Chinese Scientist Who Says He Edited Babies’ Genes Defends His Work

Aiden Hiller
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event #10
5 December, 2018

Belluck, Pam. “Chinese Scientist Who Says He Edited Babies' Genes Defends His Work.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Nov. 2018, Link

In a bizarre turn of events, a Chinese scientist has revealed that he successfully created the world’s first genetically modified babies. Should his claims be legitimate, He Jiankui used CRISPR to modify a pair of embryos for resistance to H.I.V. The modification disables a gene known as CCR5, which is responsible for the production of a protein that must be present for H.I.V. to enter cells. Many nations, including the United States, have outlawed the use of CRISPR on humans, asserting that it is an unethical and irresponsible practice. In China it is legal to modify embryos, however they are not permitted to remain viable for more than 14 days. Dr. He’s trial involved eight couples in which the male was positive for H.I.V. and the female was not. After modifying the embryos, he used in vitro fertilization to further reduce the risk of H.I.V. At a human genome editing conference at the University of Hong Kong, He maintained that the participants were informed of the procedure and potential risks involved. Yet this failed to alleviate discomfort in the room, with many of his colleagues making accusations of deliberate secrecy due to the controversy surrounding the project.  
Many fear that the birth of the first genetically modified humans will open the floodgates for gene editing. They claim that with the barrier broken, we will soon be living in an era of designer babies and superhumans. This seems somewhat reactionary, and with new reports that Dr. He has gone missing and is allegedly under house arrest, the scientific community and the Chinese government have made it abundantly clear that this kind of activity is still unacceptable. Many have also taken issue with the fact that there are alternative and much simpler methods, especially when only the father is infected with H.I.V. Additionally, only one copy of the CCR5 gene was disabled in one of the twins, and both were disabled in the other, which just adds another variable for potential issues in the future. Past efforts to edit embryos have brought some unintended effects such as off-target mutations and mosaicism, where the altered gene only appears in some cells. The scientific community can continue to shun and denounce his work, but it’s important that we allow responsible hands to monitor development of the twins.

I appreciated that the author was able to condense the story leading up to the new developments into one short paragraph. This made it easy to follow while simultaneously acting as an effective starting point for the rest of the article. She provided quotes from many voices of authority that creates an accurate representation of the tensions during the conference. She also gave many examples of faults that Dr. He’s colleagues have found with his work that further display the resentment within the community. However, I don’t agree with how she structured the article. For example, she discusses the genome editing summit and uses quotes from after the conference criticizing Dr. He’s work, but then back peddles and uses a line that more closely resembles a hook: “When Dr. He, 34, walked onstage in an open-collar shirt carrying a tan briefcase, it was clear this would be no ordinary conference presentation.” However, my main problem with the article is that the author limits discussion of the actual process to one short paragraph. I understand that it’s only a New York Times article and she doesn’t want to get tangled in some of the technicalities, but her explanation of Dr. He’s experiments is a little too simple. Additionally, she brushes over the research he had presented on mouse and monkey embryos prior to conducting human trials that would have been interesting to see.