First gene-edited babies claimed in China

[Peter1469]

Update: Scientists call for a halt to the gene editing of embryos.

Leading genomic scientists from around the world called for an immediate halt to any clinical use of gene editing in human embryos and sharply reprimanded a Chinese researcher who conducted an experiment that he says produced the world’s first genetically edited babies.

The statement came at the conclusion of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong. Later, the Chinese government said it had suspended and launched a probe into the clinical project run by researcher He Jiankui in southern China.


The announcements from the leading scientific body and Chinese authorities capped a dramatic week for the genomics world starting when He made the stunning revelation that a mother had given birth to Lulu and Nana, twin girls whose genes had been edited to make them resistant to HIV.

[Tahuyaman]

We can permanently alter genes. I like it.

I don't know how anyone could think this is a good idea.

[Tahuyaman]

Update: Scientists call for a halt to the gene editing of embryos.

The genie is already out of the bottle.

[Peter1469]

The genie is already out of the bottle.

Yes it is.

[Standing Wolf]

In places where ethics are a definite consideration before human trials begin, that is one thing, however, in places where ethics are scarcely a consideration, it is another.

I'm not sure how much of the opposition to this kind of research is fueled by ethical considerations and how much of it is the product of something else.

In and of itself, is a procedure that gives a person immunity to HIV - or ALS, or breast cancer, or any other disease or condition - a bad thing...something that should be banned by governments? Is it those goals that are being dismissed as being "not worth the risk? Or is it the fear that, down the road, people are going to start wanting to cross a baby with a c*ckapoo, or give their child green skin and wings?

[Peter1469]

I'm not sure how much of the opposition to this kind of research is fueled by ethical considerations and how much of it is the product of something else.

In and of itself, is a procedure that gives a person immunity to HIV - or ALS, or breast cancer, or any other disease or condition - a bad thing...something that should be banned by governments? Is it those goals that are being dismissed as being "not worth the risk? Or is it the fear that, down the road, people are going to start wanting to cross a baby with a c*ckapoo, or give their child green skin and wings?

There is concern that altering genes could cause health problems later in life.

[Dr. Who]

I'm not sure how much of the opposition to this kind of research is fueled by ethical considerations and how much of it is the product of something else.

In and of itself, is a procedure that gives a person immunity to HIV - or ALS, or breast cancer, or any other disease or condition - a bad thing...something that should be banned by governments? Is it those goals that are being dismissed as being "not worth the risk? Or is it the fear that, down the road, people are going to start wanting to cross a baby with a c*ckapoo, or give their child green skin and wings?

Genetic therapy isn't new, but it is fraught with ethical issues. Our knowledge of the function of genes is still in the early stages. What are the possible unknown effects of each modification?