Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

An engineered Super-Race, for the ultra Rich. What could possibly go wrong ????? Everything.

You know, like cloning pets, somebody's already genetically editing embryos for people who are willing to pay enough. It's just kept very very quiet.

I wouldn't worry. At the rate we're going, there aren't going to be any future generations to pass the genetic material down to.

We have plenty of our own faults with unrestrained capitalism. But having fessed that, when have the Chinese been ethical? When countries like Google are allowed there but only after they've changed their algorithms so the inhabitants of China can't see certain things deemed dangerous by the leaders? When tech firms are allowed in only after agreeing to transfer technology to Chinese companies? When they manipulate their currency to make their exports more appealing? When they dump products on the world market at a loss because the centralized government has their backs? Their treatment of ethnic minorities, from the Tibetans to the Uighurs? Note this guy was educated in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese studying in our universities, most return home to use the knowledge they've gained from our institutions of higher learning to work for companies in direct competition with ours.

Let me suggest the author reads Yuval Noah Harari's "Homo Deus," in which he will get a wider understanding of where the human race is rapidly going, whether he likes it, or not.

1) I am VERY skeptical he did what he said given where the state of this science is 2) he made it harder to contract something we can already make it very hard if not impossible to contract making this pointless 3) DNA in germ cells is much more heavily rearranged in future cells which then makes it even MORE difficult to predict effects thus making this even MORE reckless and dangerous and inhumane 4) To people talking about 'removing barriers and letting research happen': I do clinical research in medicine and there is indeed a LOT of redtape. But pretty much every single part of that tape involved in response to various specific incidents like Tuskeegee, lying to patients, not informing of risks or that there was in fact already an effective treatment for what they had, intentionally infecting people with terrible and/or lethal diseases (for example the time we gave hepatitis to the children with various psychiatric disorders) and more. Humans did it to see what happened and for expediency and because they 'just knew' it would work with no problems. Results of poorly designed studies are uninterpretable and an n of 1 is meaningless (is it chance it worked? is the bad thing that happened a fluke? who knows?) Performing studies in controlled and rigorous experiments so that outcomes and risks can be accurately determined is not 'shackling'. It is science. And ethics.

As Dr. Frankenstein said: 'What could possibly go wrong?'

As I've scanned comments to this point, I agree with most. But there's an additional problem Dr. Topol did not mention. When I first entered the biochemical field in the 60's, the rule was "one gene-one protein-one function." Can't TELL you how wrong that was! In studying blood clotting - and concentrating on just one protein involved in the control of blood clotting, the lab I have been associated with discovered two unknown proteins involved with the protein of interest. Over more than 30 years, it has has turned out BOTH of them are involved not ONLY in controlling blood clotting, but in controlling the response to inflammation in general, cancer development, infection of the parasite that leads to malaria and other systems - all separate from any effects on blood clotting itself. Who knows what else may yet be discovered. As I've told students for years, if you have found a "new" protein and only one function, you haven't looked hard enough.

Yes, Topol. It seems important to mention that genetic editing of plants, especially those for food, has the same risk of unintended consequences. Human bodies can react to genetically changed food content, and can generate things like allergic or autoimmune reactions (seeing the changed genes as enemies). Similarly, things like antibiotic and chemical exposure can cause bacteria, viruses and parasites to alter and share genetic changes, leading to unexpected effects. I'm not a scientist on this, just a highly educated reader of things like this article, and it seems that so far we humans don't understand all genetic functions and risks. Consider epigenetics, and the risks of autoimmune death due to genetic treatments for cancer. Great to explore all this, but we really shouldn't just assume that we understand it all and promote such stuff as safe.

I'm ambivalent. As science becomes more advanced, the risk of its misuse increases. We can't hope to put that genie back in the bottle. Sure, this result can be misused, but so can the atom. And we can equally easily destroy ourselves with science that dates back to the industrial revolution, such as the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. Maybe it's time for us to be more daring, not less, as the specter of catastrophic climate change begins to show its face. The real enemy is greed, not science.

All this hand-wringing is pointless. Gene editing will happen, and when it becomes safe and effective it has to be accessible to all. Imagine a future where only the rich and powerful could arrange for the best genes for their children and the societal disruption that would follow. *That's* the issue we should be tackling right now.

I'd be more than okay with this if biogenetics could alter the human gene for violence.

Are we on the edge of rich people creating dynasties through genetic manipulation?

See " Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus" by Mary Shelley. Human greed and hubris equals corrupt evil inhumane immoral misuse of science and technology. The "monster" had no name. But the scientist was named Dr. Victor Frankenstein. A man with nominal good intentions who tried to play God.

I completely agree. Dr. He is a monster. He shouldn't be allowed to research science in any field after this stunt. He's not a medical doctor so we can't revoke his license. However, that punishment seems tame compared to the gravity of the offense. He should never be allowed to practice science again. The multi-generational repercussions are enormous. However, understand this: Two living, growing human beings are now the subject of a random experiment where the scientist has absolutely no idea what repercussions might lie ahead for them. Did you know sickle cell anemia is more prevalent in Africa because the recessive gene helps prevent malaria? As a result, there are more Africans with a gene, which combined to create dominance, cause sickle cell anemia. The disease is the result of a cure. Dr. He is wondering around switching off genes in living human beings. He's playing guess and check with evolution. This sort of science does not belong outside a petri dish. Period. I will be so bold as to suggest the embryos should be aborted. This is not a place where the human world wants to go right now.

So let me get this straight. It's perfectly fine to straight up kill a fetus, if that's what the mother wants. But making a tiny tweak to its genes, so that some day it won't get certain diseases, is a dangerous breach of medical ethics. Whatever you say, Doc.

No amount of knowledge will cause this technology to be used ethically in the future. We'll have entire classes of designer humans, engineered for labor, combat, servitude, concubinage, etc. China might be first, but we'll follow.

Is using CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genomes of people premature, yes. At least he used it to knockout a gene, which seems to be how CRISPR-Cas9 works best. Do I agree with his choice of target? I think he could have chosen a gene for a disease that takes the life of babies soon after birth. However, I don't have HIV, and I don't live in China, so I would not presume to understand the motivations of the couples who chose to undergo this procedure. Apparently, studies have shown that laypeople support gene editing for preventing diseases. I don't see how there will ever be a time when you can guarantee a flawless result with gene editing. At some point, someone would have to get brave (or crazy) and just do it. Part of the current conference was to try and set some ground rules for when it happens. I do have a problem with people getting incensed about Dr. He not publishing the data. It is routine for scientists to present data at conferences prior to publishing it. Apparently, Dr. He has said that he has submitted a paper to a journal. The review could take a while, and often more data collection is requested by the reviewers. We need to wait until the data is available to see how we should feel. about it.

It has long been necessary to have intentional scientific groups that coordinate 'rogue' or risky work. Putting up a stop sign does not work, it simply forces such research underground. The old paradigm of government funded big research, which is then sold or given to private firms, is the best way to track and move forward. Reducing private research would decrease the cost of medicine to consumers by eliminating the expense of research. It would also turn such work away from the for profit mode and open the door to better and affordable healthcare.

What was once the realm of fiction always seems to arrive in our reality, eventually. The very first users of such techniques WILL be the rich, who will spawn a generation of superior children. This has been a certainty since we doscovered genes and how they operate. There is no regulation that will prevent further experimentation, and there are already ‘dark’ programs altering genes in soldiers, volunteers, prisoners and captives. The future will not belong to the standard model human. And maybe, just maybe, in spite of all the bad that will arise prior to the end, that is a good thing. We cannot be considered mature until we can control our own evolution, genetic direction, and adaptive needs. Whether we will ever reach that point is still in doubt.

"Reckless" is definitely the adjective that comes to mind in describing this work. I'm a bit disappointed that the author didn't carry his criticism one step further. This is the observation that genes are far from simply isolated bits of code, but via a plethora of regulatory DNA sequences, they frequently cross-regulate one another; hence, the ramifications of Crispr editing are rather difficult to predict within such a complex network. Unfortunately, based on the global narcissism epidemic, there will likely be few consequences to Dr. He or any other molecular biologist indulging his or her ego in this fashion. Biomedicine has proceeded beyond the capacity (or the desire) for sane societal regulation. Very sad.

The problems and dangers of “editing babies” are well-described by Dr. Topol. It is also true that all scientific capacities are ultimately exploited to their most extreme use. International treaties and agreements are imperfect, not infrequently violated and beset by all manner of politics. They are however, the only realistic way of describing a path forward for research and implementation of these technologies, which will inevitably occur. Relying on the informal consensus of universities and funding groups is utopian wishful thinking. Editing of germ cell lines is a reality now. Formal steps to manage it and at least attempt to control it are urgently needed at an international level.

While many would agree with Dr. Topol that proceeding down this road is premature, this has never stopped us before especially when there are so few global enforcement and regulatory mechanisms in place. The financial incentives and national self-interests are just too great to be ignored; especially if indeed China is leading the way. This is shot across the bow of a new global arms race. If parents are willing to pay $250K for a college education, just think what they will pay for designer babies with high IQs. We are ill prepared to morally and politically deal with humans that have been purposefully designed to be 'superior'. It will make our current angst over race relations seem mild in comparison. Who needs a robot when you can edit and design a human?