from the world's big
First gene-edited babies born in China, scientist claims
A Chinese researcher has sparked controversy after claiming to have used gene-editing technology known as CRISPR to help make the world's first genetically modified babies.
- The claim is unsubstantiated as of yet, but if true it would mark a historic moment in science and ethics.
- The scientist claims to have edited a gene that controls whether someone can contract HIV.
- Many say gene-editing is unethical, or that its technology is too premature to be used responsibly.
A chinese scientist claims to have helped create the world's first genetically edited human babies, a development that would be both historic and highly controversial if true.
The scientist, He Jiankui of Shenzhen of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, said he and his colleagues used a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR to modify the embryos of twin girls born this month. The team reportedly made changes to one-day old embryos in a gene called CCR5, which enables HIV to enter and infect immune system cells. These changes supposedly made it impossible for the girls, whose father is HIV-positive, to contract the virus, which causes AIDS.
"When Lulu and Nana were just a single cell, this surgery removed a doorway through which HIV enter to infect people," He says in one of several videos the scientist posted online, adding elsewhere that analyses confirm that both babies were born healthy. "No gene was changed except the one to prevent HIV infection...This verified the gene surgery worked safely."
A questionable and controversial claim
Some doubt He's claim, which remains unsubstantiated in the absence of confirming evidence or data published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Several scientists who reviewed He's materials told The Associated Press that the findings are incomplete or don't necessarily mean it's impossible for the children to contract HIV.
The Southern University of Science and Technology said in a statement it was unaware of the project and that He potentially "seriously violated academic ethics and standards." The university plans to investigate.
Even if proven true, many scientists argue that using gene-editing technology in this way, at this stage of development, would be highly unethical.
"If true, this experiment is monstrous," Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, told The Guardian. "The embryos were healthy. No known diseases. Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer."
Gene-editing, used in this way, is illegal in the U.S. and many other countries because of the currently unforeseeable risks it poses to future generations.
"This is far too premature," Dr. Eric Topol, who heads the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, told The Associated Press. "We're dealing with the operating instructions of a human being. It's a big deal."
In addition to safety concerns, others raise ethical questions about creating "designer babies"—which would be the genetic modification of embryos not only to prevent disease, but also to produce taller, smarter, or better-looking children.
Still, He said he was prepared for the blowback.
"I understand my work will be controversial," he says. "But I believe families need this technology. And I am will to take the criticism for them."
Sallie Krawcheck and Bob Kulhan will be talking money, jobs, and how the pandemic will disproportionally affect women's finances.
A recent study on monkeys found that stimulating a certain part of the forebrain wakes monkeys from anesthesia.
- Scientists electrically stimulated the brains of macaque monkeys in an effort to determine which areas are responsible for driving consciousness.
- The monkeys were anesthetized, and the goal was to see whether activating certain parts of the brain would wake up the animals.
- The forebrain's central lateral thalamus seems to be one of the "minimum mechanisms" necessary for consciousness.
Pixabay<p>When the team electrically stimulated a part of the brain called the central lateral thalamus, located in the forebrain, the monkeys woke up: they opened their eyes, blinked, reached out, made facial expressions and showed altered vital signs. </p><p>"We found that when we stimulated this tiny little brain area, we could wake the animals up and reinstate all the neural activity that you'd normally see in the cortex during wakefulness," Saalmann told Cell Press. "They acted just as they would if they were awake. When we switched off the stimulation, the animals went straight back to being unconscious."</p><p>This area of the brain may function as an "engine for consciousness," Redinbaugh told Inverse. Although past studies have shown that electrical stimulation can arouse the brains of humans and animals, the new findings are unique because they reveal which specific neural interactions appear to be minimally necessary for consciousness.</p><p>"Science doesn't often leave opportunity for exhilaration, but that's what that moment was like for those of us who were in the room," Redinbaugh told <a href="https://www.inverse.com/science/first-squid-mri-study-brain-complexity-similar-dogs" target="_blank"><em>Inverse</em></a><em>.</em></p>
Future applications<p>The team said the findings could have many applications down the road, but more research is needed.</p><p>"The overriding motivation of this research is to help people with disorders of consciousness to live better lives," Redinbaugh told Cell Press. "We have to start by understanding the minimum mechanism that is necessary or sufficient for consciousness, so that the correct part of the brain can be targeted clinically."</p><p>"It's possible we may be able to use these kinds of deep-brain stimulating electrodes to bring people out of comas. Our findings may also be useful for developing new ways to monitor patients under clinical anesthesia, to make sure they are safely unconscious."</p>
The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the perception of selfishness among many.
- Selfish behavior has been analyzed by philosophers and psychologists for centuries.
- New research shows people may be wired for altruistic behavior and get more benefits from it.
- Crisis times tend to increase self-centered acts.
Paul Krugman on the Virtues of Selfishness<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="7ZtAkm6C" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="828936bf6953080e9018307354c0c02b"> <div id="botr_7ZtAkm6C_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/7ZtAkm6C-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> The Nobel Prize-winning economist on the virtues of selfishness.
Evolution Is Moving Us Away from Selfishness. But Where Is It Taking ...<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="cyeqmYCb" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="6c5efecb56456e9acc25cf36935b1826"> <div id="botr_cyeqmYCb_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/cyeqmYCb-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div>
Exploring Morality and Selfishness in Modern Times<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="02eX1Cag" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="45cc6180db791f32683988fb52faff26"> <div id="botr_02eX1Cag_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/02eX1Cag-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> Philosopher Peter Singer discusses the state of global ethics.
Parenting could be a distraction from what mattered most to him: his writing.
Ernest Hemingway was affectionately called “Papa," but what kind of dad was he?