Earbuds Design Hearing Aid Earbuds Design Hearing Aid Shenzhen Sunshine Technology Co.,Ltd , https://www.szyatwin.com
Clarify several key issues of "gene editing baby"
Medical Network November 30th At the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Editing held in Hong Kong, Dr. He Jiankui gave some of his own data in an international questioning voice, and answered some questions in the question and answer stage after the speech.
Although most people are dissatisfied with his speeches and answers, there is consensus among domestic and foreign scientists and relevant regulatory authorities on whether this genetic editing infant incident violates relevant laws, regulations and ethical requirements. However, the voice that defended this behavior also began to appear. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify several key issues concerning ethics in this incident.
Why does clinical research need to pass an ethical review?
To comment on this issue, we need to discuss the difference between "law" and "ethics."
Although the laws of each era are related to the social ethics of the time, the legal provisions are often the minimum ethical requirements, and the ethics is the higher-level social norms that need to be followed. The law is a common requirement of the whole society, and the ethics may vary according to different social levels or associations.
This is why ethics committees need people with different backgrounds to participate. Scientists need to explain research projects to people who are not in the scientific community, especially those that do not seem to be recognized by secular ethics, which will ultimately benefit humanity and seek consensus.
If the researchers take ethics as a play, thinking that they can cross the sea, they will eventually be questioned by the ethics of the whole society. The gene editing baby event is an example. Violation of the law will be punished by law, and violation of ethics will be condemned by society.
From the current disclosure, the genetic editing infant incident violates the scientific ethics requirements of the scientific community and the society as a whole, and is highly likely to trigger existing laws and regulations on genetic editing. The initiators of this incident are incapable of escaping in these two aspects.
Is the current regulation and ethics itself reasonable?
So far, China's relevant policies and regulations are basically consistent with the corresponding regulations and policies of other countries in the world. These regulations do not prohibit genetic editing in discarded human embryonic cells, but genetically engineered embryonic cells are strictly prohibited from being cultured in vitro for more than 14 days. As for the baby implanted in the mother and developed into a genetic modification, it is absolutely forbidden.
Such a rule is not because some people say “affected by social conservatives, especially religious ethics†(although such influences must be considered when formulating corresponding policies and regulations), more because of the current science and technology itself. The limitations of the level.
Many experts in this field have pointed out that the most advanced CRISPR technology currently does not guarantee the targeted removal of certain gene fragments without causing off-target modification of other genes. In fact, from the information disclosed by Dr. He, there have been many suspicious changes in the genomes of these two babies. Therefore, it is further explained that the current red line cannot be exceeded.
Does innovation require a warrior who “eats crabs�
Supporters often cite "Dolly" sheep and "Jessie" who died as a result of genetic editing failures, illustrating that scientific research needs to break through the rules, and someone must be brave in the first "eat crab." However, these two cases are the best illustration of current policy and ethics related to genetic editing. At present, countries around the world do not prohibit the editing of genes in animals (of course, through the review of animal experiment ethics). Therefore, many genetic editing scientists suspect that Dr. He’s team has rushed into human trials without conducting more animal experiments to verify the technology. The second "Jessie" example is also in line with the widely accepted policy of "somatic gene editing".
The "somatic gene editing" and "germ cell genetic editing" are two very different fields, and the consequences are also very different. The former can partially correct the genetic diseases caused by the wrong genes in a short period of time, so that individuals who are unfortunately carrying such genes can have a relatively healthy life. The latter can pass any new genetic code to the offspring through genetics, and further spread it to the human population to enter the human gene pool. And if there is any serious genetic disease gene, it will bring unpredictable harm to individuals, society and even human beings. This is why current regulations and ethics do not allow such work.
Will the current regulatory ethics change?
Historically, we have often seen events with fundamental changes in regulations and ethics. From Prosius to humans to steal fire to Copernicus for "heavenly heart" funeral. The policy and ethical requirements associated with genetic editing (especially embryonic cell gene editing) have also undergone several changes. Do we not need to change the current relevant regulations and ethical requirements?
What needs to be clarified is that the current laws and ethical requirements of countries around the world do not forever prohibit genetic editing of human germ cells, nor prohibit any kind of editing. The consensus of the international scientific community is that at the current state of the art, genetic editing should be limited to somatic cells, and the target of transformation must be a gene that can lead to serious genetic diseases through extensive research. It is also forbidden to carry out any genes that can "improve human function." The reason for the latter is that social justice is also an important consideration in addition to scientific and technical issues.
Obviously, such consensus does not close the future of further gene editing research and ultimately applied to the human body. With the advancement of science and technology, the consensus of the scientific community and the corresponding regulations and ethics will continue to be improved and changed. Therefore, in this field, there is a need for "improvement" without the necessity of "revolution."
Gene editing has been underway for many years, and this international conference, which began last year, also shows that this field has progressed to a groundbreaking stage. At this moment, anyone with any revolutionary technology and application can promote the development of the entire field at any time. It is a pity that Dr. He’s team did not propose a technical breakthrough in addition to the current regulatory and ethical red line.
It seems that the current relevant laws, regulations and ethical requirements are still valid.
Next Article
How to control the camellia on the tea tree
Prev Article
Essentials of kiwifruit management technology