Read gene editing in one article.
Editor’s note: This article is from WeChat public account “ Creation ” (ID: xingshu100), created by the author. p>
The aftermath of “Gene Editing Babies” continues. p>
At the end of November last year, a scientist from Shenzhen, China, He Jiankui announced that a pair of gene-edited babies named Lulu and Nana were born in China in November, causing a stir. p>
Today, a year later, the MIT Technology Review disclosed some manuscripts submitted by He Jiankui to the top international journals Nature and JAMA, revealing some of the research details at the time, including many shocking information. p>
p>
Screenshot of MIT Technology Review report p>
The MIT Technology Review states that two unpublished manuscripts submitted by He Jiankui to Nature and JAMA were received earlier this year, describing the birth of the first pair of gene-edited babies born in China last year. , And laboratory research on human and animal embryos. p>
This paper titled “The Birth of Gene Editing Anti-HIV Twins” is 4699 words long. The author is the Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui. One year ago, he was the gene editor of the twin girls who attracted worldwide attention . p>
The MIT Technology Review states that the two drafts were edited and submitted by He Jiankui to the two journals Nature and JAMA at the end of November 2018 and have not been published. p>
The manuscript states that genetic editing of the twins has achieved a medical breakthrough and can “control the AIDS epidemic”, but there is no data in the manuscript to show this result. This article largely ignores data elsewhere in the paper suggesting editorial errors. p>
The MIT Technology Review shared unpublished manuscripts with four experts, a legal scholar, an IVF doctor, an embryologist, and a gene editing expert. This manuscript published a negative attitude: p>
-
Key statements made by He and his team are not supported by data; p> li>
-
The parents of the baby may be under some pressure before agreeing to participate in the experiment; p> li>
-
The benefits to the medical field assumed by the research are questionable; p> li>
-
Researchers set out to “make humans for gene editing” before confirming that their edits are valid. p> li>
ul>p>
In history, the Danish biologist Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927) coined the term “Gene” in 1909 based on the Greek meaning of “giving life”. Since then, humans have begun a journey of continuous exploration of genes just to unlock the code of life. p>
So, what is gene editing? p>
What can gene editing bring to humans? p>
How far is it to customize a baby with gene editing? p>
If one day this technology can really be applied to humans, would you be willing to take huge risks to modify your genes? p>
Here are the related articles and lectures on gene editing released in the past four years, focusing on the opportunities and challenges that gene editing technology will bring to humans from the academic, social and ethical levels. ( Click for details a >) p>
CRISPR pioneer Zhang Feng: Custom babies are far from us span>
h2>As a pioneer of CRISPR technology, Zhang Feng said that scientists, the media, policy makers, and bioethicists have the obligation and responsibility to participate in the discussion when talking about its potential risks. p>
As scientists, we can help communicate what this technology is, help explain what it is, and understand the potential of this technology. p>
One of the things I value very much is how to turn CRISPR into a real therapeutic tool in order to cure and save people. This is far away from us. p>
As for “custom babies” and things like that, I feel more distant. We don’t know enough about biological mechanisms to even imagine what those things will be. At present, we are unable to cure even the genetic mutations that cause sickle cell disease, and even one mutation is uncertain. p>
The era of transgenic humans is not far off: Everyone becomes a god, or is it self-destructive? span>
h2>Our Grandchildren Redesigned: Life in a Bioengineered Society, a book by historian Michael Bess, a scientific historian at Vanderbilt University, USA Said: p>
Bioengineering will be the next wave of technology to wipe out humankind, and its impact will be profound and will surpass any previous industrial revolution. p>
We will gain a powerful ability as a result, but we may not have enough intelligence to control it well. p>
He also proposed the possibility that when human beings can achieve their unprecedented level of capabilities through bio-enhanced technology, people born in poor homes will have a hard time getting ahead. This will make the gap between the rich and the poor persistent and difficult to resolve. If we can’t popularize such technology in the whole society, then a global biological branch will emerge. p>
“We must be cautious, but there is no reason to believe that these technologies are inherently incompatible with the beautiful world. The choice is ours, whether as individuals, or as part of families, communities, nations, and human beings. In all At these levels, how to prepare for this rapid change, we will face a series of difficult choices. P>
US authoritative report allows editing of human genes, What do you think? span>
h2>As early as February 2017, the National Academy of Sciences published a 261-page research report entitled “Human Gene Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance”, which believes that under conditions of highly restricted conditions, The United States should allow scientists to perform research on editing human live embryos, and in particular, clinical trials on editing human sperm, eggs, and embryos should be permitted when there is a high probability that the baby will be protected from severe genetic disease and there is no “reasonable alternative” . The report caused great controversy at the time. p>
This report evaluates all the powerful biotechnology tools available today, and analyzes four major reasons why scientists want to edit human genetic material. p>
Although the report supports the design of babies under restricted conditions, it also raises various difficult issues that may arise: p>
-
Does empowering by editing genes exacerbate inequality? p> li>
-
Will this empowerment become so widespread that it becomes mandatory, like today’s vaccination? p> li>
-
Should parents have the right to enhance their children through genetic modification? p> li>
-
To ease religious and cultural anxiety, where should regulatory regulations for gene editing go? p> li>
-
Are there any risks we haven’t thought of yet? p> li>
ul>Click to see the full video / a> p>
We are subverting the theory of evolution and rebuilding Eden | Shen 玥 h2>
Three questions have plagued humanity for thousands of years: Who am I, where do I come from, and where am I going? P>
What is the nature of our life, what kind of form do we evolve from, and what may we look like in the future? P>
Four billions of years ago, life mainly relied on random mutation and natural selection to survive, and we are now accelerating the evolution process through technologies such as gene editing and synthetic biology, making it a kind of unnatural The process of selection and directed mutation. P>
Is it possible for God to start playing God after subverting the theory of evolution? What kind of world would it be? p>
click to view the full video < / a> p>
Why can high school students do gene editing, would be a Nobel artifact? Luo Yonglun span>
h2>The most basic unit of genetic information for each of us can be replaced by four letters, which are A, T, C, and G. They constitute all of our genetic information. p>
In our body, there are probably trillions of cells, and each cell carries a complete set of genomic information. The information is extracted and stored in a small USB flash drive. Can be filled with a Titanic. p>
The mistake of a small base character may cause disease. p>
Any technology is a double-edged sword. It is mainly how we master it, how to apply it, how to regulate it, and use it to the good of us. Side. p>
-