current location: Xiangkang Immigration Information Network - American Immigration - New Zealand Immigration - Canadian Immigration - Australian Immigration > New Zealand immigrants >
Why do Chinese and foreign scientists denounce the birth of
Guide reading:Julian Saulescu, director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, called the genetically edited babies "genetic Russian roulette". Gene editors may
Yesterday, a global shock happened: Chinese scientist He Jiankui used gene editing technology to give birth to a pair of gene editing babies named Lulu and Nana, the world's first gene editing babies immunized against AIDS.
Why do Chinese and foreign scientists denounce the birth of the world's first pair of gene editing babies?
What is a genetically edited baby?
 
During the fertilized egg stage, scientists used a special "CRISPR/Cas9" gene editing technology to alter the genes in fertilized eggs and delete the receptor gene CCR5, which has an auxiliary effect on HIV, thus declaring that infants are completely immune to AIDS.
 
122 Chinese scientists jointly condemned
 
A seemingly "positive energy" burst of news, but was criticized from all sides of the ground, first of all netizens:
 
@ Xiao Aiviola in Insomnia: Human Experiments, Goodness, How Ethics Happened
 
@ Sara: I don't think there's anything to celebrate. Can we avoid missing the target? After the modification of CCR5, does it affect other functions of CCR5? What terrible things will happen to these two children in the future is unknown. This experiment is terrible. How can we pass the ethics?
 
@ The superior officer is me: the birth of superhuman beings
 
@ Nightmare in Red, Yellow and Blue: If this research continues to be tested on real people, it feels like slowly opening Pandora's magic box. We are attracted by Pandora's beauty, but ignore the calamity secretly distributed.
 
Following the creation of the "artificial man", 122 Chinese scientists jointly declared that they strongly condemned the experiment: "It can only be described as madness to conduct human experiments directly."
Why do Chinese and foreign scientists denounce the birth of the world's first pair of gene editing babies?
He Jiankui said that this is to help their sick couples to give birth to healthy babies.
 
But 122 Chinese scientists who raised objections apparently disagreed: it is no longer difficult for parents of AIDS to have healthy babies: if their father is sick, only healthy sperm can be screened out; if their mother is sick, only drug blockade is needed, 98% of the newborns can be protected from HIV infection.
 
Three years ago, China successfully edited the genes of human embryos.
 
In 2015, Chinese researchers have successfully edited the genes of human embryos. At that time, Huang Jun of Sun Yat-sen University led researchers to use CRISPR, a new technology, to modify 86 human embryos, and then fell into the whirlpool of ethical controversy.
 
Relevant papers were rejected by two internationally renowned academic journals, Nature and Science. Western scientists called for a ban on genetically modified babies.
 
But it was soon accepted and published in the academic journal Protein and Cells, which is in charge of the Ministry of Education of China.
 
At that time, Western scientists questioned.
 
Massachusetts Science and Technology Review reveals that Chinese scientists are conducting research to modify human genes. The success rate of related technology experiments is low, and similar research is more for the sake of eye-catching than for the sake of real science.
 
In a commentary published in Nature, there is a serious risk of modifying human genes and calls for a halt to relevant research.
 
The New York Times published a front-page article entitled "Scientists Demand a Ban on Genetically Modified Infants".
 
After that, two reports were published on the website of Nature, claiming that the genetic modification of human embryos by Chinese scientists triggered an epic discussion of ethical norms in the academic circles and questioned the publication process of the paper, which was "promptly" published after rejection.
 
Foreign scientists and media believe that researchers modify the gene of human embryos in order to "create" genetically modified babies.  While seemingly open to the outside world, scientists adhere to fairly strict professional ethics.
 
At that time, Huang Jun said that he would not develop into a fetus or a baby. At the same time, he adhered to the ethical bottom line and destroyed the experimental embryo 14 days after it was cultured.
 
Hence, at the end of 2015, Huang Jun was selected as one of the ten most influential figures in the world scientific circles by the world-renowned scientific journal Nature in 2015 for the study of gene modification of human embryos. His research provides the possibility to treat thalassemia, a common genetic disease among children in southern China.
Why do Chinese and foreign scientists denounce the birth of the world's first pair of gene editing babies?
Western scientists, why oppose "artificial man"?
 
Unexpectedly, three years later, the most frightening thing for Western scientists is that the world's first pair of genetically edited babies were born in China.
 
"This is not a technological breakthrough at all, but an ethical breakthrough." Scientists condemned it.
 
Today, Western scientists are as angry as 122 Chinese scientists who have raised objections:
 
CNN said in a 26-day report that "experts from many countries expressed their indignation at the use of this technology" and that it may "cause a huge scientific and moral dilemma".
Why do Chinese and foreign scientists denounce the birth of the world's first pair of gene editing babies?
Yarda Jamhidi, senior lecturer in human genetics at the University of London, St. George, said such controversial research was not necessary for HIV prevention. Now there are many ways to prevent HIV, and there are many ways to treat it. There is no need for genetic editing to prevent HIV transmission to future generations.
 
Julian Saulescu, director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, called the genetically edited babies "genetic Russian roulette". Gene editors may