He Jiankui affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Lulu and Nana controversy)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The He Jiankui affair is a scientific and bioethical circumstance concerning the use of gene-editing in human cases following the first use by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who made the first genome-edited human babies in 2018.[1][2] The affair led to legal and ethical controversies with an indictment of He and his two collaborators, Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou.

He Jiankui, working at the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen, China, started a project to help people with fertility problems, specifically involving HIV-positive fathers and HIV-negative mothers. The subjects were offered standard in vitro fertilisation services and in addition, use of CRISPR gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9), a technology for modifying DNA. Specifically, the embryos were edited of their CCR5 gene in an attempt to confer genetic resistance to HIV.[3] The clinical project was conducted secretly until 25 November 2018 when MIT Technology Review exposed the story about the human experiment based on information from the Chinese clinical trials registry. Compelled by the situation, He immediately announced the birth of genome-edited babies in a series of five videos on YouTube the same day.[4][5] The first babies, known by their pseudonyms Lulu (Chinese: 露露) and Nana (Chinese: 娜娜), are twin girls born in October 2018, and the second birth or the third baby born was in 2019.[6][7][8] He reported that the babies were born healthy.[9]

The reaction to He's actions was widespread criticism[10][11] and included concern for the well-being of the girls.[3][12][13] He presented his research at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing at the University of Hong Kong on 28 November 2018. The next day, Chinese authorities suspended all his research activities.[14] He was immediately detained in SUSTech campus and kept under surveillance. On 30 December 2019, Chinese authorities announced that he was found guilty of forging documents and unethical conduct; he was sentenced to three years in prison with a fine of 3 million yuan (US$430,000).[15][16]

As a consequence to He's work, the World Health Organization launched a global registry in 2019 to track research on human genome editing, after a call to halt all work on genome editing.[17][18][19] In May 2019, lawyers in China reported, in light of He's experiment, the drafting of regulations that anyone manipulating the human genome by gene-editing techniques, like CRISPR, would be held responsible for any related adverse consequences.[20]

He Jiankui has been variously referred to as a "rogue scientist",[6] "China's Dr Frankenstein",[21] and a "mad genius".[22]

Origin[edit]

On 10 June 2017, a Chinese couple, an HIV-positive father and HIV-negative mother, pseudonymously called Mark and Grace,[23] attended a conference held by He Jiankui at the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen. They were offered in vitro fertilisation along with gene-editing of their embryos so as to develop innate resistance to HIV infection in their offspring. They agreed to volunteer through informed consent and the experiment was carried out in secrecy. Six other couples having similar fertility problems were subsequently recruited.[6] The couples were recruited through a Beijing-based AIDS advocacy group called Baihualin China League.[24] When later examined, the consent forms were noted as incomplete and inadequate.[23]

When the place of the clinical experiment was investigated, the Southern University of Science and Technology declared that the university was not involved and that He had been on unpaid leave since February 2018, and his department attested that they were unaware of the research project.[25][26]

Experiment and birth[edit]

He Jiankui, the researcher, took sperm and eggs from the couples, performed in vitro fertilisation with the eggs and sperm, and then edited the genomes of the embryos using CRISPR/Cas9.[24] The editing targeted a gene, CCR5, that codes for a protein that HIV uses to enter cells.[27][28] He was trying to reproduce the phenotype of a specific mutation in the gene, CCR5-Δ32, that few people naturally have and that possibly confers innate resistance to HIV,[27] as seen in the case of the Berlin Patient.[29] However, rather than introducing the known CCR5-Δ32 mutation, He introduced a frameshift mutation intended to make the CCR5 protein entirely nonfunctional.[30] According to He, Lulu and Nana carried both functional and mutant copies of CCR5 given mosaicism inherent in the present state of the art in germ-line editing.[31] There are forms of HIV that use a different receptor instead of CCR5; therefore, the work of He did not theoretically protect Lulu and Nana from those forms of HIV.[27] He used a preimplantation genetic diagnosis process on the embryos that were edited, where three to five single cells were removed, and fully sequenced them to identify chimerism and off-target errors. He says that during the pregnancy, cell-free fetal DNA was fully sequenced to check for off-target errors, and an amniocentesis was offered to check for problems with the pregnancy, but the mother declined.[27] Lulu and Nana were born in secrecy in October 2018.[32] They were reported by He to be normal and healthy.[33]

Revelation[edit]

He Jiankui's announcement

He Jiankui was planning to reveal his experiments and the birth of Lulu and Nana at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, which was to be organized at the University of Hong Kong during 27–29 November 2018.[34] However, on 25 November 2018, Antonio Regalado, senior editor for biomedicine of MIT Technology Review, posted on the journal's website about the experiment based on He Jiankui's applications for conducting clinical trial that had been posted earlier on the Chinese clinical trials registry. At the time, He refused to comment on the conditions of the pregnancy.[4][35] Prompted by the publicity, He immediately posted about his experiment and the successful birth of the twins on YouTube in five videos the same day.[36][37] The next day, the Associated Press made the first formal news, which was most likely a pre-written account before the publicity.[1] His experiment had received no independent confirmation, and had not been peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal.[38][39][40] Soon after He's revelation, the university at which He was previously employed, the Southern University of Science and Technology, stated that He's research was conducted outside of their campus.[41] China's National Health Commission also ordered provincial health officials to investigate his case soon after the experiment was revealed.[38]

Amidst the furore, He was allowed to present his research at the Hong Kong meeting on 28 November under the title "CCR5 gene editing in mouse, monkey, and human embryos using CRISPR–Cas9". During the discussion session, He asserted, "Do you see your friends or relatives who may have a disease? They need help," and continued, "For millions of families with inherited disease or infectious disease, if we have this technology we can help them."[42] In his speech, He also mentioned about a second pregnancy under the same experiment.[9] No reports disclosed, the baby might have been born around August 2019,[43] and the birth was affirmed on 30 December when the Chinese court returned a verdict mentioning that there were "three genetically-edited babies".[44]

Reactions and aftermath[edit]

On the news of Lulu and Nana being born, the People's Daily announced the experimental result as "a historical breakthrough in the application of gene editing technology for disease prevention."[45] But scientists at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing immediately developed serious concerns. Robin Lovell-Badge, head of the Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics at the Francis Crick Institute, who moderated the session on 28 November recalled that He Jiankui did not mention human embryos in the draft summary of the presentation.[46] He received an urgent message on 25 November through Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, a pioneer of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, to whom he had confided the news earlier that morning.[6] As the news already broke out before the day of the presentation, he had to be brought in by the University of Hong Kong security from his hotel. Nobel laureate David Baltimore, the chair of the organizing committee of the summit, was the first to react after He's speech, and declared his horror and dismay at He's work.[46]

He did not disclose the parents' names (other than their pseudonyms Mark and Grace) and they did not make themselves available to be interviewed, so their reaction to this experiment and the ensuing controversy is not known.[24] There was widespread criticism in the media and scientific community over the conduct of the clinical project and its secrecy,[47] and concerns raised for the long term well being of Lulu and Nana.[33][40] Bioethicist Henry T. Greely of Stanford Law School declared, "I unequivocally condemn the experiment,"[48] and later, "He Jiankui’s experiment was, amazingly, even worse than I first thought."[49]

On the night of 26 November, 122 Chinese scientists issued a statement criticizing his research. They declared that the experiment was unethical, "crazy" and "a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science".[45] The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences made a condemnation statement on 5 January 2019 saying that:

We are opposed to any clinical operation of human embryo genome editing for reproductive purposes in violation of laws, regulations, and ethical norms in the absence of full scientific evaluation. In the rapidly developing area of genome editing technology, our scientific community should uphold the highest standards of bioethics in undertaking responsible biomedical research and applications and uphold our scientific reputation, the basic dignity of human life, and the collective integrity of our scientific community. The Chinese Government prohibits the genetic manipulation of human gametes, zygotes, and embryos for reproductive purposes... Jiankui He's operations violated these regulations.[50]

A series of investigations was opened by He's university, local authorities, and the Chinese government. On 29 November 2018, Chinese authorities suspended all of He's research activities, saying his work was "extremely abominable in nature" and a violation of Chinese law.[51] He Jiankui was sequestered in a university apartment under some sort of surveillance,[52][53] and may face serious consequences.[54] In February 2019, news was reported that suggested the Chinese government may have helped fund the CRISPR babies experiment, at least in part, based on newly uncovered documents.[55][56][57]

Michael W. Deem, an American bioengineering professor at Rice University and He's doctoral advisor, was involved in the research, and was present when people involved in He's study gave consent.[24] He was the only non-Chinese out of 10 authors listed in the manuscript submitted to Nature.[30] Deem came under investigation by Rice University after news of the work was made public.[58] As of 31 December 2019, the university had not released a decision.[59]

Stanford University also investigated its faculty of He's confidants including William Hurlbut, Matthew Porteus, and Stephen Quake, He's main mentor in gene editing. The university's review committee concluded that the accused "were not participants in [He Jiankui’s] research regarding genome editing of human embryos for intended implantation and birth and that they had no research, financial or organizational ties to this research."[60]

On 29 January 2019, it was learned that a U.S. Nobel laureate Craig Mello interviewed He about his experiment with gene-edited babies.[61] In February 2019, He's claims were reported to have been confirmed by Chinese investigators, according to NPR News.[62] Later in February 2019, news was reported that suggested the Chinese government may have helped fund the CRISPR babies experiment, at least in part, based on newly uncovered documents.[63][64][65]

On 30 December 2018, the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court sentenced He Jiankui to three years in prison and with a fine of 3 million RMB (US$430,000).[15][16] Among the collaborators, only two were indicted – Zhang Renli of the Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences and Guangdong General Hospital, received a two-year prison sentence and a 1-million RMB fine, and Qin Jinzhou of the Southern University of Science and Technology received an 18-month prison sentence and a 500,000 RMB fine.[66] The three were found guilty of having "forged ethical review documents and misled doctors into unknowingly implanting gene-edited embryos into two women."[67]

Technical controversies[edit]

Ethics[edit]

The Chinese law Measures on Administration of Assisted Human Reproduction Technology (2001) prohibits any genetic manipulation of human embryos for reproductive purposes and allow assisted reproductive technology to be performed only by authorised personnel.[68] On 7 March 2017, He Jiankui applied for ethics approval from Shenzhen HarMoniCare Women and Children's Hospital. In the application, He claimed that the genetically edited babies would be immune to HIV infection, in addition to smallpox and cholera, commenting: "This is going to be a great science and medicine achievement ever since the IVF technology which was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2010, and will also bring hope to numerous genetic disease patients." It was approved and signed by Lin Zhitong, the hospital administrator and one time Director of Direct Genomics, a company established by He.[6] Upon an inquiry, the hospital denied such approval. The hospital's spokesperson declared that there were no records of such ethical approval, saying, "[The] gene editing process did not take place at our hospital. The babies were not born here either."[69] It was later confirmed that the approval certificate was forged.[70][71]

Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University reported that "[He Jiankui] is not a medical doctor, but rather received his doctorate in biophysics and did postdoctoral studies in gene sequencing; he lacks training in bioethics."[72] However, He was aware of the ethical issues. On 5 November 2018, He and his collaborators submitted a manuscript on ethical guidelines for reproductive genome editing titled "Draft Ethical Principles for Therapeutic Assisted Reproductive Technologies" to The CRISPR Journal.[73] It was published on 26 November, soon after news of the human experiment broke out. The journal made inquiry concerning conflicts of interests, which was not disclosed by He. With no justification from He, the journal retracted the paper with a comment that it "was most likely in violation of accepted bioethical international norms and local regulations."[74]

Although there were not specific law in China on gene editing in humans, He Jiankui violated the available guideline on handling human embryos.[75] According to the Guidelines for Ethical Principles in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (2003) of the Ministry of Science and Technology and the National Health Commission of China:

Research in human embryonic stem cells shall be in compliance with the following behavioral norms:

  1. Where blastula is obtained from external fertilization, somatic nucleus transplantation, unisexual duplicating technique or genetic modification, the culture period in vitro shall not exceed 14 days from the day of fecundation or nuclear transplantation.[68]

He Jiankui also attended an important meeting on "the ethics and societal aspects of gene editing" in January 2017 organized by Jennifer Doudna and William Hurlbut of Stanford University.[76] Upon invitation from Doudna, He presented a topic on "Safety of Human Gene Embryo Editing" and later recalled that "There were very many thorny questions, triggering heated debates, and the smell of gunpowder was in the air."[6]

The consent form of the experiment titled "Informed Consent" also indicates dubious statements. The aim of the study was presented as "an AIDS vaccine development project", even though the study was not about vaccines. Present was technical jargon which would be incomprehensible to a layperson.[45][23] One of the more peculiar statement is that if the participants decide to abort the experiment "in the first cycle of IVF until 28 days post-birth of the baby", they would have to "pay back all the costs that the project team has paid for you. If the payment is not received within 10 calendar days from the issuance of the notification of violation by the project team, another 100,000 RMB [over £11,000] of fine will be charged."[77] This violates the voluntary nature of the participation.[45]

Publication[edit]

Scientific works are normally published in peer-reviewed journals, but He failed to do so regarding the birth of gene-edited babies. This was one of the grounds on which He was criticized.[26][78] It was later reported that He did submit two manuscripts to Nature and the Journal of American Medical Association, which were both rejected, mainly on ethical issues.[79] He's first manuscript titled "Birth of Twins After Genome Editing for HIV Resistance" was submitted to Nature on 19 November. He shared copies of the manuscript to the Associated Press, which he further allowed to document his works.[80] In an interview, Hurlbut opined that the condemnation of He's work would have been less harsh if the study had been published, and said, "If it had been published, the publishing process itself would have brought a level of credibility because of the normal scrutiny involved; the data analysis would have been vetted."[81]

The scientific manuscripts of He were revealed when an anonymous source sent them to the MIT Technology Review, which reported them on 3 December 2019.[30][82]

Scientific basis[edit]

It is an established fact that C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) is protein essential for HIV infection of the white blood cells by acting as co-receptor to HIV. Mutation in the gene CCR5 (called CCR5Δ32 because the mutation is specifically a deletion of 32 base pairs in human chromosome 3) renders resistance to HIV.[83][84] Resistance is higher when mutations are in two copies (homozygous alleles) and in only one copy (heterozygous alleles) the protection is very weak and slow. And not all homozygote individuals are completely resistant.[85] In natural population, CCR5Δ32 homozygotes are rarer than heterozygotes.[86] In 2007, Timothy Ray Brown (dubbed the Berlin patient) became the first person to be completely cured of HIV infection following a stem cell transplant from a CCR5Δ32 homozygous donor.[87]

He Jiankui overlooked these facts. Two days after Lulu and Nana were born, their DNA were collected from blood samples of their umbilical cord and placenta. Whole genome sequencing confirmed the mutations.[88] However, available sources indicate that Lulu and Nana are carrying incomplete CCR5 mutations. Lulu carries a mutant CCR5 that has a 15-bp in-frame deletion only in one chromosome 3 (heterozygous allele) while the other chromosome 3 is normal; and Nana carries a homozygous mutant gene with a 4-bp deletion and a single base insertion.[89] He therefore failed to achieve the complete 32-bp deletion.[75] Moreover, Lulu has only heterozygous modification which is not known to prevent HIV infection.[84] Because the babies' mutations are different from the typical CCR5Δ32 mutation it is not clear whether or not they are prone to infection.[89] There are also concerns about adverse effect called off-target mutation in CRISPR/Cas9 editing and mosaicism, a condition in which many different cells develop in the same embryo.[88] Off-target mutation may cause health hazards, while mosaicism may create HIV susceptible cells. Fyodor Urnov, Director at the Altius Institute for Biomedical Sciences at Washington, asserted that "This [off-target mutation] is a key problem for the entirety of the embryo-editing field, one that the authors sweep under the rug here," and continued, "They [He's team] should have worked and worked and worked until they reduced mosaicism to as close to zero as possible. This failed completely. They forged ahead anyway."[30]

He's data on Lulu and Nana's mutation alignment (in Sanger chromatogram) showed three modifications, while two should be expected. Particularly in Lulu, the mutation is much more complex that He's report. There were three different combinations of alleles: two normal copies of CCR5, one normal copy and one with a 15-bp deletion, and one normal copy and an unknown large insertion.[75] But George Church of Harvard University, in an interview with Science, explained that off-target mutations may not be dangerous, and that there is no need to reduce mosaicism excessively, saying, "There's no evidence of off-target causing problems in animals or cells. We have pigs that have dozens of CRISPR mutations and a mouse strain that has 40 CRISPR sites going off constantly and there are off-target effects in these animals, but we have no evidence of negative consequences." As to mosaicism, he said, "It may never be zero. We don’t wait for radiation to be zero before we do positron emission tomography scans or x-rays."[90]

In February 2019, scientists reported that Lulu and Nana may have inadvertently (or perhaps, intentionally[57]) had their brains altered,[91] since CCR5 is linked to improved memory function in mice,[92] as well as enhanced recovery from strokes in humans.[93] Although He Jiankui stated during the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, that he was against using genome editing for enhancement,[94] he also acknowledged that he was aware of the studies linking CCR5 to enhanced memory function.

In June 2019, researchers suggest that the purportedly genetically edited humans may have been mutated in a way that shortens life expectancy.[95][96] Rasmus Nielsen and Wei Xinzhu, both at the University of California, Berkeley, reported in Nature Medicine of their analysis of the longevity of 409,693 individuals from British death registry (UK BioBank) with the conclusion that two copies of CCR5Δ32 mutations (homozygotes) were about 20% more likely than the rest of the population to die before they were 76 years of age.[97] The research finding was widely publicized in the popular and scientific media.[98][99] However, the article overlooked sampling bias in UK Biobank's data, resulting in an erroneous interpretation, and was retracted four months later.[100][101]

Related research[edit]

The first successful gene-editing experiment of CCR5 in humans was in 2014. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and Sangamo BioSciences, California, reported that they modified CCR5 on the blood cells (CD4 T cells) using zinc-finger nuclease which they introduced (infused) into HIV patients. After complete treatment, the patients showed decreased viral load, and in one, HIV disappeared.[102]

In January 2019, scientists in China reported the creation of five identical cloned gene-edited monkeys, using the same cloning technique that was used with Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua – the first ever cloned monkeys – and Dolly the sheep, and the same gene-editing Crispr-Cas9 technique allegedly used by He Jiankui in creating the first ever gene-modified human babies Lulu and Nana. The monkey clones were made in order to study several medical diseases.[103][104]

The first clinical trial of CRISPR-Cas9 for the treatment of genetic blood disorders was started in August 2018. The study was jointly conducted by CRISPR Therapeutics, a Swiss-based company, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, headquartered in Boston.[105] Preliminary report announced on 19 November 2019 states that the first two patients, one with β-thalassemia and the other with sickle cell disease, were treated successfully.[106]

In April 2019, use of the CRISPR technology to edit human genes to treat for the first time cancer patients, with whom standard treatments were not successful, has been reported.[107][108]

In June 2019, Denis Rebrikov at the Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology in Moscow announced through Nature that he was planning to repeat He's experiment once he got official approval from the Russian Ministry of Health and other authorities. Rebrikov asserted that he would use safer and better method than that of He, saying, "I think I'm crazy enough to do it."[109] In a subsequent report on 17 October, Rebrikov said that he was approached by a deaf couple for help. He already started in vitro experiment to repair a gene that causes deafness, GJB2, using CRISPR.[110]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Greely, Henry T (2019). "CRISPR'd babies: human germline genome editing in the 'He Jiankui affair'". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 6 (1): 111–183. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz010. PMC 6813942. PMID 31666967.
  2. ^ Cyranoski, David (22 January 2019). "CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00246-2. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  3. ^ a b "China Orders Investigation After Scientist Claims First Gene-Edited Babies". The New York Times. Reuters. 26 November 2018. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
  4. ^ a b Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies". MIT Technology Review.
  5. ^ Bulluck, Pam (14 April 2019). "Gene-Edited Babies: What a Chinese Scientist Told an American Mentor". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
  6. ^ a b c d e f Cohen, Jon (2 August 2019). "Inside the circle of trust". Science. 365 (6452): 430–437. Bibcode:2019Sci...365..430C. doi:10.1126/science.365.6452.430. PMID 31371593.
  7. ^ Begley, Sharon; Joseph, Andrew (17 December 2018). "The CRISPR shocker: How genome-editing scientist He Jiankui rose from obscurity to stun the world". Stat News. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
  8. ^ Begley, Sharon (26 November 2018). "Claim of CRISPR'd baby girls stuns genome editing summit". Stat News. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
  9. ^ a b Begley, Sharon (28 November 2018). "Amid uproar, Chinese scientist defends creating gene-edited babies - STAT". STAT.
  10. ^ Kolata, Gina; Belluck, Pam (5 December 2018). "Why Are Scientists So Upset About the First Crispr Babies? - Only because a rogue researcher defied myriad scientific and ethical norms and guidelines. We break it down". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  11. ^ The Editorial Board (28 January 2019). "Should Scientists Toy With the Secret to Life? - The gene-editing technology Crispr has the power to remake life as we know it. Questions about how to use it concern everyone". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 January 2019.
  12. ^ Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - A daring effort is under way to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
  13. ^ Cyranoski, David (27 November 2018). "How the genome-edited babies revelation will affect research - Some scientists worry the startling claim will lead to knee-jerk regulations and damage the public's trust in gene editing". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07559-8. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  14. ^ Jiang, Steven; Regan, Helen; Berlinger, Joshua (29 November 2018). "China suspends scientists who claim to have produced first gene-edited babies". CNN News. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
  15. ^ a b Wee, Sui-Lee (30 December 2019). "Chinese Scientist Who Genetically Edited Babies Gets 3 Years in Prison - He Jiankui's work was also carried out on a third infant, according to China's state media, in a new disclosure that is likely to add to the global uproar over such experiments". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
  16. ^ a b Yee, Isaac; Hollingsworth, Julia (30 December 2019). "Chinese gene-editing scientist jailed for 3 years". CNN News. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
  17. ^ "The World Health Organization Says No More Gene-Edited Babies". WIRED. 30 July 2019. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
  18. ^ "WHO To Create Registry for Genetic Research". Voice of America. 29 August 2019. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
  19. ^ "The WHO panel calls for registry of all human gene editing research". Reuters. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
  20. ^ Cyranoski, David (20 May 2019). "China set to introduce gene-editing regulation following CRISPR-baby furore - The draft rules mean that anyone who manipulates human genes in adults or embryos is responsible for adverse outcomes". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01580-1. PMID 32424191. Retrieved 20 May 2019.
  21. ^ Yan, Sophia (28 November 2018). "China's 'Dr Frankenstein' says second woman in early pregnancy with gene-edited babies". The Telegraph. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  22. ^ Low, Zoe (27 November 2018). "China's gene editing Frankenstein had dreams of being Chinese Einstein". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  23. ^ a b c Caplan, Arthur (2019). "Getting serious about the challenge of regulating germline gene therapy". PLOS Biology. 17 (4): e3000223. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000223. PMC 6490874. PMID 31039143.
  24. ^ a b c d Marchione, Marilyn (26 November 2018). "Chinese researcher claims first gene-edited babies". AP NEWS.
  25. ^ 南科大:贺建奎2月已停薪留职 项目违背学术伦理. Sina. 26 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  26. ^ a b Cyranoski, David; Ledford, Heidi (26 November 2018). "Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry". Nature. 563 (7733): 607–608. Bibcode:2018Natur.563..607C. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07545-0. PMID 30482929.
  27. ^ a b c d Belluck, Pam (28 November 2018). "Chinese Scientist Who Says He Edited Babies' Genes Defends His Work". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
  28. ^ de Silva E, Stumpf MP (December 2004). "HIV and the CCR5-Delta32 resistance allele". FEMS Microbiology Letters. 241 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.femsle.2004.09.040. PMID 15556703.
  29. ^ ""Menschenversuche": Geburt genmanipulierter Babys verkündet". Stern (in German). 26 November 2018.
  30. ^ a b c d Regalado, Antonio (3 December 2019). "China's CRISPR babies: Read exclusive excerpts from the unseen original research - He Jiankui's manuscript shows how he ignored ethical and scientific norms in creating the gene-edited twins Lulu and Nana". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  31. ^ Cohen, Jon (2019). "Did CRISPR help—or harm—the first-ever gene-edited babies?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aay9569.
  32. ^ Bulluck, Pam (14 April 2019). "Gene-Edited Babies: What a Chinese Scientist Told an American Mentor". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
  33. ^ a b Begley, Sharon (28 November 2018). "Amid uproar, Chinese scientist defends creating gene-edited babies - STAT". STAT.
  34. ^ Galvin, Molly (26 November 2018). "Statement from the Organizing Committee on Reported Human Embryo Genome Editing". www8.nationalacademies.org. Retrieved 8 January 2020.
  35. ^ Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - A daring effort is under way to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
  36. ^ The He Lab (25 November 2018), About Lulu and Nana: Twin Girls Born Healthy After Gene Surgery As Single-Cell Embryos, retrieved 26 April 2019
  37. ^ Dyer, Owen (2018). "Researcher who edited babies' genome retreats from view as criticism mounts". BMJ. 363: k5113. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5113. PMID 30504437.
  38. ^ a b "China Orders Investigation After Scientist Claims First Gene-Edited Babies". The New York Times. Reuters. 26 November 2018. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
  39. ^ Begley, Sharon (26 November 2018). "Claim of CRISPR'd baby girls stuns genome editing summit". Stat News. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
  40. ^ a b Cyranoski, David (27 November 2018). "How the genome-edited babies revelation will affect research - Some scientists worry the startling claim will lead to knee-jerk regulations and damage the public's trust in gene editing". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07559-8. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  41. ^ Staff (26 November 2018). "Southern University of Science and Technology Statement On the Genetic Editing of Human Embryos Conducted by Dr. Jiankui HE - In the Focus - SUSTC". Southern University of Science and Technology (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  42. ^ Cyranoski, David (2018). "CRISPR-baby scientist fails to satisfy critics". Nature. 564 (7734): 13–14. Bibcode:2018Natur.564...13C. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07573-w. PMID 30514937.
  43. ^ Cyranoski, David (2019). "The CRISPR-baby scandal: what's next for human gene-editing". Nature. 566 (7745): 440–442. Bibcode:2019Natur.566..440C. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00673-1. PMID 30809070.
  44. ^ Huaxia (30 December 2019). "Three jailed in China's "gene-edited babies" trial - Xinhua | English.news.cn". www.xinhuanet.com. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  45. ^ a b c d Li, Jing-ru; Walker, Simon; Nie, Jing-bao; Zhang, Xin-qing (2019). "Experiments that led to the first gene-edited babies: the ethical failings and the urgent need for better governance". Journal of Zhejiang University Science B. 20 (1): 32–38. doi:10.1631/jzus.B1800624. PMC 6331330. PMID 30614228.
  46. ^ a b Lovell-Badge, Robin (2019). "CRISPR babies: a view from the centre of the storm". Development. 146 (3): dev175778. doi:10.1242/dev.175778. PMID 30728161.
  47. ^ Kolata, Gina; Belluck, Pam (5 December 2018). "Why Are Scientists So Upset About the First Crispr Babies? - Only because a rogue researcher defied myriad scientific and ethical norms and guidelines. We break it down". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  48. ^ Farr, Cristina (26 November 2018). "Experiments to gene-edit babies are 'criminally reckless,' says Stanford bio-ethicist". CNBC. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018.
  49. ^ Greely, Henry T. (15 April 2019). "He Jiankui, embryo editing, CCR5, the London patient, and jumping to conclusions". Stat News. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
  50. ^ Wang, Chen; Zhai, Xiaomei; Zhang, Xinqing; Li, Limin; Wang, Jianwei; Liu, De-pei (2019). "Gene-edited babies: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences' response and action". The Lancet. 393 (10166): 25–26. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33080-0. PMID 30522918.
  51. ^ Jiang, Steven; Regan, Helen; Berlinger, Joshua (29 November 2018). "China suspends scientists who claim to have produced first gene-edited babies". CNN News. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
  52. ^ Chen, Elsi; Mozur, Paul (28 December 2018). "Chinese Scientist Who Claimed to Make Genetically Edited Babies Is Kept Under Guard". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 December 2018.
  53. ^ Senthilingam, Meera (7 January 2019). "Chinese scientist was told not to create world's first gene-edited babies". CNN News. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
  54. ^ Ramzy, Austin; Wee, Sui-Lee (21 January 2019). "Scientist Who Edited Babies' Genes Is Likely to Face Charges in China". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
  55. ^ Qiu, Jane (25 February 2019). "Chinese government funding may have been used for 'CRISPR babies' project, documents suggest". STAT News. Retrieved 1 March 2019.
  56. ^ Chen, Angela (26 February 2019). "New documents suggest Chinese government helped fund the CRISPR babies experiment". The Verge. Retrieved 1 March 2019.
  57. ^ a b Belluz, Julia (4 March 2019). "CRISPR babies: the Chinese government may have known more than it let on - The latest developments in the gene-editing saga raise more questions than answers". Vox. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
  58. ^ LaMotte, Sandee (27 November 2018). "Rice professor under investigation for role in 'world's first gene-edited babies'". CNN News. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  59. ^ Johnson, Carolyn Y. (31 December 2019). "Chinese scientist who claimed to create gene-edited babies sentenced to 3 years in prison". Washington Post. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  60. ^ Begley, Sharon (17 April 2019). "Stanford clears three faculty members of 'CRISPR babies' involvement". STAT. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  61. ^ C; Choi, Ice; Marchione, Marilynn (28 January 2019). "AP Exclusive: US Nobelist was told of gene-edited babies". AP NEWS. Retrieved 29 January 2019.
  62. ^ Schmitz, Rob (5 February 2019). "Gene-Editing Scientist's 'Actions Are A Product Of Modern China'". NPR News. Retrieved 5 February 2019.
  63. ^ Qiu, Jane (25 February 2019). "Chinese government funding may have been used for 'CRISPR babies' project, documents suggest". STAT News. Retrieved 1 March 2019.
  64. ^ Chen, Angela (26 February 2019). "New documents suggest Chinese government helped fund the CRISPR babies experiment". The Verge. Retrieved 1 March 2019.
  65. ^ Belluz, Julia (4 March 2019). "CRISPR babies: the Chinese government may have known more than it let on - The latest developments in the gene-editing saga raise more questions than answers". Vox. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
  66. ^ Cyranoski, David (3 January 2020). "What CRISPR-baby prison sentences mean for research - Chinese court sends strong signal by punishing He Jiankui and two colleagues". Nature. 577 (7788): 154–155. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00001-y. PMID 31911693. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  67. ^ Normile, Dennis (30 December 2019). "Chinese scientist who produced genetically altered babies sentenced to 3 years in jail". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aba7347.
  68. ^ a b Zhang, Laney (26 December 2018). "On Gene Edited Babies: What Chinese Law Says". In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress. Retrieved 18 October 2020.
  69. ^ Liao, Rita (26 November 2018). "Hospital in China denies links to world's first gene-edited babies". Techcrunch. Retrieved 8 January 2020.
  70. ^ "Former ethics committee member of Shenzhen Hemei Women's and Pediatric Hospital: the signature of the examination application may be forged [Chinese]". wxn.qq.com. Retrieved 8 January 2020.
  71. ^ Cyranoski, David (6 March 2019). "China to tighten rules on gene editing in humans". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00773-y.
  72. ^ Krimsky, Sheldon (3 January 2019). "Ten ways in which He Jiankui violated ethics". Nature Biotechnology. 37 (1): 19–20. doi:10.1038/nbt.4337. PMID 30605150.
  73. ^ LeMieux, Julianna (20 February 2019). "He Jiankui's Germline Editing Ethics Article Retracted by The CRISPR Journal". GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  74. ^ "Retraction of: Draft Ethical Principles for Therapeutic Assisted Reproductive Technologies by He, J." The CRISPR Journal. 2 (1): 65. 21 February 2019. doi:10.1089/crispr.2018.0051.retract. PMC 6383508. PMID 30799870.
  75. ^ a b c Rothschild, Jodie (2020). "Ethical considerations of gene editing and genetic selection". Journal of General and Family Medicine. 21 (3): 37–47. doi:10.1002/jgf2.321. PMC 7260159. PMID 32489755.
  76. ^ Begley, Sharon (27 November 2018). "He took a crash course in bioethics, then created CRISPR babies". STAT. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  77. ^ Shaw, David (3 January 2020). "The Consent Form in the Chinese CRISPR Study: In Search of Ethical Gene Editing". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 17 (Online): 5–10. doi:10.1007/s11673-019-09953-x. PMC 7223878. PMID 31900853.
  78. ^ Normile, Dennis (26 November 2018). "CRISPR bombshell: Chinese researcher claims to have created gene-edited twins". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaw1839. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  79. ^ Magowan, Jakki (9 December 2019). "Unpublished paper surfaces about the Chinese genome-edited babies - BioNews". www.bionews.org.uk. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  80. ^ Regalado, Antonio (3 December 2019). "Why the paper on the CRISPR babies stayed secret for so long". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  81. ^ Cloer, Dan (2019). "Interview: Genetically Modified Babies: An Insider's View". www.vision.org. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  82. ^ Musunuru, Kiran (3 December 2019). "Opinion: We need to know what happened to CRISPR twins Lulu and Nana - The unpublished research paper by He Jiankui about the creation of the babies shows proof of attempted gene editing gone awry". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  83. ^ Barmania, Fatima; Pepper, Michael S. (2013). "C-C chemokine receptor type five (CCR5): An emerging target for the control of HIV infection". Applied & Translational Genomics. 2 (1): 3–16. doi:10.1016/j.atg.2013.05.004. PMC 5133339. PMID 27942440.
  84. ^ a b Rautenbach, Anandi; Williams, Aurelia A. (2020). "Metabolomics as an Approach to Characterise the Contrasting Roles of CCR5 in the Presence and Absence of Disease". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 21 (4): 1472. doi:10.3390/ijms21041472. PMC 7073144. PMID 32098198.
  85. ^ Smoleń-Dzirba, J; Rosińska, M; Janiec, J; Beniowski, M; Cycoń, M; Bratosiewicz-Wąsik, J; Wąsik, TJ (2017). "HIV-1 Infection in Persons Homozygous for CCR5-Δ32 Allele: The Next Case and the Review". AIDS Reviews. 19 (4): 219–230. PMID 28534889.
  86. ^ Trecarichi, Enrico M; Tumbarello, Mario; Donati, Katleen; Tamburrini, Enrica; Cauda, Roberto; Brahe, Christina; Tiziano, Francesco D (2006). "Partial protective effect of CCR5-Delta 32 heterozygosity in a cohort of heterosexual Italian HIV-1 exposed uninfected individuals". AIDS Research and Therapy. 3 (1): 22. doi:10.1186/1742-6405-3-22. PMC 1592103. PMID 16999868.
  87. ^ Lederman, Michael M.; Pike, Earl (20 November 2017). "Ten Years HIV Free: An Interview with "The Berlin Patient," Timothy Ray Brown". Pathogens and Immunity. 2 (3): 422–430. doi:10.20411/pai.v2i3.226. PMC 5708572. PMID 29202113.
  88. ^ a b Wang, Haoyi; Yang, Hui (2019). "Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong". PLOS Biology. 17 (4): e3000224. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000224. PMC 6490877. PMID 31039144.
  89. ^ a b Ryder, Sean P. (2018). "#CRISPRbabies: Notes on a Scandal". The CRISPR Journal. 1 (6): 355–357. doi:10.1089/crispr.2018.29039.spr. PMC 6345105. PMID 30687814.
  90. ^ Cohen, Jon (28 November 2018). "'I feel an obligation to be balanced.' Noted biologist comes to defense of gene editing babies". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaw2120. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  91. ^ Regalado, Antonio (21 February 2019). "China's CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced - New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant to HIV may also have enhanced their ability to learn and form memories". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 21 February 2019.
  92. ^ Zhou, Miou; Greenhill, Stuart; Huang, Shan; Silva, Tawnie K.; Sano, Yoshitake; Wu, Shumin; Cai, Ying; Nagaoka, Yoshiko; Sehgal, Megha (20 December 2016). "CCR5 is a suppressor for cortical plasticity and hippocampal learning and memory". eLife. 5. doi:10.7554/eLife.20985. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 5213777. PMID 27996938.
  93. ^ Carmichael, S. Thomas; Shohami, Esther; Silva, Alcino J.; Bornstein, Natan M.; Katz, Noomi; Silva, Tawnie K.; Huang, Shan; Zhou, Miou; Kesner, Efrat L. (21 February 2019). "CCR5 Is a Therapeutic Target for Recovery after Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury". Cell. 176 (5): 1143–1157.e13. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.044. ISSN 0092-8674. PMC 7259116. PMID 30794775.
  94. ^ Society and Ethics Research Wellcome Genome Campus (3 December 2018), 28 Nov 2018 - International Summit on Human Genome Editing - He Jiankui presentation and Q&A, retrieved 22 February 2019
  95. ^ Gallagher, James (3 June 2019). "He Jiankui: Baby gene experiment 'foolish and dangerous'". BBC News. Retrieved 3 June 2019.
  96. ^ Stein, Rob (3 June 2019). "2 Chinese Babies With Edited Genes May Face Higher Risk Of Premature Death". NPR News. Retrieved 3 June 2019.
  97. ^ Wei, Xinzhu; Nielsen, Rasmus (3 June 2019). "CCR5-∆32 is deleterious in the homozygous state in humans". Nature Medicine. 25 (6): 909–910. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0459-6. PMC 6613792. PMID 31160814.
  98. ^ Sample, Ian (3 June 2019). "Gene mutation meant to protect from HIV 'raises risk of early death'". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  99. ^ Daley, Jason (5 June 2019). "China's 'CRISPR Babies' May Be More Likely to Die Young". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  100. ^ Greshko, Michael (3 June 2019). "Error undermines finding of health risks in first gene-edited babies". Science. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  101. ^ Wei, Xinzhu; Nielsen, Rasmus (8 October 2019). "Retraction Note: CCR5-∆32 is deleterious in the homozygous state in humans". Nature Medicine. 25 (11): 1796. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0637-6. PMC 7184837. PMID 31595084.
  102. ^ Tebas, Pablo; Stein, David; Tang, Winson W.; Frank, Ian; Wang, Shelley Q.; Lee, Gary; Spratt, S. Kaye; Surosky, Richard T.; et al. (6 March 2014). "Gene Editing of CCR5 in Autologous CD4 T Cells of Persons Infected with HIV". New England Journal of Medicine. 370 (10): 901–910. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1300662. PMC 4084652. PMID 24597865.
  103. ^ Science China Press (23 January 2019). "Gene-edited disease monkeys cloned in China". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 24 January 2019.
  104. ^ Mandelbaum, Ryan F. (23 January 2019). "China's Latest Cloned-Monkey Experiment Is an Ethical Mess". Gizmodo. Retrieved 24 January 2019.
  105. ^ Offord, Catherine (3 September 2018). "US Companies Launch CRISPR Clinical Trial". The Scientist Magazine. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  106. ^ Akst, Jef (19 November 2019). "Early Results Are Positive for Experimental CRISPR Therapies". The Scientist Magazine. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  107. ^ Fingas, Jon (16 April 2019). "CRISPR gene editing has been used on humans in the US - It's part of a trial that could rethink medicine". Engadget. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
  108. ^ Staff (17 April 2019). "CRISPR has been used to treat US cancer patients for the first time". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 April 2019.
  109. ^ Cyranoski, David (10 June 2019). "Russian biologist plans more CRISPR-edited babies". Nature. 570 (7760): 145–146. Bibcode:2019Natur.570..145C. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01770-x. PMID 31186565. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  110. ^ Cyranoski, David (18 October 2019). "Russian 'CRISPR-baby' scientist has started editing genes in human eggs with goal of altering deaf gene". Nature. 574 (7779): 465–466. Bibcode:2019Natur.574..465C. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03018-0. PMID 31641261.

External links[edit]