Sounds like Dr Quake wanted to push Dr He out front if things turned out badly, but take some credit with Dr He if things turned out well. So Dr He had USA advisors? Whadda ya know. Hoping to make a buck while others took the risk. Dr Quake gets finding from Mark Zuckerberg and we all know how ethical and conscientious Zuckerberg is. Oh yeah. It's all about the cash nexus.
1
Let this be a huge lesson. Sometimes scientists or whatevers become so absorbed in their work that they lose their common sense. Drs. Quake/Deems may not have done something “technically” unethical, but morally they seriously lacked insight. It’s shocking.
Their duty as important scientific stewards of the world was to see the IMPACT of Dr. He’s work. If you know someone is planning on blowing up the world, do you sit by and send a cheerful email because, well, he’s got his IRB? To take an extreme example (and I do think He’s work is dire)....if you have been shown Hitler’s plans for death camps, do you just sit back and say nothing? I thought we’d learned that lesson. What’s happened to our moral compass?
3
It is ludicrous to hold this guy responsible for Dr He’s actions. Dr He was not exactly keeping his plans a secret.
Stanford has an investigation of Dr. Quake ongoing. Why not wait for all the facts to avoid a rush to judgement. Isn’t that the legally ethical thing to do? It also seems reasonable to assess if Chinese regulators are now trying to shift some of the blame onto Dr. Quake to obscure shortcomings in the Chinese regulatory system. Consider what is missing from this story. Did the hospital(s) review board involved in performing the procedure approve it according to their regulations, and if so, were they duped with incomplete or false information? Were doctors who performed the procedure in violation of regulations governing their medical ethics standards?
Appeals bordering on nonsense designed to inflame emotions, like comparisons in one comment here to the fictional character, Victor Frankenstein, which is neither homologous nor analogous to the situation under discussion here are unhelpful, other than to perhaps emphasize why pure and applied medical research, testing and trials on human subjects should be and are conducted independently under separate codes of ethics established with the consensus of society. That said, I personally cannot find any justification for genetically engineering embryos in vitro that are destined to be implanted because of the simple conundrum that it’s impossible for the human subject to provide prior informed consent.
2
Controversial research ideas must ALWAYS be reported. The public has a right to know what is taking place in education, science, society, culture and all fields of endeavour.
3
I am not impressed by the moral reasoning of Drs. Quake (or Deem), and I am very much in their field(s) and have interacted personally with both. We scientists have a higher obligation than checking the IRB box, which anyone who has interacted much with IRBs should realize.
5
In the 1950s, the medical establishment considered heart surgeons to be murderers, and chemotherapy practitioners as sadists. I have to oppose the CRISPR experiment on religious grounds, but history shows that scientific progress is always controversial.
I find amusing to read Quake saying:
“I hold myself to high ethical standards,”
I clearly remember reading an interview, when he was a rising star, where he candidly admitted in lying about his skills on his CV, in order to get a job to advance his career. Where I come from you would get indicted and lose your job for doing that.
Probably, he should rephrase it:
“I hold myself to US society ethical standards”
1
I'm not a hundred percent sure how I feel about this but humans have been practicing bioengineering for probably 1,000 years. Starting with crops that have allowed the human population of planet earth to explode. The fact we have acquired the knowledge to practice it on ourselves should surprise no one.
2
I seem to recall that Dolly, the first cloned sheep, had a shortened lifespan. We do not completely know what we're doing when we start meddling with genes.
@Susan, RN
This is more true than most understand. What percolates up to the popular media is only exaggerated successes. For instance, you never hear about the frustration with GWAS, which should have given us linkage between many genes and characteristics (phenotypes). Instead it is telling us that things are much more complicated than we had hoped. None is this is secret. If you read the news articles in "Science" and "Nature", which review what goes on in the journals, you'd know that we aren't "on the brink of designer babies". The hysteria is harmful.
Graduate students at Stanford can never be totally sure that they are working on their degrees or on their PI (Principal Investigator)'s next startup. This ethos has penetrated every aspect of science and medicine. 23 and Me, ostensibly a consumer service, is actually a data-mining service that develops proprietary medications. CRISPR CRITTERS (TM) Brand Children, incubated surrogates, will soon permit the complete outsourcing of reproduction to save time and money for the busy techno elite professional couple. What a Brave New World.
4
@Eben
How exciting. I strongly suspect that all the hyperbole is much more harmful than helpful.
1
The topic is biology first, genetics specifically and societal and ethics at the end of experimentation. It's saying, "we did this thing - what do you all think?" This is not only the Silicon Valley way but Stanford's history (and MIT) with early AI which led to identifying humans as "general information systems." Now, with Dr. He we have more information from the two babies who will offer researchers even more information. This is very sick. Very wrong.
1
Let me yawn and then re-yawn repeatedly. This ain’t ‘Quakery’ or an ‘EarthQuake.’
The genie of gene editing has been out of the bottle for a while. Sorry, we cannot unring the bell. The morality patrol has been busy since the Brits cloned “Dolly” decades ago claiming interference with Mother Nature with little success.
Many of those who oppose gene editing on ‘ethical’ grounds do not object to late term abortions or for that matter, if the recent buzz is correct, in infanticide either.
Nah, I do not find the research done either by Dr. He or by his mentor Dr. Quake objectionable. Their work can help humanity with gene therapy.
2
There is a long history of doctors experimenting on patients without any oversight or ethical approval or even the knowledge or consent of the patients. This is why there are supposed to be competent ethical review boards to approve before such experiments are undertaken. This doesn't seem to have happened here.
4
One thing is certain: international governing bodies to oversee, regulate and/prevent gene editing in humans are needed now.
Let’s await the results of the investigation to determine if there was any wrongdoing at the level institutional or international rules, and if not, create the appropriate ones so that this field of gene editing evolves in a reasonable framework everyone understands. Until then, Professor Quake’s involvement is nearly impossible to assess in terms of rule breaking (or not).
Above all, let the gene editing technology serve as a reminder of a core tenet of good science/scientists: when you see something exciting, SLOW DOWN.
Another article in this paper gives details on China's use of AI to racially profile Uighurs , and how it's spread is inevitable in China for use in targeting whomever the CCP deems "dangerous".
With that type of moral degeneracy at the top reaches of their government, whose to say that at this minute, there aren't legions of Chinese scientists using CRISPR to edit embryos for say, quicker decision making ability on the battlefield? Muscle strength (for security forces, the military, Olympic Gold medals)?
For any star Wars fans out there, The Clone troopers are coming and they'll speak Mandarin.
The cat's out of the bag and it's never going back, no matter how much hand wringing there is here, Stanford or anywhere else.
Either we also learn how to also harness CRISPR-CAS9, or a SuperRace of CRISPR-edited Chinese WILL rule the world.
4
Unfortunately, it looks like CRISPR may be this century's version of nuclear technology: dangerous, world-changing, and very difficult to keep under ethical control. Already, CNN has reported that in January Bing Su, a geneticist at the Kunming Institute of Zoology and colleagues, created "several transgenic macaque monkeys with extra copies of a human gene suspected of playing a role in shaping human intelligence." We should assume that this is an experiment designed to learn enough about the genetics of brain function to create the basis for attempting to genetically engineer cognitively more advanced humans in the future.
Why did everyone not see this coming? We have to hope they create ethically superior, wiser and more compassionate humans, rather that humans who are just better and better at creating novel ways to dominate and exterminate one another and our increasingly fragile planet.
12
Some parents are already willing to cheat to have their kids admitted in prestigious schools, to ensure their future. I am sure that some wealthy parents would be willing as well to conceive “enhanced” babies, for the same reason. This is scary.
10
Don't we have enough to worry about with wealthy parents donating millions of dollars to charity in order to have their children gain admission to popular colleges without having to now worry about medical ethics?
1
Are all of you sure that this genetic engineering success is not God's will? After all, God imbued humans with a level of intelligence that spawned such medical and technological "miracles".
However, one only need to look at the crop of Jurassic Park films, especially the newer Jurassic World to envision the probable endgame.
2
I just spoke with God and he (of course God is a He) definitively states that he is adamantly opposed. He wants no competition!
HIV is still a top ten cause of death in many countries. Living with HIV is also has significant downsides.
He Jianku lived in a village 30% of whose people have HIV. He saw parents giving up their children to relatives outside the village to avoid infecting them.
He Jianku's conference presentation has the ethical issues mixed throughout the interview and question and answer period starting at about 1 hour and 28 minutes of the video.
He claims a 0.5–2% risk of fathers infecting HIV-free children: a small open cut or sore of some while handling food, washing dishes or in any other way handling the child.
Babies could end up swallowing various things or licking surfaces. This is a valid concern for the family unless the children are made HIV immune because otherwise they would be living with the risk of valid risk of HIV infection.
He Jianku clearly believes he is helping the 30 families who were brought into the trial program. This was a situation which was improved by making the children potentially HIV Immune.
The proper informed consent was obtained. The educated and informed parents made an informed decision to proceed with implanting the edited eggs versus untreated eggs. The parents had a passionate belief that their children would be better and safer with HIV-immunity and that they were avoiding non-trivial health risks.
Much our our outrage stems from the fact that a Chinese doctor performed the procedure first.
4
@Godfree Roberts: Was He Jianku's native village one of the ones in Henan province where government officials promoted a blood donation and transfusion scheme with no HIV or other testing, leading to an estimated 100,000 people infected with HIV and around 10,000 deaths so far?
2
@Godfree Roberts, had no idea of HIV aspects of the situation/case. Why would it have been left out of article?
4
@joanThat is the core of the entire matter. It was left out so that we could beat China with our famous morality stick.
Most things that might help us understand China are 'left out.' Did you know that their Chief Censor is China's Noam Chomsky? Their leading (and most famous) public intellectual. People challenge his decisions every day and his justifications are every bit as interesting and educational as they would be from Prof. Chomsky. But why spoil a good story?
2
People do have a right to make some decisions about whether or not they want gene editing for their babies. This gene editing did no more than introduce a well proven genetic variant that prevents people from being infected with HIV and incidentally makes them less likely to die of bubonic plague. There is a trade-off in the efficacy of the immune system but many people have variants in the immune system, by nature.
2
It seems to me that this is a free speech issue. We may not like the concept but to squelch it out of fear of what it might bring seems equally wrong.
2
This raises questions about the morality of sharing potentially disastrous scientific breakthroughs with China. The interests of profit-motivated scientists and backers including Mark Zuckerberg raise profound moral questions.
The "Move fast and break things" mentality has already destroyed any citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy. I shudder to see it applied, as it was here, to genetically experimenting on two baby girls.
6
This is totally irresponsible. and for Dr. Quake to say, "gee, I don't think I did anything wrong," is ludicrous.
He gave tacit encouragement every step of the way to a post doc he suspected would be capable of cutting corners.
Enough said. The genie is out of the bottle, and Quake is complicit in this result.
9
success !
reminds me of the fascination with genetic selection leading up to WWII and the 'aryan' ideal (which AFAIK actually is probably from India)
just imagine what wonderful future women can enjoy !
or not - we have history that tells us what happens when you try to create Superhumans …
2
As a recently retired academic physician, I must go on record strongly disapproving of this experiment. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. While the goal of removing a mutated gene that will cause a fatal or progressively debilitating illness from a embryo's genome has some merit, the possibility of an unscrupulous scientist manipulating the genome of an embryo to enhance "positive" attributes is a something that must not be ignored. In my opinion, any physician/scientist who had knowledge of this experiment had an ethical duty to blow the whistle on it and notify the appropriate controlling authority or institutions.
12
There should be more research ethics discussion in the media. It's great that NYT is interested... but - the news media has a long history of sensationalizing provocative claims from PhDs who are overwhelmed by ambition.
"Dr. He was “bright and ambitious,” Dr. Quake said, but “he was, I felt, always in too much of a hurry and I, you know, worried that he was a sort that would cut corners a little bit.”"
It is far, far easier to fake results than to throw the dice and get a win. Has everyone forgotten cold fusion, Hwang Woo-suk and his "human cloning", Haruko Obokata and her stem cells. For every headliner there a thousands of others who have taken what they saw as the certain route to career success as the biological research became increasingly insanely competitive.
No one has verified He's results.
It is naive to think that we currently know how to tweak genes to change characteristics.
While research ethics discussion is a good thing, we desperately need the media to stick to the facts and apply the skepticism used in peer review.
5
As a physician, researcher and academe, I’ll be blunt... this is very treacherous grounds. No matter how amazing and innovative this research is— you simply cannot forget or shrug about the fact, you’re dealing with “HUMANS”— thinking, intelligent beings with emotions and social impact.
This is not Polly the sheep, Jack the goat or even Ralph the chimp (forgive my facetiousness!)
What if all this had gone wrong?
Just for a minute.... think!
You can’t pursue this without real laws and restrictions. I’m very sure, in future, gene editing will come but not this way. The potential for abuse is on a monumental scale.
As someone said, “they just didn’t get it.” There’s a lack of empathy, which is frightening.
16
Stunning scientific breakthrough! Congratulations to He Jiankui. Just the first small step towards eliminating massive human suffering.
5
Most of these comments are along the lines of "He is Dr Frankenstein! Altering GENES! Evil! Unethical! Maybe he will will change something that will make something else worse. Stop him!" But that is too simplistic. As I understand it, Dr He altered a gene that makes people susceptible to getting HIV. That is, he changed a gene in some embryos, so that those embryos, when they became babies, would not be able to get HIV from their HIV positive mother. The twins were born early and hospitalized; I assume this is because of the HIV status of the mother, not because this one gene of the babies was altered. And I wonder, what is exactly wrong with making it harder for someone to get HIV? A long time ago, an IVF baby was considered an abomination, and now it is done routinely, and happy parents take home their healthy babies. Infertile couples, gay couples, single parents, all kinds of people who want to have children and be parents, but do not have the "traditional" option for getting pregnant, now have their babies via IVF. It is not evil, playing with fire, unnatural. To assume that people will immediately start asking genetic researchers to manipulate their embryos' genes to make the kids tall, blue-eyed blondes with high intelligence and the muscle physiology to become tennis champions, is absurd. There is no "tennis champion gene." But single-gene mutations that control metabolic conditions incompatible with life, such as Tay Sachs? Yes. Most of these are known. Do it.
10
Asking why people are upset that Dr. He tried "to make it harder to get HIV" is disingenuous.
People are upset that a Chinese physician, trained in America and with the knowledge of his American academic advisor, performed genetic experiments -- and they are genetic experiments -- on embryos carried to term.
Readers are not being hysterical. They are rightfully appalled. And we don't know why those premature infants were hospitalized. We don't know when they were born, since the researchers somehow "misled" people about even that.
In the dearth of oversight in China, we don't really know anything about what experiments were conducted on the two embryos who are now living babies. We don't even know if the parents had given informed consent.
6
Regardless of anyone's Religion. Regardless of anyone's Governmental Regulation. Regardless of anyone's Ethics or Morality. Regardless of any effort to slow or stop Genetic Engineering on the last great fronties, - us the humans, the singles greatest force throughout human history will prevail.
Darwin is undefeated.
Man and Woman will see a new future.
The only question is, will we see an improved humankind ?
4
Who knows, may a better product will emerge as opposed to the mess we have now. A number of science fiction stories have been written in the last decade or so dealing with just this subject, one especially dealing with North Korea and Neanderthal genes. And no I did not write that one though I wish I had.
The only reason China was upset was that he publicly released the information. They support the work 100%
5
To understand that this is not just about one scientist at Stanford, I recommend reading Biotech Juggernaut: Hope, Hype, and Hidden Agendas of Entrepreneurial BioScience by Stuart Newman and Tina Stevens (Routledge, 2019).
9
I've read this book and it truly provides useful and cautionary evidence on this topic. The authors make the science understandable. The scientists are moving faster than prudent in the rush to be first. And we all may suffer.
1
What a sorry state we live in, when we hold someone accountable for actions another takes. Clearly his possible actions were limited.
There is much naivete written here by many. Much food that we consume that has been genetically altered since most of our crops, meat, chicken and seafood has been bred to reduce their susceptibility to disease, grow faster, more hardy, more favorable, etc. We just don't label that GMO.
While there may be something ethically wrong with cloning babies, this was one gene, not a full designer baby. Medicine has been looking for a long time for cures through genetic alteration. If you have an issue with that, then you need to think what you do and interact with on a daily basis. Start by eliminating all cures for all diseases.
@ Dr. Quake: Good job for a reasoned, balanced approach!
9
@BA
I agree wholeheartedly. In my lifetime as a pediatric healthcare provider i have seen the treatment of many children's diseases improve dramatically. Cancer, congenital malformations (like cleft palate), deafness, diabetes to name a few. The most impressive for me has been with cystic fibrosis (CF). As a new graduate, life expectancy for CF was early adolescence at best. Ten years later it was young adulthood, ten or so more years it was middle age. Now, there is no reason to doubt that properly treated these patients will live to their 60's or 70's. The greatest progress was thanks to a DNA therapy. It improved quality of life as well as quantity of years. CF
As a diabetic myself, i can do well with one injection daily as opposed to my father who had to take 4 or 5 injections a day - thanks to an insulin fabricated with recombinant DNA.
Progress is not to be feared but embraced. Advances are not always understood.
If fear prevents thoughtful discourse then many positive things can be delayed or lost altogether. Rather than pointing fingers and ascribing guilt, it behooves us to analyze and move forward.
1
I am one of those who spoke up in admiration for He Jiankui, when the news first broke.
I retain that admiration; and extended it unreservedly to Dr. Quake.
Because of their high ethics, or extraordinary skills, or devotion to humanity?
No. Because of their HONESTY - and willingness to stick their necks way, way out- to wake the world up.
Was it "ethical"? The question will never be resolved.
The reality is; the technology is HERE, and possible NOW. Someone - IS going to do it; ethical, or not. Secretly - if it is forbidden.
The world MUST deal with the problems we now face- and we weren't, aren't. That was obvious to any good caring scientist, which both He and Quake unquestionably ARE.
The chances that the world will start to seriously discuss and decide what we should do are far, far better now.
They have forced the issue. The issue needed to be forced. They took the initiative- when no one else had the guts.
Those of us who understand that- speak up.
11
If one of my former graduate students or postdocs told me that he/she planned to undertake germ-line editing of human embryos, I would report him to the authorities (in whatever country). Enough said.
4
@Tom
If your concerns are deep, you should only teach, advise or collaborate with those who share your exact moral and cultural values. It might be difficult to predetermine those individuals that would "keep the faith" so to speak.
Some of the outrage here seems due to the inability to constrain such research because it was done by a researcher outside their reach. Knowledge is hard to suppress and even harder to restrict.
2
stanford is more likely covering its own liability exposure, and laying down a marker for faculty and grad students, than pursuing any ethical imperative.
CRISPR-CAS9 editing tools can be bought, and once bought, shipped. there are many places other than universities or hospitals where they can be operated, and many countries where it will be easy to cloak their use. certifications can be forged; the skill set only needs an airline ticket and a visa to move around.
but no worries. the real constraints are the shared knowledge that can develop useful methods and identify useful outcomes more quickly, and either the institutional or individual wealth to pay for laborious, trial and error research.
there is no human trait of any social or economic import, other than certain genetic diseases, that is controlled by a single or a few genes. to actually "engineer a human" through gene splicing is a feat of incalculable complexity. only evolution, working through millennia of technological infrastructure, is up to the task -- and that engineering has already been under way for centuries.
3
It seems to me that if people are going to react in a negative way to these things than we’re not going to know much about what’s going on. We live in a very competitive world and people are always looking for an advantage and this has the potential to provide advantages. Scientists are going to experiment even if there are dangerous possible consequences. When they first tested the atomic bomb it wasn’t one hundred percent certain that it wouldn’t ignite the atmosphere and destroy the earth and they did it anyway because of the advantage it would provide. These things are going to move forward whether we like it or not.
11
Your comment on the Trinity Test is incorrect. The question of igniting the universe was raised by Ed Teller. But Hans Bethe, in checking the results, found the error in Teller's assumptions. It is true that Enrico Fermi did take side bets to startle people that morning. But the test would not have been conducted had there been any question. We are not "mad scientists". We may put ourselves in danger if there is no choice. But we do not risk the lives of others.
4
I’m sure that they thought it was extremely remote. This article is about scientists putting others at risk if I’m understanding it correctly. I have a lot of respect for scientists and I know that they are smarter than most people and have the same weaknesses.
The reactions from the various scientists involved or who heard about this experiment, inc. Dr Quake, all showed a profound lack of ethical concern, if indeed the general consensus seemed to be, it was going to happen sooner or later, just as long as the paperwork was done. It is a version of the bystander effect.
In spite of all the so-called safeguards, the human drive, not just for knowledge or even healing, but personal recognition, often remains stronger than moral concerns - or even basic caution, given how little we really know.
Relying on members of the same community, many of whom share similar attitudes, evidently was ineffective at best; moreover scientists are trained to be non-judgemental as part of the impartiality required for objective research.
This takes us back to the time when concerns started growing over nuclear research, as Einstein and Oppenheimer eventually did over their own work; movies and literature took on the theme of nature run amok as a result to man’s attempts to manipulate it.
8
Exactly which ethical concerns are you, and others, referring to? Gene editing for removal of a life of suffering from some inherited disease would be ethically required if it were possible. Obviously other uses have to be controlled and some are certainly awful to contemplate. Hence the need for controls. If it is possible to eliminate many inherited diseases then we should be looking. Controls will be necessary as with anything. This work is not going to stop except by other very ethically questionable methods.
I’m not even “for” this guy necessarily but all this ethics talk is mostly vapor as it is being thrown around here. Sorry to see it. Harbinger of yet more two-sided orthodoxy yelling without a lot of content or possibility of resolution.
1
The history of human beings says gene editing will take place. It says that it will be both productively used and misused. It says it will both improve life and kill it. The only hope is that it will eventually change us so that this history will be made irrelevant for the future.
9
One of the first interventions of God into human history, at least according to the Book of Genesis, relates to privacy. After God forbids Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the “tree of knowledge,” the first couple do so anyway.
Coincidentally that’s from another story in this morning’s paper. There are no such things as coincidences. Stanford or the Garden of Eden, it doesn’t matter, nothing really changes, just what we call it.
2
Given the amount of money and influence China has at Stanford it must be difficult to stop a train like Dr. He's work. Had Dr. Quake gotten more involved or actively stopped the research, would there have been repercussions at Stanford? Funding cuts? Marginalization? It's a bit like the SAT scandal.
15
It's hard to see clearly when you are consumed by hubris. Dr. Quake should take a hard look in the mirror and ask himself if he really did what needed to be done to stop and/or shame the actions of Dr. He. It is not apparent from the article that he did anything to that effect.
7
If you’ve had a lot of dealings with Chinese, lived there, worked there you know they will do anything for money including buying and selling their children. They are the most pure capitalists because there is no morality to restrain money lust. The brief segue Into Communism was just a switch from one feudal hierarchy to another
15
"..most pure capitalists...money lust."
The Chinese not the only ones with moral failings.
Look at Wall Street and the 2008 mortgage crisis caused by greedy bankers!
Look at the college admissions scandal!
I dont condone Dr. He's actions, but lets not pick on the Chinese, PLEASE!
2
Overreaction by the West in terms of gene-editing. Part of the professional outrage machine. People marry for genes, selecting partners, that itself is editing for genes based on physical, social, cues.
The real outrage though is the deception against the subjects. Treatment was already available. The CRISPR editing wasn't medically necessary. Dr. He had to deceive and misinform the patients to get them to sign on. That's why Chinese government punished him. Again it was low-trust, and internationally now too.
Not for ethical reasons, but for reputation of China's biotech sector. This happened after vaccine scandal. And China is a low-trust society, scandal after scandal. Xi Jinping wants to build up China's pharmaceuticals, but if the reputation is harmed, no one will want. At least the name of Chinese medicine is hurt.
You could justify Dr. He by saying that because medical quality and infrastructure has more gaps in China (as covered by NYT the health care crisis in China at hospitals) and tainted blood donors in China, this was a way around. Tainted blood is a concern in China, CRISPR is a way around that for patients
6
Dr Quake shirked his responsibility.
Aside from an offhand comment and a weak email to his former student, there is no demonstration of his insistence that his protege adhere to rigorous ethical standards.
Dr. Quake confides that he had his doubts about this student's expedient treatment of ethical constraints - so what did he do about it? Passed the buck.
He had no qualms about keeping secret an ethically dubious experimental procedure and did virtually nothing of substance to prevent a breach of medical ethics.
15
C'mon, if it can be done, someone will do it. We'll consider the impact a couple of years later when it's too late to do anything. Doesn't our careful consideration of tech innovation always lag years behind? We're now worrying about online privacy--about 5 years too late.
10
Science cannot be stopped because of fear and ignorance. There are countless opportunities to eradicate diseases at the genetic level.
More Human than Human is our motto.
7
As the story is told, it seems obvious that Dr. He was giving only pro-forma attention to board review procedures. Dr. Quake's behavior in the matter, both through action and inaction, amounted to professional acquiescence to the project. It's a sad statement about the lack of ethical rigor in medical research.
13
What an appropriate name!
DR. QUAKE: nomen est omen.
6
100 years from now the Post-humans will look back at these articles written by those silly humans and wonder what the fuss was all about.
15
@William No, they will wonder much as they realize that the science they applauded has now been co-opted by those with a nose for the easy life at the risk of those who have tried to earn it. Designer-super babies designed for what? Evil, to fight wars perhaps. Or to have the perfect features no matter the imperfections of their parents. Or to make lives exist beyond the 100 years so many are now reaching. We are adding risks to an already risky world with a population that increases at the risk of the quality of life for those already here. Science is good and beneficial until it's not. Human nature is blessed with the choice of good vs. evil with evil being the fast track to fame and riches. Scientists are human after all.
2
"It’s as if you took the embryos and dipped them in acid"
Hard to believe a scientist when he uses such hyperbole.
1
Ethics ? Morals ? Anything approaching a sense of concern about the impact on humanity ?
China is the wrong place to look for any of those.
It is run by well dressed and ruthless pirates who could not care les about anything but the longevity of the Communist Party.
Genetically engineered soldiers ?
Sounds like a great way to keep the COmmunists in power.
Want to see something REALLY worth worrying about ?
Read this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613277/chinese-scientists-have-put-human-brain-genes-in-monkeysand-yes-they-may-be-smarter/
Someone in the Chinese military establishment has read SYNBAT.
10
never would I much resent/a gene-edited President/though babies should be left alone/let's change what's bred in leader's bone.
2
Possible gene editing target:
March 28, 2019 - NYTimes article -
"At 71, She’s Never Felt Pain or Anxiety. Now Scientists Know Why."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/health/woman-pain-anxiety.html
Sounds great - right? Imagine the military or a cult group "creating" soldiers who feel minimal pain? Terminator meets Brave New World.....
5
What could Quake have done beyond what he did? I too have mentees now in faculty positions around the world and empathize. I see no options beyond what he did do: Give advice (again and again) to follow ethics guidelines. Confer with peers in confidence. Remove one’s own name from questionable results. Remind that any notion of editing should be restricted entirely to fixing a medically lethal problem.
One missing piece: No mention of off-target, unintended edits that could introduce all sorts of other genetic problems or early onset cancers, even if the ethics could be sorted out.
26
Yes, the Pandora Box is in plain sight and this debate will continue. Ends vs. means.
4
I used to work at Stanford Medical School. Probably half of the faculty is working on a project to get rich; there is a whole division of the School which works entirely on creating academic/biotech partnerships. Obviously, Stanford takes its cut...or, in Mafia parlance, "wets its beak."
26
I am a retired ob/ gym dr. Now 86 years old I don’t understand why gene editing is horrifying people. Suppose we found a stupid/ smart gene. Would it be so bad if somehow stupid was eradicated? Or empathy was added? Might rid us of all Republicans but would that be bad? HIV is something to protect the children from We all agree on that, I think. Our current haphazard genetic propagating works , haphazardly . Trisomy children do better now than 50 Years ago but are they really truly desired in families before conception. I.e lets try for a Downs child this time? I doubt that. I have no idea gown genome editing is done. But if not now it will start to happen sometime. Admonishing against may be something to consider today. By 2100 it will be as common as Frosted Flakes, a true abomination
18
"Though Dr. Quake said he urged Dr. He not to pursue the project during an August 2016 meeting, the emails, mostly sent in 2017 and 2018, don’t tell him to stop."
This says it all doesn't it?
3
Gross. That's the only word that comes to mind. Private enterprise and academics cannot and should not mix. Academics and research needs to be free of any financial or self-promoting incentive. Greed is the precursor to all evil. Just gross.....
9
All I need to hear is that Quake collaborated with Zuckerberg. Next big thing from the Facebook Industrial complex.
5
As an OBGYN physician, I am shocked and outraged that this travesty of humanity occurred. Dr. Jiankui should face criminal charges for wilfully gene-edited human life. Dr. Quake, next time please speak louder and be a little more forceful about your dissent.
9
Why do top STEM universities continue to admit hordes of international Chinese students for short term monetary gain and keep tuitions prohibitively high for Americans? And we keep blaming China for technology theft and espionage.
19
@Andrew
STEM universities have to be in the business of raising money in order to survive financially.
Sad, but true.
But don't blame the admission of foreign students who pay higher tuition. Blame the state legislatures for cutting university funding to the bare bones.
4
Why do America students avoid STEM majors in favor of the social sciences and business majors?
2
"But she said scientists were not necessarily complicit if instead of trying to stop rogue experimenters, they advised them to follow ethical and research standards in hopes that institutions would intervene."
This describes the crux of this issue: the arrogant denial of personal responsibility or the need to cultivate any sense of personal morality or ethics on the work one is personally performing.
It is outrageously disingenuous and you see it everywhere today starting with military, corporate and political accountability, American agribusiness, artificial intelligence, public education, and certainly in every part of the entirely toxic AMA.
Can we change all of this denial of responsibility in the 10 years or so we supposedly have left to halt cumulative denial of climate change - and before ASI makes humanity obsolete?
6
I had the pleasure of working briefly with Dr. Quake some years ago. I always found him to be a meticulous and ethical scientist.
Any powerful new way to control and manipulate the world around us comes at a cost, with risk, and thus should be accompanied by concern and thoughtfulness. This is especially true when human beings are the subjects.
Gene editing will happen. And it should happen. I've spent much of my professional life working on treatments for diseases. At best, these treatments are only partially effective, and carry significant risks. The idea that genetic diseases can be eradicated is compelling. Ask any parent of a kid with a genetic disorder if they would seek to correct the underlying problem if that was an option. I suspect most would.
It becomes fraught when gene editing is applied to non-lethal conditions. Myopia? Short stature? How about normal and healthy variants. Intelligence? Athletic prowess?
All this will be possible in the very near future. I am excited by the prospects. But I also recognize the potential for abuse and less-than-noble uses of this capability. Thus, we need to have the discussions now. And these discussions need to be driven by thoughtful experts, not extremists on either end of the spectrum. GMO technologies have struggled to find their useful places because of uninformed public opinion and corporate greed. It will be many-fold worse for gene editing.
118
@hammond
Even though your explanation seems to be qualified, haven't you considered the unpleasant Law of Unintended Consequences ? I would love to have benefited from gene editing to eliminate my myopia and male pattern baldness. But what if altering genes triggers more serious pathologies, such as cancer growth? I do not think today's 'specialists' possess enough knowledge to consider gene-editing as a reliably safe biological modification for any form of life.
31
You and your kind are part of the problem. Dr. Quake should suffer severe consequences.
12
I believe that if gene editing was only applied to correct illness or genetic disorders then ethical considerations wouldn't be as big an issue. Natural selection used to work in a similar fashion to rid populations of weakened individuals. We have eliminated that from our lives with medical therapy, and that is a good thing. Allowing people to survive, have happy lives, and contribute to the world has only added to our civilization. However, would parents wish to save their children from pain, frailty or handicap if possible? Speaking for myself, I think so.
The big questions arise regarding improvements to the human line. If we were not corrupt, if we were fair and applied the changes to everyone, without favoritism, we could see great changes in how we live and treat each other. The optimist in me believes in that better world, while my natural cynicism thinks otherwise. This is the true struggle.
10
I am a research psychologist. I teach and/or think about the ethics of research with human subjects every single day. Both of these individuals just don't get it. The system of ethical human subjects research only works if everyone upholds their side of the agreement. I am concerned that bioengineering backgrounds of both He and Quake lead them to be more easily seduced by great engineering ideas and less thoughtful of broader implications to human beings. There's clearly substantial naivete coupled with hubris in both of them. Quake concludes that it must not be a big deal because experts don't freak out in emails? The deal was done at that point, of course everyone's response was resignation. Quake didn't think he was encouraging this guy? He should have run in the other direction, not continue communicating with him and then ask that his name be removed once it was all said and done. Quake thinks the appropriate response is to give his emails to the NYT? I can't imagine that any lawyer would have recommended that. It's been documented that He had substantial training in the ethics of human subjects research in this country. It obviously didn't stick. He just didn't think it would matter - all he could see was his Nobel prize.
118
@it wasn't me
The ethical training he received in the US is irrelevant for what he did in China. Otherwise, there would be lots of scientists in the US who would have to stop working, because their home countries have different requirements.
Just thing of GMOs. No European would be able do anything here, because Europeans hate genetic engineering of plants.
Fortunately, neither the US, nor Europe or China for that matter, are defining global ethics.
Ethics is a moving target anyway. Not entirely based on rational thinking as is.
15
@Kara Ben Nemsi
"Ethics is a moving target anyway. Not entirely based on rational thinking as is"
Self-serving nonsense, of course. Ethics aren't that complicated. Matching your behavior to your ethics is the hard part. It seems that the new dodge for futurists is to claim that human reasoning is fallible, so all restrictions are off. This argument is being used to undermine democracy as well as medical ethics.
21
@Kara Ben Nemsi
Stop your sidestepping and philosophical freeloading. We ALL (with the exception of Trump , every other sociopath and the Republicans) understand the meaning, if not the implementation, of ethics.
What we need is a rational, thoroughly thought out set of global standards before me make our existence on this planet even more onerous than it is already becoming. Don't ask Pence, whatever you do!
6
As an academic and scientist, I believe Dr. Quake was in a difficult position - and from the information in this article - behaved appropriately. He likely has dozens (or hundreds) of prior students and mentees who have dispersed around the world. A scientist of his prominence is frequently contacted from colleagues and prior students about advising informally on on-going research. He gave advice, asked about local IRB approval, and tried to re-direct Dr. He when asked. He was not involved in the work or the study; he is not an expert on ethics/IRB/REB approval in various countries. Dr. Quake knew that an intervention like Dr. He's would not get IRB approval in any US institution, but why would he question Dr. He's assertion that ethics approval had been obtained in China? Finally, it is not a mentors job to police the actions of former students. We advise, guide, suggest, but we are not parents: Dr. He was an adult, and an academic scientist in another country, and it's a stretch to implicate Dr. Quake in "not stopping" this experiment. For those critical of him - what should he have done? Emailed Chinese authorities? Who would he email and what would he ask? If he emailed or called the Stanford IRB and said "There's a human subject experiment going on in China" what would they say or do about it?
181
@Rick: You say that you are an academic and a scientist, but clearly you do not understand the ethics of human subject research. Quake, in his position, must have been exposed to reasonably extensive training in the ethics of human subjects research, and that was all he needed to see that He was committing a crime. One doesn't need to be an expert: the current standards are based on very simple and broadly accepted moral standards. The fact that the action was taking place in China don't excuse Quake at all: the standards are universal, and He's claim that the experiment had passed IRB was therefore suspect. Quake was in a position of power and influence: he had many options and opportunities to intervene. He didn't do that, and he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong. He is morally defective.
22
But why wouldn’t Dr He have used his university IRB rather than hospital ones as the ‘local’ IRB? Not all IRB processes are equally informed or stringent and Dr Quake surely knows this. It leads to an appearance of seeking approval where it was known it would be given.
15
@Rick: And yet, Steve Quake will likely be tried in a court of public opinion, by jurors who have never had to look into the eyes of prospective parents and say, Your baby will suffer greatly, then die young.
15
The relationship between the two agents here almost exactly mirrors the relationship between young Victor Frankenstein and his first mentor, professor Krempe. Victor's professors question his ethics, too, yet still inspire him to create an improved human. Shelley seems to suggest that none of them really understands the stakes.
80
@Dennis Let's not forget that Frankenstein was a work of fiction, and Mary Shelley was not a scientist.
7
I fail to see any ethical issues with Dr. Quake's actions, as related by him. In fact, he appears to have urged caution to a fellow scientist over whom he ultimately has no control. As an independent scientist, Dr. He's work is subject to oversight in his home country. Finally, as the article alludes to, this is a rapidly emerging area of science and medicine, with regulatory bodies struggling to keep up.
112
If someone has told you that she plans to murder someone, keeps you informed of her progress, and tells you that the murder has taken place, do you have any responsibility to tell anyone? Yes, you do.
14
@Dana The capability for gene editing has been around for a long time, and has been controversial ethically for just as long. You will always have very mixed opinions as this is going to change our conception of our identity as humans and what creating life means. Comparing this to murder is a bit of a ridiculous analogy in my opinion. This was not anything close to murder or anything criminal - it is not a researcher's job or responsibility to ensure that their mentee's ethics protocols are being met in another country across the world. These are adults. Was Quake supposed to call the local hospital in China and ensure that He had consent? The fact that the scientific community and regulations (or lack of) in China had allowed He to get this far without going through the proper process is concerning. It was not Quake's job to babysit. What if He has never discussed with Quake? The result would be the same and just as controversial. The responsibility belongs with the ethics boards in China.
23
@LPK
"this is a rapidly emerging area of science and medicine, with regulatory bodies struggling to keep up"
Exactly. This will always be the case. The job of a scientist is to enable the previously impossible.
Politicians and large parts of the public are too busy bickering over whether the non-rich should have any health care at all to inform themselves of the science behind the science of medicine.
The misinformation is rampant and the reactions baffling. Suggesting to control the reproduction of these two girls without having the faintest idea of what the gene modification accomplished - mimicking a naturally occurring deletion - strikes me as signs of much greater hubris than attempts to push the boundaries of the possible.
7
In the beginning of my career I was a genetic researcher. The implications of this are very dangerous in 2 ways. First is the ethical concern of who gets to choose what kind of physical traits we make a human with? Would those new humans have some kind of survival advantage that adversely affects the rest of the population? Second is the inevitable consequence that these new humans will breed with regular humans and mix DNA. We have no way to predict the potential problems there but, just like the unintended consequences of genetically altered wheat which is thought to be partly responsible for the rise in gluten intolerance, there could be permanent and disastrous harm to our species. What is needed here is a worldwide agreement, probably through the United Nations, to regulate this technology before its too late. And unfortunately, one aspect is the need to quickly regulate the future use of the genes from these 2 baby girls, including their procreation.
93
@No labels
There's no question that celiac disease is on the rise, and non-celiac gluten sensitivity may be, as well. Some people have suggested that genetically modified wheat—also known as GMO wheat—might be to blame for these increases. However, the truth is that GMO wheat can't possibly be blamed for the hikes in celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, simply because GMO wheat isn't being grown commercially.
31
@No labels
"Who gets to choose?" is a political question that applies to nearly every advance in medical technology. Hardly a reason to obstruct research.
"We have no way to predict the consequences," is nearly always true in any kind of new technology. Hardly a reason to abandon progress.
13
@ArtMurphy unfortunately, GMO wheat has been shown to be present worldwide because it’s a tougher plant than regular wheat and pollen spreads indiscriminately. Thus, GMO wheat is found in places it wasn’t planted. So, it is very likely the GMO wheat is indeed responsible for the rising insensitively of humans to wheat in their diets.
16
Science is not value-free because it is conducted by human beings, who beings are fallible, prejudiced, and prone to biases--and hubris. That's why--for over 70 years since the Nuremberg Code--medical research and experimentation has built research protocols that require discussion and approval at every step, but specifically before a study is undertaken. The process is many-layered and redundant, and its lens is that of ethics as much as science. Two or three researchers emailing one another is insufficient in this regard, as is evident in this example. Strict review is designed to ensure that the insularity of doctors talking to doctors in their rarefied bubble doesn't result in the kind of misstep we see here, normal embryos being engineered (gremlin editing for defective embryos is something different). Dr. Quake's responses are more than merely insufficient. As a trained scientist, he knew his protege had crossed a line. One of the obvious problems here is the "inventor" aspect. As soon as the profit motive enters any endeavor, there is an incentive to cut corners and look the other way. A few polite emails aren't enough to dissuade me that Dr. Quake is part of the problem. Do I hear cha-ching?
120
@Melanie
Dear Melanie,
Are you saying that a gene for HIV susceptibility is normal, and one for HIV resistance is abnormal?
7
@Melanie
"Profit?" Like an ex-president's "foundation" filled with ex-aides, while the spouse is a high-ranking official? Yeah, plenty of profit today.
Let's be direct about this -- to its credit, the government of China is plenty angry about this goofy and bizarre application of "science." That Chinese MD's career is over -- and he's also looking at prison time.
There may be a place for this kind of science. A friend's family has a family history of cancer, and I'm concerned about his children and grand-children. This *might* help.
But it takes rigorous science, not the Marx Brothers.
1
For such an intelligent and accomplished person, Dr. Quake comes across as breathtakingly obtuse.
143
@JHP
To be honest, from my corner of academia, Quake looks appropriately stolid, and all the other scientists who have acted so surprised look either hopelessly naive or indefensibly cynical.
12
@JHP
Obtuse? Why is it a professor's job to police a mentee's work in a foreign country? Dr. Quake told Dr. He to get IRB approvals, which he (supposedly) did. What else should he have done, call a cop? There is no international body regulating this work.
27
Aren’t many scientists like that, though? Morally obtuse. I shudder thinking about the chimeras hidden away in laboratories in China or elsewhere, the stuff of nightmares, products of their hubris.
10
Dr. Quake’s actions appear to be that of a dedicated mentor who encourages their students to be successful, but to do so while conducting themselves in an ethical manner. While the investigation by Stanford is warranted, from the information presented in this article, I cannot see even a hint of misconduct by Dr. Quake.
185
@Robert Speth, not a hint of misconduct? Most professional scientists would find that the gene editing of healthy humans does not pass basic research ethics (see the Nuremburg Code for an example). Trying to be a good mentor does not even come close to superseding ethical requirements. It's not what Dr. Speth says in his email, but rather than what he doesn't say.
30
@Lewis, it’s reasonable to assume Dr. Quake would have raised the alarm if Dr. He made it known he didn’t intend to get the necessary IRB approvals. The real question here should be why it was so easy for Dr. He to falsify the approvals process and obtain the necessary resources to run the experiment. Was there no oversight st all until after it was said and done?
25
@ Robert Speth. Really? I’m a layperson and the whole interaction looks very problematic to me. Dr He clearly was in communication with, and met with Dr Quake several times. Why would Dr Quake continue to encourage or give an informal stamp of approval to Dr He in this matter? (and that what his communications, meetings would have meant to Dr He).
Dr Quake had a company that went bankrupt. It seems many of our ‘top’ doctors at places like Stanford have caught the ‘let’s get really rich’ bug from their IT brethren. Pity there isn’t some gene-editing for that.
20
Hopefully Dr.Qauke is not “quaking “ in his boots and was right in his advise, suggestions and recommendations on the roadmap to developing the technology and Not quacking about it.
The attitude to quick accolades and personal glory is a roadmap for many young scientists especially recently from China. The money, fast track research opportunities and pressure to achieve from the government related funding is a huge double edged sword around progress in research.
1
Humanity can't turn back. It can only move forward. Pandora's box has been opened and Eve bit the apple of knowledge. The ancients saw our path opening and their allegories and myths serve as both warnings and realities.
We can't go back. If all other life on earth was cognitive I'd suggest they take this seminar: 'How to Survive Humanity'.
A.I. and Gene Splicing are humanities inevitable path into the future, for good, or for ill, or so it seems this morning.
Wikipedia: According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar left in his care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world.
1
As shown, the outcome was a flop. Now it is time to distance from the source.
Forget about the mentorship, the enticing benefit of a "breakthrough" from a close student, the encouragement and instruction. We only need to pick and choose whatever possible any words in emails that can serve the purpose
3
I was very annoyed by the writing and editing of this article. I was misled, and I felt there was a deliberate effort to mislead for the sake of sensationalism, to grab attention. That worked on me too, which was also annoying.
The start of the story left the definite impression on me that Dr. Quake had taught this guy the technique, and then helped him do it. Only far down in the article did it appear that was not true at all. Dr. Quake does not do this sort of work, and did not help with the work.
"He does not do gene editing"
"Dr. He’s work in his lab did not involve gene editing; it concerned immune responses to the flu vaccine."
Even later, the story reports that those who did do such work were told by Dr. Quake, and they did not express to him any surprise or concern, quite the opposite.
This feels like a smear, done for the cheap purpose of sensationalism. I'm offended.
9
Mark, I had the same reaction as you that nytimes is doing a disservice by essentially pushing Quake down the court of public opinion. But I reread the article and it does look like the journalist reported facts. The (unfair) accusations are attributed in quotes to the Chinese university’s president and it is true that Stanford is investigating him in response (a reasonable response as well). I agree Quake didn’t do anything wrong based on what is reported and did what seemed reasonable by emphasizing that his mentee He get the necessary ethics approvals.
I do wish nytimes had written an article about the lack of a global scientific body to which someone in Quake’s position could have turned to report any concerns. That sentiment is reflected in reporting Quake’s musings about 20-20 hindsight. But looking at the number of comments accusing Quake of acting unethically, I agree the article is misleading in hindsight.
3
I recently avoided a situation like this: young, aggressive, Chinese collaborator doing sloppy work, brushing off comments about technical errors. Fortunately, the issue was fluid dynamics, not babies. I ended the collaboration and told him to keep my name off anything he published. In this scandal, my sympathy is with Steven Quake.
The wider issue here is that the Chinese scientific establishment appears to be rotten. They have a huge number of people like this, clamoring for recognition, resources, and association with western scientists. They are kind of famous for unethical professional behavior.
8
It seems as though those opposed to this research are Luddites and anti-science. Why shouldn't this research be performed? If you don't like it don't do it, but don't force everyone else to abide by your rules.
How is an ethical objection to gene editing any different from an ethical objection to abortion?
3
Exactly why is this an ethical issue?
This is the only chance to beat AI, and we have to start early to get there before AI outsmarts us. Human life span is just too short, we need the next Einstein and Hawkins to live longer if we want to reach to the stars.
We need to increase our intelligence, and to have intelligent people live longer.
2
Another glaring example, in the acceleration of circumstances in the future that we human beings are creating for ourselves, that affirms the soundness of my decision early on NOT to bring any children into this world--I sleep as soundly and peacefully as I do EVERY night because I know that nobody that I love and care about will be alive to see where this all leads...
...human beings are so catastrophically and arrogantly bungling when it comes to our intrusions into nature...
2
There are two types of people: those that make progress and those that complain they weren’t consulted. This fake morality wave that has covered the US lately is just that, a wave. It will pass too. The only thing that matters is: has JK obtained consent of the parents? If he has, this is good to go, and no amount of nonsense IRBs and self-appointed moral police will change that. Whether you like it or not, human race is going to evolve, and it will happen faster than most of you are comfortable with. That’s how it is with life, dinosaurs don’t regulate the climate.
6
One smells a crack-pot review process in any event. The real problem is whether the experiment should have been done to produce offspring that WOULD BE ALLOWED TO REPRODUCE. If the boards of review did not have this covered then they were not really representing the ethical concerns that we are discussing here. We need to review the reviewers as much as the scientists.
And if the scientists just let themselves be guided by a highly conspicuously flawed review process, then there is shame.
Let's not play games. Nobody is going to take away a particular kid's right to reproduce because they were part of an experiment. So why pretend that the larger issues were ever being addressed by the scientists or the review boards that they used for cover?
The scientists were well aware of this. Where is that discussion?
1
Dr. He and Dr. Quale never seriously consider the female role in such experiments other than to joyously proclaim her pregnancy. What about this woman whose body was subjected to carry children to term and then raise them with edited genes? Genes are not an isolated entity; they affect others in their vicinity, The real problem here is not Dr. Quale’s reputation but his and Dr. He’s disregard for the female body other than as a vessel for experimentation beyond which the female is left with the burden of caring for children who may present a myriad of problems. They have then gone on to the next experiment.
2
A genetics researcher at one of the world's leading research universities, hears about a terrifying and possibly unethical experiment and essentially tells the perpetrator, check with your mom that it is ok.
2
Guilt by association and the past sexual misconduct is gutting a number of world famous scientists who hyped the significance and promise of their work to grab federal funds by the millions. Their respective Universities did not try to monitor their misconduct as these scientists were the cash cows bringing in a ton of indirect costs that covered the fat salaries of administrators in their institutions. There should be a cap on the amount of indirect costs that are negotiated on the direct cost. Stanford at one point was getting 200% indirect costs. Which is for every dollar that a mentor like Dr. Quake got to fund his research, Sanford got 2 dollars in administrative costs. It is a pity that congress is not capping the indirect cost to 25% especially since the top Universities attract bulk of their research funding from the federal government and not all research is ethical and or earth shattering.
The federal government has created haves and have nots among scientists from the tax payers money. Currently there is a colossal waste of time and federal dollars. Time spent by researchers applying for federal dollars often unsuccessfully end up being consumed by grant writing and away from mentoring graduate students and post docs, keeping up with literature in their respective fields and serving as manuscript reviewers or grant proposal reviewers. Students and post docs arising from modern labs learn little from their mentors and get practically no first hand training.
2
Is anyone really surprised that these scientists have no boundaries? Most at this level are atheists, set their own moral standards, and have goals that only reflect their desire for professional recognition.
10
@Anne
Excuse me, 'Most at this level are atheists, set their own moral standards". are you attempting to claim that those that aren't atheists have some superior status of morals? History of mankind would not bear this judgement out.
3
@Anne. No boundaries? There are plenty (as described throughout the article), one chose not to follow them, and he's being roundly condemned for it. And what does being an atheist have to do with anything? ( ... whether or not you have any idea if anyone involved is in fact one?).
3
Were they not atheists, would that somehow make their research more acceptable, or less acceptable, somehow? Religion based ethical codes don’t seem to drive any concerns regarding Donald Trump’s personal or policy behaviors.
3
There is always much hand wringing and finger wagging by the 'experts' at the edges of all scientific breakthroughs. If it weren't for our 'rogues' we'd probably still be performing blood-letting and using prayer to treat disease as opposed to science. The investigation of Dr. Quake is hopefully just for optics. We can't afford to have his own research muffled.
15
@doc007 Why can't we? Sounds completely unethical and unnecessary.
1
@Jackson
Do you know that Dr.Quake invented the blood test for downs syndrome so that women don't have to undergo the potentially dangerous procedure of amniocentesis? He is a huge creative force in biomedical engineering, and should absolutely be supported! He did everything right here, asking about IRB approvals. I don't understand at all why he is being investigated. It was not his project. It's a scary world indeed if scientists can be punished for informal advice.
8
A very slippery slope indeed. Whether Dr. Quake actively urged Dr. He's experiment or not, if he didn't urge that it not be done and continue to state his opposition, then he did not hold himself to the high ethical standards that he professes.
10
@Barbara
Why should he state his opposition? He is not an expert in the field. If crispr engineering were absolutely safe, should he also be categorically opposed to a manipulation that could improve the life of a baby? Is it so crystal clear?
2
@Sophie
He was opposed on an ethical basis, but chose not to say so, then said he has high ethical standards. Crispr is not absolutely safe nor is it approved anywhere. For now, it is crystal clear to me.
People sometimes ignore reality when confronted by frightening things. They cannot see those things as inevitable because they are based upon reality instead of the products of malevolent agents who if stopped the frightening things might be eliminated.
When I was a small child, the Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons and did so with the help of people who shared what was learned in the Manhattan Project with that country. The popular reaction, fear of domestic Communists and traitors, ignored the facts that while there were betrayals, the ability to make nuclear weapons could never be kept secret. The Soviet Union would determine how to become a nuclear power because it’s rivals were.
1
Has any competant source verified that it was actually done? Does no one remember the other provocative announcements of cloning and genetic manipulation that turned out to be false? The only "verification" I've seen came from the Chinese government.
6
Wishing that this has not happened or that it can be stopped by applying whatever sanctions can frighten people into not doing it are likely to fail. Anything that is based upon knowledge of reality cannot be kept secret. In fact only generally known phenomenon are voluntarily managed to maximize benefits while minimizing harm by people.
It has worked his way from the use of fire through all technologies that can produce great harm as well as great benefits. We have to teach kids not to play with fire but some will and some adults become arsonists. Poisonous gas was routinely used in WWI not in WWII but used in conflicts like the Iran-Iraq war. So it goes that even though mankind learns to control the use of dangerous technologies it never prevents misuses absolutely. From now on we will need to monitor genetic engineering of all living things.
11
Scholars’ work is always focussed within a narrow range where many overarching issues are sidelined. It brings efficiency to their work but it also makes their pursuit vulnerable to adventurism. Hence, there is a greater need of bringing the scientific work under moral purview.
2
@CA
What do you mean by "moral purview". Your beliefs forced on others?
Germ cell repair of nasty defects make sense and can be considered moral by my standards of today, but not by the standards of 2000 year old thinking that thought slavery was moral.
1
With this definition of morality, every discussion of ethics and values can be seen as an imposition of one’s belief on another. I am sure moralist do not see it that way. Perhaps, you need to educate yourself on the subject.
1
@Dallas Weaver
Morals is not based on belief nor religion. It is based on spirituality, our attitude towards others. If a human being has been harmed because of our action, that act is immoral; just as much as sex in itself is not immoral unless it is forced by means of power over someone. Morals, simply put, is about how we treat each other, singular or enmass. Throughout history, religion as a belief is supposed to promote and give guidance on morality. Unfortunately, it has been used to justify wars and hatred towards others. Some Christians owned slaves while others fought to free slaves; President Lincoln, one moral brave soul along with others from northern states. Gene editing in this case has become a battle between good and evil.
1
I had not known that the parents were HIV positive. That means that this was a risky pregnancy.
That also means that this particular technique was not just a Frankenstein experiment, it was a reasoned way to deal with a real risk to the life of the babies.
Whether the reasoning was sound is another matter. However, that is not the question as this is usually presented.
It is the difference between experimenting on an otherwise healthy fetus, and medically treating the fetus for a life threatening condition.
Was that a reasonable treatment? That isn't the same question as usually asked. An answer requires better understanding of the alternatives, something I've never seen discussed, even here.
14
@Mark Thomason, experimenting on humans and human fetuses is NOT ETHICAL and is not recognized in the scientific world without very strict controls. The problem with this is a total failure to go through the necessary and important approval procedures. It cannot be considered "well reasoned" because it was not approved or sanctioned by the broad medical-scientific community.
10
So, it IS ethical if certain procedures are in place?
Is it ethical to experiment on the human food supply?
2
@Warren
Yes, human experimentation is ethical if certain strict guidelines are followed. Clinical drug trials, for instance, are done under these guidelines. The main question here is whether Dr. He followed the guidelines and got clearance from the relevant institutions. Whether this research would have been allowed at all in the West is a secondary question. Someone, somewhere will do it.
5
See " Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus" by Mary Shelley; " Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
See " The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism" by Edward Baptist
See Josef Mengele, T.D. Lysenko, James Watson and the American Eugenics Movement.
See the Holocaust, the Tuskegee Experiments and Henrietta Lacks.
Human biological DNA genetic hubris is running ahead of human legal, moral, socioeconomic, political and educational infrastructure.
26
@Blackmamba -- Yes, but Mengele experimented on healthy people, to kill them and watch how they died.
This doctor seems to have helped HIV positive parents have babies that were safe from that HIV. And it worked. The result is watching healthy babies grow, not the killing of previously healthy babies.
I agree with you on the medical implications of this work, but I think this is a hard case example that is not fully discussed in all its complexity.
2
@Mark Thomason
I feel and hear you.
But all humble, humane, empathy, commonsense, reason, objectivity and logic seems to vanish as we face the certainty of our mortality and imperfections.
Good intentions concern me more than malice. Because they cause us to lower our guard.
1
Of note, the Times article from November 2018 that is referred to, stated that He Jiankui has been on “no-pay leave” from his university in China since February 2018.
It also stated that the hospital he had been using, Shenzhen Harmonicare, has asked the police to investigate what they suspect are “fraudulent ethical review materials.”
12
“I suppose there's no way of putting the mushroom cloud back into that nice, shiny uranium sphere.” -Isaac Asimov, The Dead Past
24
dr. moreau nods
5
I'm sorry, but the other expert's name was redacted? I understand not sharing this with the NY Times, but I sure hope Stanford officials are looking at more than just Dr. Quake, since Quake appears to have been significantly misled by some of his colleagues who also should have known better.
17
Dr. Quake lives in the alternate world of academia in the most elite educational institution in the world. I can see him unwittingly getting dragged into this. No collusion and was, at best, an “useful idiot” to the unethical Chinese researcher.
Meanwhile, Dr. Quake should consider resigning from the Zuckerberg foundation until he reconciles how he ended up getting hoodwinked so embarrassingly despite his storied resume.
7
maybe include David Baltimore, who protested so much that it bordered on his own attempt to be the first.
3
This doesn't need regulation, it needs to be criminalized. How are these "scientist" any different from Mengele? It should be clear to Stamford University and others that the children born of these experiments will have the right to sue and sue dearly in the not too distant future. That is certainly a jury we would all be happy to sit on.
8
@Oakwood, Stanford is not the same as Stamford. These children have no "right to sue" in China, but the Chinese government is not allowing this scientist to resume his career. It sounds like they, and the American universities connected to him, are investigating.
1
@Oakwood, The gene that makes them susceptible to HIV was altered so the babies would not get HIV from their HIV positive mother. You think there is a lawsuit here? So they should sue because they were made genetically immune to HIV?Are you a personal injury lawyer?
What makes me mad is that nobody sees these experiments as a crime against humanity. Wikileaks is not interested in denouncing these mad scientists because they are on the side of the criminals. Thank you NY Times for at least questioning the work of these guys.
Yes, yes, in the name of science and bla, bla, bla, you scientists think you alone can talk about life on Earth and its origin. But your work shows that you are rotten to the core. Our life on Earth has become unbarable because of you scientists, Everywhere we look we see devastation because of you, You say '' move away, move away, because we scientists are going to fix what's wrong with life on Earth, we are going to make improvements. You make me sick and you make humanity sick.
3
@Joseph Louis The same scientists that have in all likelihood allowed you to live today?
Without scientists our population would still hover around 600 million- that is over 7 billion people dead. And you accuse them of crimes against humanity, when you want 7 billion people to be dead?
The hypocrisy is rank, but not surprising.
3
@Joseph Louis A lot of food sources are now genetically engineered. Some people in the future will have genetically engineered babies.
It you don't want GMO food don't eat it. Don't want a GMO baby then don't have one.
3
@Joseph Louis - there are many scientist out there that share some of your outrage. And many of us are as disturbed by these latest gene editing activities. But please do not paint all science and scientist as mad. Driving this is human nature - hubris, ego, fame, financial reward, FOMO. Need a deeper explanation? I refer you to Shakespeare.
If Quake were being honest and the world worked as it should, he would simply say he made a terrible mistake by not reporting his former trainee, apologize and hope he doesn't get fired, excused from all his leadership roles, have his funding pulled, etc. Then, if Stanford and NIH were reasonable, they would put him on probation and let him take some ethics training and pay penance. Quake is a physicist, not a physician. These are the guys who design hydrogen bombs so we can't expect them to really appreciate the fine points of ethics ;)
Yes, in the not too distant future, this kind of genome editing for pre-implantation gene therapy will be available for several genetic diseases, with profit-making, FDA approved therapies offered at local IVF clinics. Along the way to that, we have to expect adverse events, such as a number of children burdened by profound birth defects requiring life-long care. Given the stakes, the work must be done with considerable oversight or we risk losing the opportunity. The payoffs will be enormous if safety concerns can be addressed.
With this in mind, just as with any other medical innovation, we need gene editing research to respect the bright lines that separate ethical science from the experiments of Josef Mengele. Foolishness like this can delay or even prevent important medicine from reaching patients.
8
Once the genie is out of the bottle you can never put it back.
5
Ignorance is Bliss. War is Peace, etc.
The choices are Brave New World, 1984, Animal Farm and
the variations of so-called Holy Texts.
If people were meant to fly, God would have given us wings.
Do not exchange blood with other human beings
(i.e. transfusions). Don't fool around with the atom. It might just explode.
Abortion is another explosive issue. Let the little fetus be born, maybe unwanted, when they are able to live independently of the mother incubator. Those advocating forced labor on women always disappear when asked to support these newborns, especially those who are a product of rape, incest. and color. It is mostly men who lead the charge to control women. They are also are the first to say, "Don't ask me to help raise and support these unwanted products of rape and incest."
Don't educate ourselves and our children about evolution, creation based on accepted science, morality and ethics that nominally espouses "Love thy neighbor." without exception.
Don't study capitalism, Marxian, Socialist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu and other religious writings to
(a) understand them, and, (b) find their common kernels of truth, love, forgiveness and acceptance buried within.
Don't ignore the hate, anger, brutality that are used to justify the actions of the fools who use these writings to make page one of the fake news.
Do not think! Cover your eyes, ears and minds to attain stupidity based on ignorance.
Ignorance and science march on. One will win!
3
@etg
Not sure of what point you are trying to make, but you do know that Brave New World was satire, right?
2
China trying to shift blame.
6
Let us consult the Catholic Church.
They established principles for guiding advancement in the 16'th century.
8
Why doesn’t the Times mention in the entirety of this article the name of Dr. He Jiankui’s institution: Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen)? Why is their virtually no reference to the Chinese government’s investigation and sanctioning of Dr. He? Incorporating even basic reporting would have made this article more informative and fair.
12
Is anybody really surprised by this?
Greed and the desire for power will always win out over ethics.
As soon is it became possible to edit DNA, it was pretty obvious that genetically engineered babies were not going to be far behind.
Heck, Gene Roddenberry saw this coming 50+ years ago....just ask Khan.
4
Changing the genes of people has been accomplished and the practical reactions are to learn how it affects all of us and to act to resolve any great concerns effectively. Knowledge management is as old as mankind. The notion that by keeping people ignorant of reality can prevent them from acting inappropriately in the views of some human authority figure or figures is an old idea. Reality is what is and anyone with the determination to become informed about it will always overcome any plans to keep anything about reality secret. Whether the genes of people should be done is beyond undoing.
There will be bad results from altering genes given the disparate means of real world evolution and the imagination based means of man. Nature gives life resiliency by diversity which cultivation of favored characteristic of nature species by man destroys. Man made hybrids can go extinct very quickly. While people will seek to eliminate or introduce various genetic characteristics to improve human life, the consequences that are not understood could prove to be far worse than imagined. Since we are not going to stop the use of the technology we are going to have to watch it very carefully and to do so forever.
5
The article elides the issue of what gene was edited. While this isn't central to the issue of the ethicality of editing per se, it would be useful to know if the gene was to prevent a health or birth defect.
5
@Scooter. It seems that the editing was done to prevent transmission from two HIV Positive parents to their offspring.
2
@judith loebel. Excellent, thanks.
Fascinating and troubling at so many levels--not least in that this is the first time I've ever been able to read to the bottom of the comments on a super-important topic.
The dirty little secret in virtually all scientific fields of endeavor is that while the technological _content_ of science is international, its _management_ is anything but. Quake's push-back ("follow its course") shows a clear awareness of that.
Meanwhile go to your local university and check out the provenance of the grad students and post-docs, especially in highly technical fields. Figure out how _you_ would manage it.
Truth is, sparks are flying here because of the topic's sensationalism. But this fire runs very, very deep.
2
@Russell Maulitz Russell, as always, you are right on the mark with your observations. See mine, 3/4 of an hour later.
Who really believes that this Stanford professor (more business-man-scientist than professor, it seems) is not involved in this thing? The excuses and 'explanations' seem quite transparent.
9
It is the same China giving nuclear weapons to whoever pays, and harvesting organs to sell from political prisoners . You, American consumer, fund the expansion of this totalitarian regime and the greatest transfer of wealth since 1492.
7
@ABC
"You, American fund this totalitarian regime and the greatest transfer of wealth" is an exagerated description of American relationship with China. China is no longer the totalitarian regime you claimed it to be. Chinese have freedom to travel and study anywhere in the world. While I disagree with some of the restrictions on freedom of speech by the Chinese government, it is no longer making its citizens disappear enmass as it once did during Mao's era."
"Transfer of wealth", China's wealth came from knowledge Chinese gained from studying overseas. No other country see China as stealing their wealth. Trade with China is a concern at this moment, but it is to be worked out between two nations.
ABC is acrinym for "American Born Chinese." I don't understand why you are spreading such exaggerated, in accurate description of China. I am Chinese American like you with four generations of history here. I love my country USA, but I do not wish to spread hate towards any country or people. And, I agree that Dr. He had violated the ethic of science research. It is likely that China has not yet learned or reluctant to regulate science research in the process of competing and advancing its research capability.
Silicon Valley science. Thanks for everything, Stanford.
2
Not to defend Dr Hu but he was a postdoctoral fellow in the US, not a “postdoctoral student”. Postdocs are not students. They already have their PhD/MD.
3
How many times have we seen this by now! These Chinese scientists come here to the US and learn and steal the technology, go back home and doing something unethical in order to shamelessly get credit as the first ones to do it! Dr Quake is guilty of collusion. He is obviously one of these China-lovers who are unethical. Don't give me the excuse "they did not know!"
3
Quake's dissembling rationalizations ought to put him in line for Surgeon General in the Trump administration. He's cut from the same foul cloth.
4
Dr. Quake's email responses pretty much are the kind you send someone you know is going to something stupid because you understand what they are going to do and are gently trying to get them to back down. Not to downplay the seriousness of the situation but it seems like the conversation one would have with a college sophomore that wants to get a belly button piercing.
This quote pretty much sums up Dr. He... "he boasted that his plan could be compared to Nobel-winning research". Overachieving attention seeker who uses a what he knows without really thinking about the implications so he can win a prize. Unfortunately science is filled with this type of person.
9
The article gets a key part of the science wrong. He Jiankui didn't alter a gene mutation. He mutated a normal gene.
12
@Paul Knoepfler Nothing in our genetic code is 'normal', in-so-much as it isn't original. We evolved via mutations, and Dr. He's mutation is one that has been observed naturally. The mutation itself wasn't practiced in animal trials first, which some might find upsetting, but ever gene edited is an alteration to a mutation.
They got it right.
1
Is no one astonished that even as gene editing is scored for its ethically transgressive character, abortion - the editing process hoisted to its lethal zenith - owns pride of place as a routinely honored reproductive right?
1
Let’s not forget the collaborator at Rice University, Michael Deen.
4
The prevailing wisdom seems to be: practice genetic editing on “animals”, but not on humans.
Last I checked humans are animals too.
I say, congrats to Dr. He and Quake for advancing medical science.
4
Dr. Quake had a responsibility to alert the scientific community about what He Jiankui was about to embark on. Hiding behind his position was not the correct path forward for a scientist. Dr. Quake seems not to care about the broader implications for humans only that they can see if the experiment works.
5
@Jacquie
Didn't you read the part of the article where Quake did exactly this? He notified two world experts in crispr engineering (not Dr. Quake's field). Neither expert suggested holding a news conference to alert the world. Why should Dr. Quake be expected to know more about the fraught ethics of gene editing than these world experts?
1
@Sophie: Because he has been exposed to the same ethical standards in human subject research that everyone else learns (or doesn't, it seems). He's experiment didn't meet the most basis requirement - one doesn't have to bring in any complex technical issues relating to gene editing. Quake knew (or should have known) that it was a crime.
@DKM
Again, world experts in the field whom Dr. Quake contacted didn't sound alarm bells. When you undergo training in ethical standards in human research, you don't learn to adjudicate specific scientific experiments. What you learn is that any human research needs to get IRB approval, and you also learn considerations that go into an application (e.g., importance of informed consent, which apparently was granted in this case). Details of each specific experiment are considered by the IRB. This is why Dr. Quake repeatedly underscored the importance that He get IRB approval.
Dr. Quake should’ve known that ethics in China was a gray area, and that this ambitious colleague was going to forge right on, regardless. Therefore, he’s morally liable, and the university, and institute connected to Zuckerberg, should take action and reprimand him, and yes, fine him. He’s compromised a whole field by encouraging an egomaniac, and that needs to be tackled. Did he really think that the Chinese have all these institutions and oversight infrastructure in place? PPLLEEAASE, Not rocket science.
8
I think that Quake has, by giving the interviews described in this article and engaging in the behavior described there, convicted himself of moral turpitude. I have worked in science and medicine for decades, seen the development of current standards of human subject research, and sat on both sides of the IRB process. Anyone possessing the slightest acquaintance with current (or even much earlier) standards would have seen immediately that He's experiment was beyond the pale. Quake knows enough about science and medicine to understand what He was doing. He must have been exposed to pretty extensive training in the ethics of human subjects research. Common sense would have old him that the ethics review process in China must have been defective, corrupt, or fictional - because no competent IRB would have passed the experiment that He did. Quake knew all of that, but he now pretends that He's assurance of IRB clearance lets him off the hook. It doesn't: he has revealed his own moral corruption.
11
What do you think Quake stood to gain from this? He even asked that his name be taken off the acknowledgements.
1
@Sophie: He'll know the answer to that. Maybe it was only so that he wouldn't appear to be responsible.
What academic institution was or is Dr He affiliated with? His university should have been his go to IRB rather than, or better yet, in addition to the hospitals. Dr Quake should have advised this and his response does suggest a cavalier attitude. It is good that Stanford is investigating.
2
It is unacceptable that we shrug and say this is inevitable. This article only makes clear the countries need to quickly establish clear ethical guidance, with criminal prosecution and lengthy jail sentences, for violations. We cannot allow the most unethical and egotistical members of the scientific community set the bar on what is acceptable in this line of research.
8
Dr. Quake offered advice and urged caution. His responses were appropriate for a mentor to someone who had trained in his lab years earlier. The insinuation that Dr. He was his “protege” is without merit; we do not know how Dr. Quake would have responded to a colleague seeking a reference for Dr. He.
3
Quake seems to have wanted either credit if it went well or plausible deniability if it didn’t.
This is the worst kind of opportunistic and cynical behavior a scientist can have. The primary blame lies with him and the damage to his reputation is well deserved.
The He caper is a classic too: get it done in a country with few regulations, expecting everyone will look the other way if it’s well received. The authorities can deny all knowledge if there’s a firestorm of criticism.
Cynicism all round.
11
We call this a "Birth Quake", a seismic failure of ethics and leadership.
You cannot have it both ways; simultaneously cheering while upholding ethics.
4
Get used to it folks. This is just the beginning. Make it illegal. It's still going to happen. We have to accept the truth about humans. They will do anything and everything to get ahead. From cheating on SATs to steroids, we've seen it again and again.
6
Disappointed in Dr. Quake, who knew this individual well. Quake’s answers and comments in the interview seem so coy. But aiding and abetting loom.
A full investigation by Stanford is indeed needed.
[And one has to wonder why someone like Quake would risk his professional reputation by getting involved with Jiankui He’s project, especially as his former mentor.]
7
I think the topic of gene edited humans is 100% inevitable and we should embrace it fully and get on with the scientific research of it and for once, get ahead of the regulations for it. If someone wants a blonde haired blue eyed 6ft 2in boy that is resistant from getting diabetes and Alzheimer's, then so be it. Societies real ethical problem is over population and the destruction of the environment. If gene editing can reduce the number of babies born in the world - done.
2
@Dan
I'm assuming you haven't considered the consequences of allowing genetic alteration, both on a personal level and a societal level.
Can you imagine what Hitler would have done with a super race, both physically and intellectually, had it been available?
3
the following sentence is ambiguous, "Dr. Quake said he believed there was not scientific consensus about that." Does Dr Quake or Dr He believe there is no scientific consensus? Irregardless, their is concensus, and one's disbelief is hardly justification for such an experiment that would create mutant humans that lack functional CCR5 receptors, these receptors are certainly important since their function has been maintained through evolution.
3
A huge problem is how do we blame Trump for this?
4
Those of us who oppose all genetic modification, including making humans into GMO, have long warned that the lessons of Frankenstein go unheeded by profit/ego-driven scientists who tinker with the building blocks of life.
Humans have acquired godlike powers, but like the gods we've created, we lack the wisdom, ethics, and precautionary principle to use our powers harmlessly.
The worst sci-fi scenarios for AI, replicants, synthbots, engineered humans, chimeras and other insanity as we were warned about in books like Brave New World and 1984, are being covertly developed right now by unethical, greedy scientists working mostly for the military-industrial complex.
Their goal is to create humanoid organisms that make natural humans into cattle herded by engineered humans and their robotic enforcers.
Genetic modification of humans and other animals should be immediately banned worldwide.
5
The care taken to frame responsibility issues here troubles me with a (culture-centric?) question of context: is this also a story of American research "modified" into Chinese "accomplishment" (is that a tabu question formulation)? Frankenstein, the scientific novelty derailing the inner human... Perhaps Chinese questions will generate more detailed oversight.
In the Sunday Review, Jamie Metzl says this will be common in the year 2045, so it's being normalized. The question is, of course, for whom and what motivations. With climate change destroying our environment, and its escalating costs on health and nourishment, only the ultra-rich will be doing it; GMO skin and vascular systems to survive, maybe turn themselves into reptiles to hibernate—the rest of us their serfs. Hasn't that transformation already begun by our current president?
Whats the big deal, by choosing a partner were kinda doing the same thing.
4
Ethical and unsafe.
Mere trifles if wealthy customers seek babies to order. And ever so profitable for Big Medicine, too.
Nothing ever stopped Monsanto, Boeing and Volkswagen from acting unethically. And they will continue to thrive carefree.
These corporate precedents bode ill for future human generations ,obviously.
2
Typical reaction of the myopic remains outrage based upon fear.
A rational, well considered reaction is: What are the risks & benefits; how do we ensure the new technology is deployed in an ethical manner (e.g. serves the greater good of advancing mankind by ending disease) and what systems of rewards & punishment must be enacted to ensure the standards are met?
For those with myopia, consider ending Sickle cell anemia, polio, dwarfism, ALS, dementia, genetic induced cancers,
immunities to diseases, etc.
3
Dr Quake thought He was bright but rushed too much and likely to cut corners. But yet, Dr Quake continued correspondence with him, gave him advice and encouragement (“wow! What an achievement”). If you have a student who seems like they may ‘cut corners’ then why on earth would you encourage them when they are moving forward in doing things that most experts in the field think is foolhardy. Dr Quake sounds like he is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
7
One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Before I jump into the fire, let us compare gene editing with ‘ethically accepted’ Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy or MRT. Without going into details, the ‘replacing mitochondria’ brings its own set of DNA replacing the DNA from the ‘replaced mitochondria’.
What is the difference between the two is that in gene editing, we are actually replacing at a finer granularity that MRT. In gene-editing, we are replacing or removing parts of the DNA whereas in MRT we are replacing the mitochondrial DNA.
Therein lies the ‘fine line of ethics’. Trust me, most readers would say - “big deal”!
MRT is used to solve one set of neurological disorders and gene editing may be able to solve another set!
So the question is, if gene-editing does produce healthy babies and if there is a Market Demand for it, how soon the government give in to lobbying pressure?
… and then the slippery slope. We have seen it already in the IVF debate.
3
On the plus side, it is good that the cross-training of Chinese scientists in the US facilitates these relationships and communication paths. The negative is that the communication was so casual. Are the repercussions actually going to deter future behavior? Have ethical lines become clearer as a result of this incident?
But, where are those children who underwent gene editing, now? This article says very little, almost nothing, regarding their state of health. Isn't that important? How can one speak of the ethics of the matter and, not address the health of those involved? It makes no sense to me because one would think the ethics was related to the child's well being.
12
Gene editing in humans can literally save lives. Look at the recent successes with sickle cell. Would it be morally wrong to do it at the genomic level, thereby making the baby’s genomic hemoglobin gene the same as that in healthy people?
Yes, some changes carry risk as well as benefit. But every one of us is a product of the scrambling of genes that occurs at each conception - a scrambling that leads to some of the naturally occurring genetic diseases.
Don’t be so cocksure you know what’s best for other people struggling with real problems. But if you prefer to continue, I have a collection of first stones, carefully sized, washed, and assayed to guarantee that they emit no radon. I offer them for a nominal charge of one dollar plus shipping and handling. Put mailing information in your reply to this email.
4
Reading this article the phrase “cavalier attitude” comes to mind. This research is focused on altering our own evolution, an area of unique profoundness that requires a level of ethical diligence far above the bounds of the ordinary. I work in synthetic organic chemistry, and if one of my former postdocs wrote to inform me that he/she was working to synthesize a compound that would affect the future of the human race in potentially negative ways, I would feel morally obligated to report it to the appropriate authorities.
22
@Conrad Santini With almost 8 billion on the planet, even if the gene ended up having deleterious effects in future generations (we've already done well if that is a problem, since the babies need to grow up and mate for that to be an issue, and nobody is talking about putting them on life support and raping them), do you really think the introduction of single genes are going to destroy humanity?
That is fiction, and can't be statistically supported. Even if these children were armed with a gene drive, it wouldn't be able to kill us off. That is just fear mongering.
1
@YQ: I do not flatter myself with the idea that I can correctly predict all of the implications, or lack thereof, of the kind of reckless experimentation being described in this article. If you have a gift of prophecy that is so powerful that you can breezily dismiss any risky activity in advance then you are truly an exceptional individual.
All I can say is, the dystopian future has arrived, and it's worse than we thought. Dystopian plots always start with a brave new world where technology or social engineering will cure the ills of humanity. And then things go terribly wrong.
10
Gene editing babies has serious issues for the potential children, and possibly the mother. None of the ethical challenges were met, the danger to the mother and babies was unnecessary.
Dr. He was not just another doctor, this was also his student. As a teacher and a mentor, Doctor Quake had a responsibility. The school where he teaches is absolutely correct to review this issue.
Using live human test subjects should obviously and rightly be held to a high standard of ethics. Dr. He abjectly failed to do that. His teacher was encouraging him to do things that failed the international standards of ethics.
Perhaps Dr. Quake is not up to the ethical rigors or teaching.
20
@Covert
Give me a call and we can discuss after every teacher who has had a student turn bad is relieved from their teaching assignments. While your at it, let's jail every parent who has a child that has done something bad. A professor should not be held responsible for the failings of a student after that student has moved for several years.
5
There needs to be new ethics regulations put in place so that those scientists who become in the know of details of ethics violation regarding this kind of genetic intervention be obliged to report to their ethics oversight organizations less suffer consequences. Basically, if you're in the know and you say nothing, or worse quietly cheer someone on, you become part of it too. You can't just wash your hands out of it just like that.
7
Gene-editing babies is a serious moral and ethical issue, not to mention a scientific experiment that could go terribly wrong. Dr. Quake is now distancing himself from Dr. He because of all possible dire fall-outs of this experiment. He is an entrepreneur and that speaks volumes. For all his trying to distance himself now, it is obvious that he did'nt really try hard enough. There were multiple indicators and enough time to put on the brakes. Especially considering the magnitude of consequences of what could be a Frankenstein experiment. His attempts seem extremely half-hearted to say the least. Especially when Dr. He seemed to be cutting corners and totally disregarding his advice. Dr. Quake should have informed the scientific community about Dr. He's work.
But he chose not to. His entrepreneurial instinct seemed to have taken over.
28
Should we expect ethical considerations be enforced by individuals? Or laws? It seems if people are completely true to their inner instincts unethical decisions would be made all the time. Laws that our collective identity decide on seem to “keep us in line”. But If he didn’t actually do the experiment what is the issue with him feeling positively towards it? It seems to me he’s now being forced to say he has high ethical standards in order to not lose his job, while he obviously was excited by the science if you read those emails.
7
@TGP
So, if a teacher at the school where your children attend found out a student was going to commit a crime. Then encouraged that crime instead of trying to prevent it, would you want your kid in that teacher’s class?
2
Well. It’s complicated. Because, how do you know if someone is actually going to commit a crime. If you’re talking about high school, hormones are raging which equal anger, frustration and sometimes fantasies of violence. How can we decode what will manifest out of someone’s head into physical reality? Eric Harris (Columbine) had a website that authorities were alerted to, where he talked about building bombs and ridding the world of people he thought were beneath him. I think I’m the context of a world where school shootings say have become so commonplace any sort of leaning towards something like that would have to be investigated. But... I think if you investigate the journals of tons of adolescents and teens you would find thoughts of murder or fantasies of hurting people. Most of these people don’t ever commit a crime. Especially as technology gets more advanced, how do we police before a crime is actually committed?
So I don’t know
So what does the Scientific Community want to do about this "seriously violated ethics,scientific research integrity and relevant state regulations." in relation to this conduct and implementation of this research experiment, to so far as it is known, to be a success?
Has research into this stopped or continued with only a public scolding of possible partners associated with it? Would think the Scientific Community is really reviewing this as an accomplishment, and what they can learn from this going forward.
3
The problem with genetic altering of humans boils down to one thing: "What could go wrong?"
I am all for human ingenuity improving things. My fear is for the victims of the errors that will certainly be made. What happens to the hapless monsters?
2
@Susan: There most certainly will be 'victims of the errors'. The early patients of any new treatment are subject to these risks. But in my field of research, oncology, there are many cancers that are now fully curable because patients took risks years ago. It's still happening. No treatment emerges from the scientific womb fully mature. There are mistakes. It takes time. Medicine is very far from perfect. Every patient who opts for a new treatment is told that. Informed consent it critical. Imperative.
But that's how we make progress.
7
@Susan
Shades of Wells' 'The Island of Doctor Moreau'. Or worse, Browning's 'Freaks'.
I believe this is a story of "Over the Top' big ambition, of resulting fame and wealth for Dr. He and Dr. Quake. They were both blinded to the cliff looming ahead riding on a fast running train, the success of gene editing. They never took their eyes off the destination until the train went off the cliff. The incremination by other scientists of Dr. He and, to a minor extent Dr. Quake of their culpability in violating science ethics comes too late.
We need to find a solution to this very serious ethical violation on human gene editing. More regulatory bodies for oversight is required for such research.
9
Here you see a technocrat’s thinking. He’s obviously much more interested in advancing the technology than in anything else. Ethical considerations are a concern only bc violating them could hurt the field, the science.
It goes no deeper than that for Dr Quake.
He’s not prioritizing the individuals being experimented on or the species or anything but advancing the field.
I think a lot of people at Stanford have a similar mindset. It’s a technocratic institution. Its history is pretty dark in this regard. Another story, I suppose, though related to this, I believe.
17
Research and development of genetic alternation can only be regulated IF regulators can effect regulation. This article makes the point that tryin to thwart genetic research drives it underground into rogue states (China) and closed private investors. Regulation without enforcement is counterproductive and this article proves it. It is a delusion of monumental error to persist in publishing regulations and suppressing controlled science and open peer-reviewed work. Light illuminates, follow the light.
9
The first item that has to be made clear is that these are real people whose genes edited were edited and no one understand what that means for the short and long term health of these people. Start with that first.
The moral, ethical, dilemma is apparent to nearly everyone much less someone working in the field such as Dr. Quake. He could of done more and should of. Shining light on this topics does not necessarily stop it but it is necessary so people understand what is going on and what should go on. I do not know if Dr. Quake's view was tainted by financial aspects, but he certainly showed that making money in this field is one of his goals. The financial aspect needs to be removed for the people working on this to remove partiality.
31
I totally agree with your reasoning.
1
There is no way this is going to stop. If it has military implications (and it does) some governments will be doing it in secret, no matter what they claim. Welcome to yet another aspect of the Brave New World.
37
@otto
Yes, and the NYT Editorial Board was pushing for this Knavish New World just a few days ago....
2
@otto Otto, yours is the only negatively tinged comment I've agreed with. It is worrisome that our benevolent militaries will be in control of the technology due to the public's refusal in engage with it for the betterment of humanity.
Brave New World isn't what you should be worrying about- it wasn't imaginative enough.
3
@YQ And I so much don't want to be negative. But, as and optimistic youth-and seeing again and again, the promises and the lies, I've become what I would call, more of a realist. I love my country. I no longer trust my government-or any government to play it straight and not lie to me. I still donate to Doctors Without Borders- and lots of others humanitarian causes, but my hopes for the future of our race are greatly diminished. I don't mind evolution, but it's clear to me that this next, engineered evolution is going to be for the elite, and for the military.
2
I agree with the previous commenter, Dennis, that neither Dr. Quake nor Dr. He seems to have understood all of the ethical implications. In Dr. He's case, he gives the impression of not thinking in such a way that the idea of ethical implications would make much impression on him. While this view is unfortunate (and has backfired on him), we should keep in mind the enormous pressure that Dr. He and other scientists in China (and not only in China, but very much so there) face to come up with startlingly good results. The great achievement of extending education, including graduate education, among the population of China so widely in a relatively short time means however that professional infrastructure support for so many professionals isn't yet in place, and everyone is competing for what feels like a few places. So, everyone's sense of ethics will be challenged to a very strong degree, even more so than in other countries where the population of scientists more closely matches the size of the infrastructure. Dr. Quake gives the impression of himself being a bit "blasé" as he calls it over someone doing "the next thing". In technical scientific terms, that's to be expected, but it feels sad that he doesn't give the impression of being more worried about potential misuse of the technology. This sort of technology, once it's mature, could be used for very good purposes, but given human nature, it's virtually certain to be misused.
30
If an inexorable scientific advancement is so immanent, maybe it is the government’s responsibility to approach it itself.
At least the discovery would develop in tandem with both regulation in tandem with how and when information is relayed to the public.
4
ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU here we come. The visual landscape is going to get very interesting: humans crawling on all fours - "bipedalism is bad for the lower back as we age so we scientists came up with a better design". Until we can get a handle on societal "comparative bias", not to mention cowboy scientists, this all smacks of biological anarchy. I wonder what humans will look like in 200 or so years when our descendants have been genetically altered to cope with global warming, increased pollution, and rampant antibiotic resistant bacteria. Not to mention so much more!
18
Think of nuclear fission and the bomb. The genie is out of the bottle and no amount of hand-wringing, treaty signing, threats of retaliative use will put it back. In the meantime we enjoy some of its benefits in terms of cheap energy, not to mention all the medical uses of nuclear reactions. It may very well be that those who are not "modified" in the future will be a dwindling group of Sapiens, looked on as sort of an interesting oddity as we currently view our Neanderthal cousins. So be it. Maybe our modifications will include such things as cooperativeness, abhorrence of conflict, etc. Whatever, the die is cast.
We should also keep in mind the enormous amount of energy scientists currently use to get things approved by IRB's. And since they do not always agree with each other, IRB shopping is much more prevalent than we suspect. Lowering the bar just a little is a common way of attracting scientists with richly funded research grants. So don't think IRB's are the eventual answer.
33
@Edward James Dunne Thanks Edward James Dunne - a considered, intelligent response. I don't see Dr. Quake's actions as controversial at all: he is reasonably distanced from Dr. He's activities, and hardly promoted his research, advising him at each opportunity to ensure he had appropriate ethics approval. The more interesting issue is the arrival of gene modification to procreation. It is to China's credit that they have now investigated Dr. He's work - he appears to now be a 'maverick' scientist, with his ethical reputation bearing all the signs of hubris, as it should be. Well may he and others wanting to follow his path reflect.
12
Guess what all you luddites and muppets this is the future, try fighting it and watch your progeny get evolved out by upgrades humans (maybe they will end up in some zoo where they could continue fighting against technological evolution)
13
Given that this will be part of our future we need as a community of human beings shape that future. Sticking our heads in the sand will, I suspect, only lead to worse abuses akin to the moral equivalent of a society that affords only home-spun abortion techniques.
10
I find the timing of yesterday’s NYTs editorial on Mitochondria Replacement Therapy and this story on gene edited babies suspect. What starts out as a noble cause preventing unwanted health issues in our offspring can and will lead to vanity requests or so called designer babies.
It seems we will bypass selective breeding as in the 1967 episode of the science fiction series Star Trek Space Seed and move direct to science fact gene selection in humans.
Will the most sought out traits such as height and weight or eye and hair color or will appearance and intelligence be the most popular choice and will they be priced as options as in a new car purchase.
Only time will tell.
13
@mlb4ever
You don't have to wait for time to tell.
You already have people choosing partners based on "
height and weight or eye and hair color or appearance and intelligence". Did you see the recent Attenborough TV show of the female birds of paradise side by side on a branch evaluating the male display? Not to mention skin color. Look at the recent spate of attention to "colorism".
1
Looking past personality cults and oversized egos like Quake's, it's inevitable that humans will somewhere soon produce a genetically-tweaked and engineered Frankenbaby. And those with sufficient means--like the people that Richard Branson wants to take into space--will be able to order traits and produce offspring that they consider "superior" intellectually and physically. The human race, if it survives our belligerent tendencies, will evolve into a caste system very much like Huxley predicted in his prescient "Brave New World" and these bizarre progeny will be its Alphas.
41
Disappointed that Dr Quake would not have the common sense to walk away from something so egregious and potentially ruinous. Tough to accept his rationalizations at face value at this point.
48
@Ivehadit
I don't understand what you mean by "walk away." He seems to have had no involvement whatsoever. Had he gone public, he would be violating another researcher's trust without knowing the details of the situation - that would be a definite ethics violation, not a potential one. Was he just supposed to stop sending polite responses to appease an eventual media firestorm he wasn't even sure would take place?
8
@A Coloradan honestly, one needs to look at the big picture in situations like this, rather than just follow rules designed to maintain research integrity. At stake here is an untested technology being used on humans. Surely common sense would tell you this is wrong.
Sounds like Dr. Quake tried to be the responsible person in the mix. The reality that researchers don’t want other researchers to fool around with the human genome notwithstanding [hey, *I* don’t want them fooling around with the human genome—this is awful!], Dr. Quake thought the man was coloring inside the lines.
10
Dr. Quake could not see the lines in which to color.
1
In the article's closing guote from Quake, "many people would define it that way."
There it is, the lie. The daily insert on situational ethics brought to us by Twitter and Trump. "Many people are saying" you can't close Pandora's Box.
75
@merchantofchaos Funny, I took that quote as humility, as in "I am not the sole arbiter of what is ethical in science". In fact, scientific institutions have review boards for exactly this purpose, and Quake clearly encouraged his former postdoc to clear these experiments with them.
3
There will always be scientists who chose first to be famous rather than ethical. It’s the same in every field of human endeavor.
55
I agree with the implied argument expressed in the article that germ-line editing was all but inevitable. Barring globally endorsed protocols and regulations, if scientists and engineers build a ground-breaking technology, that technology will be employed according to the goals and desires of those who have access to it. The case of Dr. He -- and where is he now? -- likely will serve only to drive similar experiments (astounding if there aren't any) further underground. What's the answer? Who gets to make these decisions? Our ability to make and do stuff has far outstripped any control regime. Right now, we have no choice other than to live with the consequences. That's a kind of tyranny.
34
I am not a scientist, but this definitely sounds all wrong to a lay person. The consequences of this gene editing are unknown, and as was pointed out, there are already procedures that protect a fetus from HIV infection. I assume there will be gene editing in the future, and I hope with a lot of scientific oversight.
15
Seems this article could present a more compelling account of what it's believed Dr. Quake should have done instead.
For those outside the field, a better understanding of the outrage would be helpful...
From this reader's perspective, it seems that Dr. Quake was acting as a scientist and former mentor. As a scientist, he is driven by curiosity. As a mentor, he is aware of the world of science and the need to conscientiously reckon with the institutions that will eventually receive and respond to Dr. He's work.
Dr. Quake also expressed a quality that should be valued and appreciated in the world of science: a sense of openness and daring-- risk-taking, even. Isn't true science for the courageous? Aren't real discoveries undertaken by those who are pioneering into new ways of understanding, even as worldly bodies resist these developments?
There are so many stories of scientific work rejected by a static world that lacks the kind of curiosity that science expresses, and it seems that a condemnation of Dr. Quake could fit into this narrative.
I guess a powerful institutional body will ultimately decide what to do with Dr. Quake... (And isn't Quake a fitting name in the context this story, seeing as it brings to mind events that can shake the earth and rip it open, surprising and disturbing us all??)
43
@Wendy Malandyour question, what should Dr Quake have done, is spot-on. There is no Science Police. IRBs in the US could block an experiment in their own institutions. In other countries, we don’t know. And the scientist could venue-shop till he finds an IRB that ok’s him. For that matter, we have only Dr He’s statement that he had institutional approval for the work he actually did, cf what he presented to a board. If he even did that.
21
@RSS there is a Science Police, they’re called Nature. And when humans refuse to live with Nature, the Police apprehend you. Look at the results of living against Nature, they’re all around you.
2
@Wendy Maland
"There are so many stories of scientific work rejected by a static world that lacks the kind of curiosity that science expresses, and it seems that a condemnation of Dr. Quake could fit into this narrative. "
Perhaps your assessment of scientific work is one sided. Nuclear power and in this case gene editing are both that of "double edged sword". Both science work carry serious danger to human existence. We are no longer in the era of Benjamin Franklin whose genious in harnessing electricity had improved human life to the greatest degree, or that of Benjamin Franklen who invented pennicillin, enabling human to survive bacterial infections that used to kill millions of people. The reality is we are at the precipice of total destruction of live on earth. We can no longer promote science for science's sake, living life in a tunnel that never ends, and to where with little anticipation, understanding of the final consequence?
It would seem to me that Dr. Quake was too easily satisfied with He’s assurances of approval from a “local hospital.” I would think that He’s failure to obtain approval from any leading organization would be a big red flag. Quake should have blown the whistle loud and clear and certainly not offered encouragement and congratulations as he did. This is a huge ethical minefield and Quake chose to dance blithely through it all the while preserving secrecy instead of exposing it. This willingness to play fast and loose with ethics is something that Mark Zuckerberg, Quake’s foundation co-founder, has done time and time again. Birds of a feather.
86
@Avatar
If your niece or nephew tells you they're building a balcony or new deck, and he/she tells you they have the necessary permits to do so, what would you do? Call the authorities at their jurisdiction just in case they're lying?
The problem is not with Dr. Quake. It is the Chinese institution that either wrongly gave approval, or allowed unapproved work to occur without proper oversight.
10
@davidm This is, in my view, a false equivalence. Building a deck and experimenting on humans by altering the genome aren’t in the same universe. And if Dr. He was acting ethically why would he swear Dr. Quake to secrecy? Quake should have had every reason to be suspicious when the authorization came from a “local hospital” and not the central government or a leading international body. I believe he chose willful blindness over reasonable suspicion. Let me recommend the following to you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code
5