There has been an outcry about the decision by a Chinese scientist He Jiankui to use the new CRISPR gene-editing technology to modify the genes of two human embryos before they were placed in the mother’s womb. He had disabled a gene known as CCR5, thus blocking a pathway for the HIV virus and thus gave them some immunity from that disease.
Such human experimentation violates ethical guidelines for scientific research.
Some scientists at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing, which began on Tuesday in Hong Kong, said they were appalled the scientist had announced his work without following scientific protocols, including publishing his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Others cited the ethical problems raised by creating essentially enhanced humans.
Qiu Renzong, a bioethicist and emeritus professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Science in Beijing, said He’s decision to work outside established and supervised scientific protocols could taint the reputation of Chinese science.
“Of course it’s not ethical,” said Qiu, after publicly criticising He’s work before the several hundred people in attendance. Qiu said He’s university, the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, had rejected his request to perform the experiment. That led the Stanford-educated He to find a private hospital outside the academic system to apply his research. “Clearly it is a fraud,” said Qiu. “Maybe he fabricated a form, and found people to sign it.”
Most research institutions, especially those funded by governments, are required to have Institutional Review Boards that must examine any experimental proposal on living things to ensure that they meet ethical guidelines before they are approved. Such bodies have eliminated many of the cruel and inhumane practices that once existed in animal research.
But once you go outside those bodies and can find private organizations that are willing to support you, then as far as I am aware it is only civil and criminal laws that can prevent such experiments. We saw in the case of the secret study on twins and triplets deliberately separated at birth that a researcher was able to carry out the study by getting private foundations to fund it and having a private adoption agency agree to participate.
This makes we wonder if we are entering a new phase of research on animals and humans where rapid advances in technology are enabling scientists to do things that nobody has been able to do before. Ambitious researchers who want to make a name for themselves by being the first to do something new may be impatient with the slow pace and tight restrictions of the traditional approval processes and try to circumvent them by going straight to private organizations that place fewer restrictions on them. If so, we are likely to see new civil and criminal laws to close that loophole.