China Gene-Edited Baby Experiment 'May Have Created Unintended Mutations' (theguardian.com) 77
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The gene editing performed on Chinese twins to immunize them against HIV may have failed and created unintended mutations, scientists have said after the original research was made public for the first time. Excerpts from the manuscript were released by the MIT Technology Review to show how Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui ignored ethical and scientific norms in creating the twins Lula and Nana, whose birth in late 2018 sent shockwaves through the scientific world.
He made expansive claims of a medical breakthrough that could "control the HIV epidemic", but it was not clear whether it had even been successful in its intended purpose -- immunizing the babies against the virus -- because the team did not in fact reproduce the gene mutation that confers this resistance. A small percentage of people are born with immunity because of a mutation in a gene called CCR5 and it was this gene that He had claimed to have targeted using a powerful editing tool known as Crispr which has revolutionized the field since 2012. Fyodor Urnov, a genome-editing scientist at the University of California, Berkeley told the MIT Technology Review: "The claim they have reproduced the prevalent CCR5 variant is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual data and can only be described by one term: a deliberate falsehood. "The study shows that the research team instead failed to reproduce the prevalent CCR5 variant." While the team targeted the right gene, they did not replicate the "Delta 32" variation required, instead creating novel edits whose effects are not clear.
He made expansive claims of a medical breakthrough that could "control the HIV epidemic", but it was not clear whether it had even been successful in its intended purpose -- immunizing the babies against the virus -- because the team did not in fact reproduce the gene mutation that confers this resistance. A small percentage of people are born with immunity because of a mutation in a gene called CCR5 and it was this gene that He had claimed to have targeted using a powerful editing tool known as Crispr which has revolutionized the field since 2012. Fyodor Urnov, a genome-editing scientist at the University of California, Berkeley told the MIT Technology Review: "The claim they have reproduced the prevalent CCR5 variant is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual data and can only be described by one term: a deliberate falsehood. "The study shows that the research team instead failed to reproduce the prevalent CCR5 variant." While the team targeted the right gene, they did not replicate the "Delta 32" variation required, instead creating novel edits whose effects are not clear.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, first symptom to burst was under 48 hours. Not enough time for much other than surgery. Especially when there was a 36 hour delay between first symptom and self-diagnosis.
Re: (Score:1)
Press F to pay respects (Score:3)
These kids are going to be dead of TurboCancer by age 5. We can name whatever horrific malady that kills the kids slowly and painfully "He Jiankui Syndrome." Congratulations!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mutation (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously they didn't recreate CCR5 delta32 .. but it at least one of the babies they caused a frame shift which induces a premature stop codon. Therefore, it should have the same effect as delta32. A frame shift effectively destroys the gene from that point onward. I am not sure what the issue is .. you don't need delta32 .. scrambled code is scrambled code. It's essentially the same thing -- there won't be any negative effect. Probably you cause more DNA issues in your offspring when you choose to have kids late in life or choose an unhealthy partner. This is unnecessary fearmongering .. I expected better from scientists.
Re: Mutation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably false. It's rare that single genes do single things. We have no way of knowing, yet, what the impact of the changes that he made will be.
Re:Mutation (Score:5, Funny)
there won't be any negative effect.
Then why has the Chinese government been suppressing all the recent reports of a pair of 50-meter tall toddlers rampaging through Beijing -- destroying buildings, knocking down high tension wires and tossing around locomotives like toy trains? Apparently, the weapons deployed by their latest stealth fighters have inflicted little more than pinpricks on these twin giants. This meddling with the secrets of nature has unleashed dangerous forces that will certainly result in dire consequences for their citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
there won't be any negative effect.
Then why has the Chinese government been suppressing all the recent reports of a pair of 50-meter tall toddlers rampaging through Beijing -- destroying buildings, knocking down high tension wires and tossing around locomotives like toy trains? Apparently, the weapons deployed by their latest stealth fighters have inflicted little more than pinpricks on these twin giants. This meddling with the secrets of nature has unleashed dangerous forces that will certainly result in dire consequences for their citizens.
They're wasting their time and money. Everyone knows the easiest way to stop a giant rampaging toddler is with Rick Moranis and a giant stuffed bunny.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why has the Chinese government been suppressing all the recent reports of a pair of 50-meter tall toddlers rampaging through Beijing -- destroying buildings, knocking down high tension wires and tossing around locomotives like toy trains?
Because they don't want the Japanese to intervene and send in Godzilla.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, we are letting you pass your genes on even though you have a negative understanding of science and evolution so why not them .. their IQ after all is bound to be a lot higher than yours .. so shouldn't we need that aspect?
Obviously Unintended Mutations (Score:5, Interesting)
CRISPR is amazing, it does something we have never been able to do before.
But it's like using a chainsaw to cut paper dolls.
We have an extraordinarily limited understanding of the impact of DNA/RNA on the final product. There is all that folding and swapping that occurs that is seemingly random to us right now. And these splices are not accurate because we aren't even sure what we are splicing.
In my humble opinion it is incredibly irresponsible and unethical to attempt to apply this technology to the human genome without further exploration and understanding.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Obviously Unintended Mutations (Score:5, Insightful)
No he is right on the money. We barely understanding anything of significance about our genetic code.
No matter how you slice the pie we still don't know a lot of stuff. We have been doing things to our bodies with extraordinarily limited understanding for years with success as well. But just because you succeed, does not mean that your knowledge is complete. There is a near constant load of BS rolling around about how much we think we know. Yet... modern standard medicine shows us that through all sorts of drug interactions and side effects every person digests something differently. It's also not just the DNA that is part of our makeup... but also the other things living in and around our bodies along with the environment itself.
The only thing we are sure of is... that we need to still learn a great deal more. Exponential amounts of information more.
" What do you think people spend 4 years doing when working on their PhD? We have an understanding of what many genes do."
This shows your utter ignorance and hubris... 4 years may seem like a long time... except it is not. Plus... we do not have an understanding of what many genes do... we do have a lot of evidence that suggests what many genes control. We have to conduct loads of experiments with teams of people looking over data and each other shoulders to get barely a grasp of some of this stuff and hope no one is making any mistakes along the way. Every little step forward is major effort.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/... [futurism.com]
DNA is still not well understood, hell we just recently found unknown structures in DNA.
https://gizmodo.com/forget-the... [gizmodo.com]
For all we know we still have a limited understanding of how cells work but we are getting there.
You have a serious problem thinking you know more than you do.
Knowledge is a blessing and a curse... for every question we successfully answer at least 2 new questions replace it with the newly acquired knowledge.
Its bad for us to overestimate what we think we know about the human genome... or any genome for that matter!
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually taken courses on biology and read numerous texts which is precisely why I am making these assertions.
Read it again ,m then read the responses that follow yours. You're welcome.
Re: Obviously Unintended Mutations (Score:1)
Re: Obviously Unintended Mutations (Score:2)
In Europe the 3 or 4 year PhD is almost universal. In my area of computer science, if a PhD hours into 5 years, then the government ratchet down its grant money to the department permanently so there's a strong incentive for departments to help their students complete on time.
I'm the UK the students aren't used just as a pool of low cost researchers, like they are in the US
Re: Obviously Unintended Mutations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. What jobs are available for a 4 year hard science PhD in UK? Is it any better than being a low paid student researcher for a few more years? Honest question, I'm not trying to be a dick.
Everyone who stays in academia goes into their first postdoc position that many years earlier than their US counterparts. It felt like a quicker route forwards. As for going into industry jobs, my only experience is in the tech industry, where (1) PhD hires are unrelated to the duration of your PhD and instead are related to your tech aptitude, (2) your career progression in the industry is strongly correlated with how many years you've been in the industry and not correlated with how many years you were in
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're incorrect. DNA is insufficient to generally predict protein sequence or structure. For example, there are many more distinct types of proteins in the human body than there are identifiable genes.
The core dogma that DNA codes for proteins has been known to be wrong for many decades, and was dramatically driven home with the Human Genome Project. That we may know how a few genes work does not change that we do not know how genes work generally.
I am a physicist working in biology. I know many biolog
Re: (Score:2)
"When a difficult question appears in biology, biologists have a bad habit of creating a new walled off specialty allowing them to ignore question rather than addressing it."
That's how doctors work in general too.
Re: (Score:2)
Physicists just put dark in front of a general descriptor and ask for more research money. Dark matter, dark energy. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a BS statement you made: "We have an extraordinarily limited understanding of the impact of DNA/RNA on the final product. "
It depends on what you mean by limited understanding. Since "limited" is a weasel word, you can argue we have a limited understanding of why 2 + 2 is 4. I actually think we have a very good understanding. By looking at a DNA sequence we can predict what the protein product of it will be. In most cases can predict the structure of the protein to a high degree of accuracy. We can also predict how the protein will interact with what it normally is supposed to interact with. We aren't flying blind in biology you know. I suggest you learn some biology and read some books on genetics and proteins. What do you think people spend 4 years doing when working on their PhD? We have an understanding of what many genes do.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
A WHOLE 4 YEARS?! Yeah, that makes you a real expert on reprogramming the most complicated known system in the fucking universe!
A coder with a PhD is basically a skilled beginner. And they have the advantage of manuals explaining exactly what everything does.
Talk about over-confident. I hope no one allows you anywhere near any genetic work.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think we have a very good understanding. By looking at a DNA sequence we can predict what the protein product of it will be. In most cases can predict the structure of the protein to a high degree of accuracy. We can also predict how the protein will interact with what it normally is supposed to interact with. We aren't flying blind in biology you know. I suggest you learn some biology and read some books on genetics and proteins. What do you think people spend 4 years doing when working on their PhD? We have an understanding of what many genes do.
I see a lot of weasel words there, which makes for a weak rebuttal for someone trying to communicate a high level view of a complicated picture.
I have talked to people with PhDs in this topic, who are in the field of studying disease and the relationship to genetic variation, and they see the topic very differently from you. Importantly CRISPR is less precise than advertised. Even when the precise targeted sequence is altered exactly as intended, which is not always the result, there are unintended change
Re: (Score:3)
We know the primary reason for a small proportion of the genes that make a human. We have almost no knowledge of secondary purposes for a gene or how they can combine together with others to produce something useful. It wasn't that long ago that we thought 90% of our DNA was junk.
We are infants playing with things that we don't know about and releasing our creations into the world. I'm not afraid of eating GMO food because I think it will do something different to me than non-GMO food. I don't like releasin
Re: (Score:2)
...it is incredibly irresponsible and unethical to attempt to apply this technology to the human genome without further exploration and understanding.
How do you propose to bootstrap the process of exploring and gaining further understanding while remaining ethically responsible? Are you suggesting the human genome is uniquely sacred, or does your sense of ethics apply in proportion to the complexity of the creature?
Re: (Score:2)
...it is incredibly irresponsible and unethical to attempt to apply this technology to the human genome without further exploration and understanding.
How do you propose to bootstrap the process of exploring and gaining further understanding while remaining ethically responsible? Are you suggesting the human genome is uniquely sacred, or does your sense of ethics apply in proportion to the complexity of the creature?
All life on earth is important. All genomes are sacred. As a human I am biased, so I'd prefer another species do some of the leg work for us.
Random (Score:2)
Are there two kinds of randomness? Natural randomness and artificial randomness. If a random mutation is caused by a human action it is more dangerous than an unintentional random mutation (which happens in nature all the time)?
If you deliberately roll a dice you are more likely to have bad luck than if the dice accidentally falls out of your hand.
How stupid are you guys?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
nothing is random... period!
when we say random... what we are technically saying is that how this comes about is so complex and difficult to understand that is appears random.
Everything is cause and effect. And for people to believe in actual free-will... well that too is not random.
Cause and Effect, that is all we know and what we can prove. Anything beyond that we are not able to prove... at least at this time can we cannot prove anything beyond that.
Re: (Score:3)
>nothing is random... period!
Assuming the Cophenhagan interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, then you're completely wrong. Insofar as the quantum state affects the outcome of a particle interaction, *every* particle interaction is fundamentally random (within some probability distribution)
Not just "we don't know enough to be able to predict it", but fundamentally, theoretically unpredictable. The particle simultaneously exists in all possible states, until something collapses its wavefunction,
Re: Random (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Are there two kinds of randomness?
So they used /dev/random instead of /dev/urandom?
How stupid are you guys?
Pretty effing stupid if they used /dev/random.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there two kinds of randomness? Natural randomness and artificial randomness. If a random mutation is caused by a human action it is more dangerous than an unintentional random mutation (which happens in nature all the time)?
If you deliberately roll a dice you are more likely to have bad luck than if the dice accidentally falls out of your hand.
How stupid are you guys?
Again, to acknowledge someone below (Noah), evolution is the driving factor for lasting genetic mutation. He said it isn't random, and it isn't, it is confined by the bounds of one natural environment (don't get too concrete on me now).
It is NOT however confined by the whims and fancy of an erratic extremely temporary human life form.
At least it isn't until very recently.
If chaos, if random - is the default , why is it so fucking hard to make a computer make a truly random number?
Re: (Score:2)
Are there two kinds of randomness? Natural randomness and artificial randomness. If a random mutation is caused by a human action it is more dangerous than an unintentional random mutation (which happens in nature all the time)?
Yes. Human randomness is more hazardous, because it's not "random". Aiming to change eye color and missing targeted the eye color gene, and is more likely to make a blind baby, as you have successfully edited the eye gene, but improperly. A random mutation doing the same thing would be just as bad, but is less likely.
Re: (Score:2)
If nature forces your unborn child to play a kind of genetic Russian Roulette 50 times with mutations of unknown effects, that is the unavoidable cost of being born into this world.
If you as a parent or doctor decide to force the unborn child to play Russian Roulette an additional 50 times, all for a very ambiguous benefit, that is immense stupidity.
These gene editing technologies are not error free. Edit one site, even do so successfully, and there is a very good chance you will accidentally have edited m
"Good" Vs. "Bad" Mutations (Score:2)
Many diseases are caused by "bad" natural mutations. If you randomly "flip enough bits" in a single individual, the chance of having bad side-effects is high.
It's true evolution relies mostly on mutations, but for every beneficial natural mutation there are typically many more bad ones.
It's somewhat like web startups: most will fail, but a few hit the jackpot and corner a new market first. For every Steve Jobs there are thousands of Joe Floppers. (I've tried 5 startups myself.)
A species depends on the relat
Re: (Score:2)
Which is worse, one random cell in your body with one random mutation - - - Or - - - The same, or similar, mutation replicated in every cell of your body.
One of these cases will probably cause no noticeable effect.
"Unintended Mutations" (Score:2)
If at first you don't succeed (Score:2)
Try, try again.
Making specific children immune from AIDS seem rather pointless as they will not replace the population of Africa any time soon, and AIDS medication works well for people that are not poor.
But making children with webbed fingers would win Olympic swimming medals, even if they were not entirely healthy. Will we allow genetically engineered competitors? To ban them would be discriminatory.
Slightly more intelligent would be an ultimate goal. Very difficult -- You are competing with natural se
Re: If at first you don't succeed (Score:1)
Population Control (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
People: We must reduce population to solve climate change!!! ....... Same people: We must stop the HIV epidemic!!
Let HIV run rampant if you want, but having poor countries where the median age is 15 years old can't be too good for the climate either.
Re: Population Control (Score:2)
Cover Story (Score:2)
The HIV thing was the public story and apparently the same or similar target was thought to produce increased intelligence.
Which is the more likely actual target for the Chinese?
Re: Cover Story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your list would be more easily achieved just with the proper 'education and training' (,plus staying clear of pigs).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it went more like this in the lab meeting...
Well, we are thinking of these three options for HIV immunity. The possible side effects from #1 is a massively increased risk of cancer. #2 might give the person increased intelligence. #3 will probably cause every life function to cease instantaneously, and cause every cell in their body to explode at the speed of light.
Well, I'm a Ghostbusters fan - but we should probably pursue #2. It makes for a better press release.
I for one... (Score:1)
ignored ethical and scientific norms (Score:2)
It's when we become a footnote in ancient history (like Atlantis, if you believe it) that a future civilization will shake their heads and say "F**king Assholes".
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how all your examples did jack all to both the planet and humanity.
Re: ignored ethical and scientific norms (Score:2)
did jack all to both the planet and humanity
Time and history may show a different picture. Myopathy is correctable, stupidity is not unless being an example of what not to do is your goal.
Re: (Score:2)
What a convincing rebut.
That is... (Score:2)
Sault's law (Score:3)
Re: Sault's law (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. That's why no child has ever been smarter than their parents and humans never evolved from simpler organisms! Seems this Sault fellow might not have thought things through very well.
Biology is not a "thing." You are a thing. You cannot make a thing as complex as yourself. You cannot, with your hands, make a human. You cannot, with your hands, make a "better" human. The making of an "android" must fail. Gene interventions must fail.
Re: Sault's law (Score:2)
Re: Sault's law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking Zombies or X-Men mutations? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)