Playing god?

The world may not be ready for genetically modified humans

Addressing the second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong earlier this week, He Jiankui, an academic from Shenzhen, China, made a remarkable announcement. Mr He said he had successfully created the world’s first genetically-edited babies. The genetically-modified newborn twins — called “Nana” and “Lulu" — have been endowed with HIV resistance, according to Mr He. This claim is yet to be verified but the announcement has already kicked up a massive storm about the scientific, commercial and ethical implications of a world where humans can be created with genetic modifications. As things stand, such editing is banned in most countries, including China. In the few cases, such as the United Kingdom, where gene editing of embryos is permitted, it is done after strict regulatory approval. Unsurprisingly, Mr He’s university feigned ignorance of his work and he has received a fair degree of condemnation from even the scientific community even as China's National Health Commission has ordered an urgent investigation with Mr He being sent on indefinite leave. From an Indian perspective, one can imagine the significance of such a step, given that the country has still not made up its mind on genetically-modified crops or even their trials. 

None of this should take away from the excellence of the work per se, presuming, of course, that Mr He’s claims are genuine. To achieve his goal, Mr He used the Crispr Cas9 technology, which essentially works like a genetic cut-and-paste tool — that is, by snipping out genes and splicing in new ones. The changes so made are inheritable and passed on to descendants. It is tempting to use Crispr to eliminate conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson’s, or to reduce the likelihood of cancer. Mr He worked with seven couples (who volunteered) and where each couple had one partner who was HIV-positive. The aim was to ensure that HIV is not transmitted to the child. Mr He edited the genomes of 16 embryos to disable a gene, CCR5, which allows HIV to infect cells. He then used the in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) technique to implant edited embryos. This is how Lulu and Nana have come into being. 

But this is a rather drastic and invasive method of achieving the goal. Moreover, modifying the DNA of an embryo to create a “designer” baby may have many consequences, including long-term ones affecting the species. Indeed, Jennifer Doudna and Fang Zheng, two pioneers of the Crispr Cas9 technique of gene editing, have asked for a moratorium on editing human embryos. That’s because, for instance, in this case, disabling of the CCR5 gene is known to lead to higher risks such as heightened susceptibility to flu. The Crispr Cas9 technique is also controversial because it is known to cause damage by “off-target editing” that damages untargeted genes. Nana and Lulu may well have to live with any negative consequences. They may even have to forego having children to ensure that their negative genetic traits are not passed on. Hence, the debate. Genetic editing in humans with customised traits could lead us into an ethical minefield; it could empower eugenicists and racists alike, and open another way of creating inequality. It is unclear if the world is ready to answer these questions.