Dr. He and his CRISPER babies

Publish or perish is a rule that operates in the world of science. More and more scientists publish alone or with their peers as soon as possible and as often as possible. Ideas, reviews, research papers, notes, and short notes in the best possible referred journals, or periodicals of some repute are all that aimed at. In the hindsight is psyche of being the first amongst equals, to be counted amongst few and to earn the recognitions of the sort as rewards.

If you expect your innovation, invention to be of monetary value, then it means filing of patents, as many as possible and as soon as possible. Priority is a need of the hour. It is money all the way if it is commercialized. Recent developments in biotechnology and medical fields have brought to closer to radical solutions of various diseases.   

All along is also a rule of accountability enshrined within each of these activities. Publications must be original, and not the copy or infringement of earlier literature. In technology, it must be safe to humans, and his environment. Due diligence is essential as to what possible risks likely to be and how to manage them. Many countries have strict codes of conduct of experiments related to living systems. Even if the legal regulatory framework does not exist, it is expected that these experiments must be ethical, and transparent and in the knowledge of the Administration.

In the medical field, drug discoveries, new technologies aimed at for control of diseases in humans are the ones which are carried out with safety at all costs in mind.  And hence, when Dr He Jiankui of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China announced the birth of CRISPER babies capable of warding off HIV infection, he became a target of specialists in the field, at the conference chaired none other than Dr. David Baltimore, the Nobel laureate in Hong Kong in last week of November, 2018. David Baltimore called it a failure of self-regulation in the scientific community. The US National Institute of Health’s Director, Dr. Francis Collins called He’s CRISPER work on babies, “a misadventure of major sort”.

CRISPER is the latest biotechnology tool to edit the genes, the hereditary substances that determine traits. It is widely used in crop plants. In humans, however, it is either legally banned or ethically not carried out in view of inadequate assessment of its side effects that might occur. Dr. Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Riverside, and Dr. Mathew Porteus and Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford University are considered pioneers of CRISPER technology. And He was in contact with them. While many seemed to feel that He has hijacked the gene editing conference with his claim of gene editing in the babies that are borne, his own PhD supervisor Dr. Micheal Deem, Bioengg Professor at Rice University was aware of gene editing and feel that unintended effects of gene editing were well studied in the animals before trying on human embryos. He feels he has done the right thing and takes pride in being the first to do CRISPER on human embryos so that children of HIV infected father do not suffer the same fate like father. If not for him, somebody else would have done it.

There are some incidents of daring experiments being carried out in the past. In 1978, test tube baby, later named as Louis Brown was borne of the efforts of Dr Robert Edwards, who was similarly denounced. Later, he was awarded Nobel prize in view of immense benefit this in vitro fertilization of eggs brought, and turned out to be boon for the childless couples.

Is Dr He discriminated against for the reasons other than this daring experiment on human embryos at subconscious level? Would the reactions have been similar if someone else, famous as the Nobel laureate from Europe or US had done it or Dr He had collaborated with others? Did Dr He risk too much to gain this moment of fame? Can’t the patients or their guardians take the risk of taking path-breaking cures in view of sufferings that they undergo? How are the risks measured and who measures them? Despite more than 20 years of genetically engineered crops; opponents of this technology still ask for risk assessment, question the safety data and want long term studies. When I confronted the GM activists as to why they do not oppose GM in medicine like GM crops, the response was GM cures are specific and not directly affecting the environment. It is only few days later, I read the report of antibiotics contaminating the potable water. Just guess as to how hospital wastes are disposed of? Remember the news of radiation equipment of the Delhi University disposed off in the market.  Think for a moment as to how medicines that have expired their utility are disposed off. AbUSE of technology is possible, and hence, regulatory framework has to be timely, as soon as it is available.