قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Health https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ The World Health Organization no longer says babies edited by a gene

The World Health Organization no longer says babies edited by a gene

The largest public health authority in the world takes into account the most authoritative statement so far regarding the use of Crispr to alter the DNA of human infants. Eight months after a Chinese scientist fraudster revealed that he secretly created the world's first genetically edited children, the World Health Organization is asking countries to suspend all experiments that could lead to the birth of more gene-edited people. On Friday, the WHO Director-General issued a statement calling for "regulatory authorities in all countries not to allow further work in this area until the consequences of it have been properly addressed."

Until limited to a comprehensive moratorium. that many scientists have called in the hours and days after Chinese scientist He Jianqui revealed his controversial work in November, the WHO position is a strong rebuke to his work. But whether this will prove to be a powerful deterrent to anyone who hopes to follow in his footsteps remains to be seen.

LEARN MORE and the University of California at Berkeley. (In 201
5, Urnov co-opted a perspective in Nature entitled Do not edit the human embryo .) He believes that technology is not just premature, but medically unnecessary. "So the firmer we have in the health authorities, the better. And this is as clear as one can borrow. But this only speaks to people working within established regulatory frameworks, and by definition this cannot answer what a fraudster can do. "

Human embryo editing is already effectively banned in the US because of a law that interferes with food and medicine in the US. Administration even by reviewing clinical trial applications involving genetically modified human embryos. But in Russia, at least one scientist has started making plans to start testing Crispr in IVF clinics to prevent hereditary deafness. And since Crispr components, unlike enriched plutonium, can easily be acquired online for research purposes, there is little WHO can do to limit unscrupulous scientists from appointing IVF physicians to setting up underground embryo editing clinics. But for off-the-shelf efforts to test embryonic gene editing, WHO's position may come as a real blow.

Megan Molteny covers WIRED DNA technology, medicine and genetic inviolability.

"While this is not necessarily a burden on the law, the WHO has some interesting powers," says Carolyn Brockowski, a research associate and bioethicist at Yale Medical School who has studied more than 60 reports and ethics reports issued by international law. Human Embryo Editing Community of 2015. "Given the uncertainty at this point, it would be a shame for any country or institution to do anything that is contraindicated by the WHO. Overall, I expect this to dampen enthusiasm for advancement with this technology. . ”[19659006] The recommendation comes from the 18-member WHO Expert Advisory Committee on the Editing of the Human Genome, which formed in December.The committee made the decision at a meeting in Geneva in March, along with a proposal by the WHO to create a transparent global registry for all experiments related to Human Genome Editing Currently, more than 20 clinical trials worldwide use a different, not so controversial, type of editing that involves altering DNA in so-called somatic cells (things like white blood cells and Etkin bone marrow, but not sperm or eggs). Just this week, two gene editing companies in the United States announced they were beginning to enroll and treat patients for the first time. Editas Medicine has partnered with Allergen to treat a form of hereditary blindness by injecting Crispr components into patients' eyes. And as NPR reported Monday, Crispr Therapeutics and Vertex began infusing billions of Crispr-editable cells into sickle cell patients in Nashville.

The members of the WHO Advisory Committee could not be reached for comment. In a March interview in Science committee chair Margaret Hamburg offered some details about the proposed register, but said it should include both somatic cell testing and germline experiments when the time was right. She stressed that the commission has a "wider workload" than simply announcing a moratorium. It plans to detail new global standards that countries must follow, a list of what would be needed to move forward responsibly with technology testing in humans. This process is expected to take another 15 to 18 months.

Developing such specifics will help fill the void. Previous reports by the National Academies of Science and Medicine on the editing of human germ lines have described this as "irresponsible" unless the procedure has been proven safe and effective and has not been found to address a serious unmet need. But it was not clear exactly how one could measure these things. In addition, he did not explicitly approve a moratorium. And this allowed scientists like He to form their own judgments about what needed to be continued. In fact, he even cites the report of the US Academies for 2017, concluding that children edited by a gene were ultimately allowed by his assurances to reviewers of hospital ethics.

Scientists like Urnov and Crisper creator Jennifer Dudna now believe that the scientific community may have been too complacent and naive. But they hope the WHO statement puts some ambiguity to rest. "With such a statement, which makes it clear that at this point, germ line editing should not really be used in people at the clinic, it can be increasingly difficult for anyone to claim that they did not know or act in any way within published guidelines, "says Doudna, a biochemist at UC Berkeley. Hope, she says, is not for governments to rush to throw it out of the law, which could be difficult to repeal. Rather, she hopes that government agencies can help to align with whatever the WHO and similar bodies recommend. "Unlike the moratorium, it invites conversation, and this is really critical right now, because there is no doubt in my mind that interest in editing human embryos is not waning."

More Great WIRED Stories

Source link