Why Chinese modified babies have made such a stir, if at Harvard they want to do something similar

There is no turning back: the debate about genetic modification in humans has come to stay and grow. Since, a few days ago, researcher He Jiankui claimed to have achieved the birth of two genetically modified twins, the news has only boiled.

Suddenly, CRISPR, the most innovative and effective genetic editing technique in our history, is even more in the spotlight if possible. This has caused the attention to return, without further remedy, to other similar techniques. It has also happened with Harvard University, which has begun to edit the genes on its own. Does it have the same implications?

What is the difference between the genetic edition of Harvard and that of China?

Let's review the Chinese case: He Jiankui managed to genetically modify two embryos, those of the twins. He did it using a harmless virus designed to "cut" the part of the DNA we don't want and paste a modification. Specifically, this modification is that of the CCR5 gene.

In Babies and more Genetically modified babies: what has happened in China and why it worries everyone so much

With this modification, he has made one of the babies immune to HIV, the AIDS virus. The other has genetic copies of this modification and its original gene, so it is not immune. As we said, what the researcher did was subject the girls' embryos from in vitro fertilization, before implanting them, to the virus of maras. Hence, the effectiveness was not 100% in both cases.

Now we travel to Harvard, United States. There, Werner Neuhausser, a doctor at IVF, is preparing his next experiment: editing the sperm genes. Neuhausser's goal is cause a change in the gamete (the reproductive cell) that when fertilizing the ovule generates an embryo with a great resistance to Alzheimer's. The treatment with the virus, therefore, is done on the sperm and not on the already pregnant embryo.

This is the first of the differences: the embryo is not touched, but the reproductive cells. This, at the legal level, has its implications. In the United States it is not legal to genetically modify a human being, through medical treatment. But it is legal to modify anything that is not a human being, such as the cells that will become a human being. The essential difference, within the legal framework, is that an embryo can already be considered a human being (depending on the biological argument). A sperm no.

However, as we explained, the intention is to create a human being, fertilizing an egg with the modified sperm. Would we be facing a genetically modified human? Legalists and bioethics experts discuss these days hotly about the implications of these investigations. And this is not the first time, much less, that this type of research is done.

Pandora's box will not close again

In spite of the discussions, accusations and fears, in the scientific community little by little the same feeling is based: the modification of human beings, by the hand of CRISPR, has arrived to stay. The case of China He was only the first to open the door. Although other attempts at modification have already been made, this has been the first to confirm its success, ignoring concerns in the rest of the world.

In XatakaChina states that he is creating the first genetically edited babies with CRISPR and there are good reasons to think it's true

Researchers are now restless in their laboratories. Surely there are those who are glad that it was another who has taken the first step. At the moment, the Chinese authorities have condemned Jiankui's work and suspended him from employment and salary.

But we cannot look back at what has already been done. If we pay attention to the researcher's statements, more genetically modified children are on their way. Many experts believe that the era of genetic modification has just begun, and it is better that instead of continuing to ask ourselves if this is right or wrong, let's begin to adapt our concepts and laws to the fact.

Lights and shadows of genetic modification

If we talk about CRISPR and human genetic modification, we cannot stop talking about George Church, one of the most controversial characters in the world of biology. In addition to a long string of debatable issues, Church is one of the main defenders of human genetic modification. But not any kind of modification. What this molecular biologist is talking about is 10 genes, specifically.

In XatakaThe 10 "advantageous and no side effects" genetic variants that George Church wants to put in our children with CRISPR

These genes sometimes have a mutation that promotes a health benefit. For example, the MSTN gene has a mutation known as IVS1 + 5G> A that allows for greater muscle growth. The PCSK9 has a mutation that protects against cardiovascular disease and the A673T can rid us, to a large extent, of Alzheimer's. In addition, these specific mutations do not present any type of damage. In the opinion of Church, and other geneticists, Why not promote them systematically in newborns?

The ability to solve serious health problems may seem more than sufficient reason to justify the modification. But there are several issues to consider. First, there is the economic and social issue: who could afford such treatment and who could not? Does that imply an evolutionary advantage? Legally what status would each person have? Would that affect insurance, social security, social benefits ...? On the other hand, having the ability does not always imply that you are well. Is it ethical to "industrialize" procreation?

If we look beyond social and legal issues, there are also other biological problems: although the modification was safe, such as these genes, we cannot foresee what is unpredictable, forgive the redundancy. Will there be any problem in the long run that relates to these mutations? We haven't had the chance to check it yet. In ecology there are some very strong rules.

Among them is one thing that speaks of genetic diversity: the more there is, that is, the more different genes there are, the easier it will be for the population to adapt to a catastrophe. Imagine that a virulent and terrible disease is related to one of these genes for which all humanity has acquired a mutation. This would be a serious problem..

In XatakaYa we can play to be gods: CRISPR has begun to change the future of the human species (Clears the X, 1x26)

In short, there are many benefits, but too many unknowns. No one is going to stop researchers like Jiankui or Neuhausser to keep going, so you better be prepared to answer the questions that arise from now on.

Video: Thorium. (March 2024).