First human germline gene editing was deeply flawed science, Chinese experts argue

The first reported instance of germline gene editing in humans was bad science as well as bad ethics, according to a commentary publishing April 30 in the open-access journal PLOS Biology by Haoyi Wang of the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Hui Yang of the Institutes of Neuroscience, CAS, both well-known experts in gene editing.

The authors critique the work of Jiankui He, presented last fall at the second World Summit of Gene Editing, where He described using CRISPR/Cas9 technology to alter a gene (CCR5) that encodes a receptor required for HIV to enter white blood cells. The gene was modified in two embryos, leading to the birth of two baby girls. He argued the gene-editing project was necessary to make the children, whose father is HIV-positive, immune to HIV infection.

But the project was misconceived on multiple levels, Wang and Yang argue. HIV infection can be avoided during conception by established assisted reproductive technology, and after birth by common risk-avoidance measures. While a naturally occurring CCR5 mutation is associated with some resistance to infection in European populations, the mutation does not block all HIV strains, and its potential health effects in Chinese populations have not been studied. He presented no detailed plan to track the babies to assess long-term effects.

Wang and Yang also argue that He’s work relied on specific assumptions about the molecular processes and outcomes of gene editing that is controversial. What’s more, they argue, the quality of the science was “substandard,” some experiments lacked appropriate replications and the off-target analysis is inadequate.

The behavior of He and his team “represents a gross violation of both the Chinese regulations and the consensus reached by the international science community,” Wang and Yang conclude. “We strongly condemn their actions as extremely irresponsible, both scientifically and ethically.” They recommend that authorities investigate the case and release data to the wider scientific community, and that “clear and strict laws” be passed to regulate future human germline editing experiments.

###

Peer-reviewed / Opinion Piece / N/A

In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in PLOS Biology: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000224

Citation: Wang H, Yang H (2019) Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong. PLoS Biol 17(4): e3000224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000224

Funding: H.W. is supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFA0107703), Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences(No. XDA16010503), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31722036). H.Y. is supported by R&D Program of China (2018YFC2000100 and 2017YFC1001302), CAS Strategic Priority Research Program (XDB32060000), National Natural Science Foundation of China (31871502), Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (2018SHZDZX05), and Shanghai City Committee of science and technology project (18411953700, 18JC1410100). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.