Make People Better – an imperfect job

The tale of the experiment behind the birth of the first gene-edited humans has historical significance but continues to resemble an incomplete puzzle. I had hoped to find a few more hints and answers about the He Jiankui affair in the 2022 docufilm “Make people better” directed by Cody Sheehy, but now that I finally got to see it I must confess to a bit of disappointment. The impression is of being faced with a bricolage job executed with several valuable elements (never-before-seen footage and audio recordings) and too many random materials. It must be said that the task was difficult, for at least two reasons.

Continue reading

The dilemma of the first CRISPR patients: cure or fertility?

Credit Bing Image Creator

The approval of Casgevy, the new CRISPR option for sickle cell disease, is big news for American patients. The list price is high ($2.2 million) although lower than the non-CRISPR gene therapy approved by the FDA for the same pathology the same day. But in addition to economic sustainability, another issue worries scientists, clinicians, and patients: infertility.

Continue reading

The CRISPR way to parthenogenesis

“In the animal world there are species naturally capable of bringing forth new life from an unfertilized egg cell, always or under exceptional circumstances (a case was recently discovered in a female crocodile). But with the help of biotechnology, it has become possible to bypass the male contribution even in species that have always relied on sexual reproduction. By manipulating oocytes in vitro, Chinese researchers succeeded in mice. The latest breakthrough was announced in Current Biology: using CRISPR to turn on and off different combinations of genes, a Cambridge team was able to identify the molecular basis of parthenogenesis in the fruit fly and artificially transfer this trait into a strain that did not have it. After being equipped with the right genetic makeup, some females gave birth to other females, which were also able to reproduce in the absence of males. Of course, we are far from any application on the human species, for both technical and ethical reasons, but there are no risks in exploring with imagination the theoretical possibility that women might be able to procreate on their own.” And this is precisely what I write about in my column today in magazine 7/Corriere della sera.

A brief guide to the messy Italian debate on NGTs

There is great disorder under the heavens of new biotechnology. Judging by the Italian debate on genetic innovation in agriculture, it seems that we no longer know what to call what. We are waiting for the European Commission to present its proposal to regulate ‘new genomic techniques’ (NGTs) on 5 July (see the leaked draft here). But in the meantime, on 9 June, the Italian Parliament approved a regulation in favour of experimentation with ‘assisted evolution techniques’ (TEAs), which are the same thing. However, if you read the official wording (9 bis, drought decree law) this expression is missing: instead, it refers to the deliberate release into the environment for experimental purposes of ‘organisms produced by genome editing techniques through site-directed mutagenesis or by cisgenesis’.

Continue reading

Just ignore He Jiankui, don’t feed his ego

(Illustration by Mike McQuade, source Nature)

The Chinese scientist who edited the CRISPR babies was released from prison last spring. He tweets lightheartedly announcing that he has opened a new lab in Beijing. He claims to be dedicated to rare diseases. He is looking for funding that hopefully no one wants to give him. In the rogue experiment that made him famous, he violated so many ethical principles that the only thing one can hope for is that he changes jobs. Is it appropriate for influential newspapers and prestigious institutions to give him a limelight for this attempt to come back on the scene?

Continue reading

CRISPR-babies creator is out of prison. What’s next?

And so He Jiankui has been set free after three years in a Chinese prison. What will become of him? Antonio Regalado from MIT Technology Review is the journalist who made the CRISPR-baby scandal explode in 1998 and is probably the best-informed source right now. Regalado writes that “it’s unclear whether He has plans to return to scientific research in China or another country,” but expects that “he’ll find a place in China’s entrepreneurial biotech scene”. Maybe in a low-profile niche as cloner Woo-Suk Hwang did after falling into disgrace several years ago in South Korea?

Continue reading

Uninformed pontification on IQ editing

According to his Twitter bio, Charles Murray is a “Husband, father, social scientist, writer, Madisonian. Or maybe right-wing ideologue, pseudoscientist, evil. Opinions differ.” You may remember him as the co-author of the controversial book “The Bell Curve” (1994), discussing purported connections between race and intelligence. The bad news is that he recently joined the CRISPR debate by tweeting “Gene editing to raise IQ will have a huge market”. The good news is that confutation is easy and a little irony is the best reply (check out Fyodor Urnov’s tweet in the gallery below).

CRISPR-baby sentence, too little info to comment?

The year 2019 ended with three years in jail sentenced to He Jiankui for illegal medical practice. The CRISPR-baby scandal’s epilogue was applauded on twitter by a few leading scientists such as Craig Venter and Fyodor Urnov and decried on STAT News by the controversial biohacker Josiah Zayner. Most experts, however, stayed silent.

As stressed by the Washington Post, “the judicial proceedings were not public, and outside experts said it is hard to know what to make of the punishment without the release of the full investigative report or extensive knowledge of Chinese law and the conditions under which He will be incarcerated.”

The CRISPR-babies scandal a year later – Q&A

Exactly one year ago, AP News went public with the CRISPR-babies story. What happened to He Jiankui then? His trace was lost after the picture of him sequestered in a university guesthouse in Shenzhen. 

How are Lulu&Nana? Nobody knows, but at least the study suggesting they might die early has been retracted.

What became of the global governance of germline editing? Waiting for the Science academies and the WHO reports in 2020. 

What about the next baby-editing? Denis Rebrikov says he plans to do extensive safety checks before seeking approval to implant an edited embryo. 

Last but not least, how many couples are interested in germline editing? Very few, according to calculations published in The CRISPR Journal.