The Chinese physicist at the center of an ethical storm over what’s believed to be the world’s first gene-edited babies conducted his post-doctoral research at Stanford under one of the university’s top bioengineers.
In the years that followed, He Jiankui discussed ethics with a Stanford bioethicist and even revealed his plans to a UC Berkeley geneticist, who urged him not to do it.
Now there’s global controversy over He’s brazen violation of a scientific taboo — using CRISPR-Cas 9, he claims, to edit the genomes of twin girls Nana and Lulu while they were embryos, violating a scientific taboo.
He says that he altered the genes with the goal of making the girls resistant to HIV. Announced on the eve of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, He has not provided evidence or data about his research and did not publish his findings in a journal. Outside scientists have not yet verified He’s claims.
Editing the genomes of embryos is controversial because such alterations would be passed on to future generations — and there is no taking it back. Gene editing of adult cells, in contrast, is accepted. Early clinical trials in adults are starting at Stanford University, UC San Francisco and elsewhere.
The Chinese scientist confided his plans in September 2017 by email to Mark DeWitt, a researcher with UC Berkeley’s Innovative Genomics Initiative, according to STAT News, a health and biosciences website. Over dinner in Berkeley in December, he told DeWitt that an ethics committee had approved the study and subjects were already being enrolled in China, the website reported. Earlier this month, after the birth of the babies, He sent DeWitt a short narrative description of the results.
STAT reported that DeWitt told him that the trial was a terrible mistake. But DeWitt decided not to tell anyone, because he had promised confidentiality, thought it too late and also believed He’s word that the work was being submitted to The New England Journal of Medicine.
The scientist also visited Stanford repeatedly over the past two years to learn more about opposition to human genome editing with a major bioethicist, William Hurlbut.
As a postdoctoral student at Stanford University between 2010 and 2012, He conducted important genetic research about how the human immune system responds to vaccination.
A physicist interested in the technology behind genome sequencing, He trained in the lab of prominent bioengineer, inventor and entrepreneur Stephen Quake, who has made pivotal contributions to the field of genomics. Quake on Tuesday said he is not commenting about He’s role in his lab.
He came to Stanford at the age of 26 after earning his Ph.D. in physics at Rice University. Upon returning to China, he became a professor at South University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen. He is now on leave.
He and Quake’s Stanford research did not involve CRISPR gene editing. They were part of a team that studied how the genetic sequence of antibodies, produced by the immune system’s B cells, changes over time. Their findings, published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, revealed that elderly and young people have different mutations, which could influence the effectiveness of flu vaccines.
He’s company uses a gene sequencing method first conceived by Quake, then a professor at Caltech. It was brought to market by Quake’s now-bankrupt company Heicos Biosciences and is now licensed from Caltech.
The Chinese scientist became aware of the sensitivity of the science while visiting UC Berkeley in January 2017, when he attended a workshop hosted by Stanford bioethicist William Hurlbut and UCB’s CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna designed to find ways to better educate and engage the public on issues raised by human genome editing, according to STAT News.
Hurlbut said they carried on long conversations about societal opposition during He’s visits to Stanford.
“He was very congenial. He seemed very significantly interested in understanding the realm of ethics, which I have experience in and he was relatively unfamiliar,” said Hurlbut, in Hong Kong.
“He wanted to get some sense of guidance,” said Hurlbut, who disagrees with what He did. “He wanted to understand what that was about.”
He seemed skeptical of arguments that life begins at conception and cited the good that could come through gene editing, according to Hurlbut.
Another major American scientist, Michael Deem, also has worked with He. Physics and bioengineering professor Deem of Rice University told the Associated Press in a story published Sunday that he helped work on the research in China.
Rice University said Monday that it had opened a “full investigation” into Deem’s involvement in the controversial research.
In an effort to limit the potential misuse of human gene editing, the prestigious National Academy of Sciences has urged against its current use in embryos and reproductive cells. Yet adequate global regulatory and oversight mechanisms are not yet in place to guide the safe use of the new technology.
CRISPR co-inventor Doudna, professor of chemistry and molecular cell biology at UC Berkeley, urged He and his team to step forward and be accountable.
“It is imperative that the scientists responsible for this work fully explain their break from the global consensus that application of CRISPR-Cas9 for human (egg, sperm and embryo) editing should not proceed at the present time,” she said, in a prepared statement.
“The work, as described to date, reinforces the urgent need to confine the use of gene editing in human embryos to cases where a clear unmet medical need exists,” she said, “and where no other medical approach is a viable option.”
