort of "divine" being out there defining what it means to be "human" and separating "humans" from all the other animals out there in the ecosystem.

      And in spite of the rather snide previous paragraph, I've got no problems whatsoever with tinkering with human D

      • I expect the same. My problem is that it's the Chinese doing it, not the West. Like a lot of EU and Asians hate America but not Americans, well.... I hate China (the country, not every Chinese person I meet). If they are going to race for superbabies we should too. The only difference is that the West can come up with new ideas instead of simply stealing them from others.

  • CRISPR baby (Score:3)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @12:59PM (#58867870)

    The best way to have a CRISPR baby is to cook it on higher heat for a shorter period of time.

  • .... a beowulf cluster of these.....

  • Moral high horse (Score:3)

    by pablo_max ( 626328 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @01:31PM (#58868034)

    I don't really get all the folks that jump on their moral high horses over CRISPR or any type of gene editing.
    Bunch of holier than thou asshats.

    My first child was still born due to an extremely rare genetic error in which manifested in the 3 trimester.
    I can tell you for certain, that if we could have edited that out and avoid the death of our child, there is simply no question as to whether or not we would have tried it.
    The possibility of a shorter life vs certain death? How can any person with a shred of morals choose death.
    If we have the ability to cure something, we also have the duty to do it.

    • using some tragedy in the past to imagine it gives you some special insight or moral pedestal for those who disagree is pathetic, go to twitter with that SJW bullshit tactic

    • I wouldn't worry too much. There really isn't any moral high ground at all here. It is far too early to say whether this technology will turn out for the better or worse for individuals and human kind.

      People are entitled to their opinions and to express them, though. But to base one's morals on random Internet opinions is typically not going to improve your life.

  • You're the first among many.

  • Maybe Trek naming its genetically engineered, world-dominating superman Khan wasn't so crazy after all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close