A writer in Nature says that China sent a “strong signal” by punishing He Jiankui and two colleagues with fines, jail times, and bans against working again in human reproductive technology or applying for research funding. (They lost their jobs as well and may not be able to do research work, presumably in any field, in a Chinese institution again.) It is encouraging, this writer says, that China took this action demonstrating a commitment to human research ethics. He and other researchers doing gene-editing work that is not ethically objectionable worry that there may be collateral damage, so to speak, against ANY gene-editing research in China.
Another writer in Nature says cites progress under “appropriate caution” for using gene editing techniques for so-called “somatic” gene editing; that is, editing disease genes in an existing person with that disease, to treat it. This is, in essence, a form of gene therapy and is ethically permissible under proper research ethical guidelines. Some clinical trials in progress involve injecting the gene-editing apparatus into a person, while most such trials remove the person’s blood cells, edit them in the laboratory, then re-introduce them into the bloodstream, after which the edited cells are left to mature normally. The latter approach is particularly attractive to treat genetic blood diseases such as sickle cell anemia.
Both perspectives seem correct, as far as they go—never mind whether Dr. He’s jail sentence fits the crime, as Joy Riley asked on this blog last weekend. Never mind also whether Dr. He’s research should be published; as Mark McQuain commented, it’s a bit incongruous to want to assess the technical merits of work that should not have been done in the first place. He linked an opinion in Technology Review that argued, briefly, that because the ethics of editing genes in human embryos is under societal debate, people trying to decide on the ethical merits should be able to assess for themselves whether Dr. He succeeded, technically at what he set out to do. (The consensus to date seems to be, no, he did not.) But the role of technical success in assessing the ethical merits of a medical intervention—or, better, an intervention made in the name of medicine—depends on the degree to which the ethical judgment is a matter of making a reasonably reliable of risk and benefit, and the degree to which risk-benefit is a criterion for judging the ethical merits. And therein, as they say, lies the rub—which I hope to revisit in coming posts.