Genetically Modified Babies. The Genetic Editing of Human Life is “Big Business”
By
Arjun Walia
from Collective Evolution
Arjun Walia
from Collective Evolution In Brief
- The Facts:Despite
government regulations and ethical issues, there are powerful corporate
interests
involved in the development and patenting of genetic editing of life forms. - Reflect On:Human advancements in biotechnology as well as technology will only be plausible and useful when they are used for the good of humanity in service to others, without any other use or intention behind their development.
“Genetically
modified humans” sounds like a term that belongs in Hollywood, but it’s
actually a very real possibility, and one that’s being heavily
discussed in the scientific community. Contributing to one of the most
controversial topics to date, not long ago, a panel of science experts
in the U.S. just examined and gave their support for germline editing.
This means that in the future, parents will likely be able to tamper
with the genetics of their children pre-birth. Germinal choice
technology refers to reprogenetic technologies that enable parents to
alter the genetic constitutions of their children. One of the ways this
can be done is through germline editing, which is a fancier term
for human genetic engineering. Germline editing alters the genes of a
sperm or an egg, but it then changes the future DNA of every single cell
in the embryo. This means that the genetic changes made to the embryos
will then affect all future generations within that family lineage.
The panels were made up of experts from
two of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the U.S., both of
which recommended that germline editing be viewed as a serious option
in the future and not be prohibited outright (source).
This is a dramatically different stance than the last assessment given in December 2015 by an international summit of scientists, who stated that it would be “irresponsible to proceed” with
germline editing given the controversy surrounding the subject and
the safety issues involved, all of which have yet to be resolved.
The panels’ discussions can be further analyzed in a report released earlier
this week by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Medicine. The panel recommended that germline editing of
early embryos, eggs, or sperm should only be permitted to prevent
serious disease or disability if there’s significant scientific evidence
illustrating that the procedures are safe.
You can read more about that story here.
For now, I wanted to point you to a
piece written by Canadian economist, author, and professor emeritus of
economics at the University of Ottawa and the president and director of
the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Michel Chossudovsky, where this post originally appeared.
advertisement - learn more
Last November, He Jiankui, a Chinese biology professor at Southern University of Science and Technology (SUST) in Shenzhen (Guangdong Province) announced that he and his team had createdthe World’s first “genetically edited babies”: twin babies Lula and Nana.
Dr. He Jiankui, used the CRISPR
technology “to alter the embryos of seven couples [allegedly] to make
them resistant to HIV”. He Jiankui made his announcement at the Second
International Summit on Human Genome Editing held at the University of
Hong Kong.
Dr. He claims to have used CRISP “to tweak the DNA of human embryos during in vitro fertilization”.
The broad implications of this
experiment are far-reaching. The genetic editing of human life forms
including embryos has a bearing on the future of humanity.
It opens up the pandora’s box of genetic engineering applied to human beings.
It undermines the “reproduction of real life”. Potentially, it destroys humanity.
Screenshot Source Nature News Carl Zimmer
The experiment raises important scientific and ethical issues. Human embryos are not commodities.
The Chinese government immediately opened an investigation, Dr He Jiankui was fired by his University in January 2019.
Corporate Interests: Genetic Editing is “Big Business”
Despite government regulations and
ethical issues, there are powerful corporate interests involved in the
development and patenting of genetic editing of life forms including Dr.
He’s findings on “genetically modified babies”.
While Dr. He’s University based lab
biology project at SUST has been closed down, he nonetheless remains
Chairman and major stakeholder of the Shenzhen based Direct Genomics Biotechnology, “a
genome sequencing” firm, with extensive financial resources. Direct
Genomics received at least US$43 million in funding from both Chinese
and international investors:
“… The funding was led by Shenzhen Cosun Venture Capital Investment Management, a venture capital firm owned by Shenzhen-listed Coship Electronics and Chen Libei, an executive of state-backed Fortune Capital. …Other investors include Beijing Xiyi Asset Management, which has only one venture capital deal – Direct Genomics – since its inception in 2016 on public record. …In November 2016, Direct Genomics received an undisclosed amount of funding from three investors – Beijing Tengye Venture Capital, Amer International Group, and Sinotech Genomics, according to tianyancha.com, a Chinese corporate information data provider. (SCMP, November 29, 2018)
We’re
talking about “Big Business” involving the potential marketing and sale
of genetically modified human and animal life forms. Imagine the
potential strategic and military applications, not to mention the
emergence of a corporate health service economy for the super-rich,
where “perfect babies” can be purchased for a million dollars.
Following
the Chinese government investigation, there is no concrete evidence
that this corporate genetic editing project has been discontinued. Quite
the opposite.
It is worth noting that the intellectual property rights pertaining to the CRISPR -Cas9 gene editingtechnology
used by Dr. He’s team (i.e. editing the DNA of human and animal life)
are not registered in China. The patent belongs to a US based entity:
the Broad Institute, located in Cambridge, Mass. with links to Harvard and MIT.
The Broad Institute is firmly committed to the pursuit of genetic editing of human living cells:
The ability to precisely edit the genome of a living cell holds enormous potential to accelerate life science research, improve biotechnology, and even treat human disease.
While the Broad Institute owns the
intellectual technology, CRISPR-Cas9 was invented by a Chinese American
scientist Dr. Feng Zhang based at the Broad Institute and MIT.
MIT Prof. Feng Zhang responding to Dr He’s controversial announcement calls
for “a moratorium on implantation of edited [human] embryos …until we
have come up with a thoughtful set of safety requirements first.”
This statement represents the interests of the Broad Institute. According to Feng Zhang’s colleague Professor David Liu (also on behalf of the Broad Institute):
“[Dr He’s] reported use of CRISPR nuclease to edit CCR5 in human embryos, resulting in live births, … [constitutes] a serious breach of ethics … Foremost, that edited human babies were generated without the full engagement of independent scientific and ethics experts, relevant regulatory institutions, and governing bodies is appalling.” (emphasis added)
These statements are tantamount to
“crocodile tears”. Failing effective government regulation (e.g. by the
Trump administration), the ethical considerations will eventually be
scrapped or bypassed.
“Moratorium” rather than “Abolition” of a
potentially dangerous technology is the talking point: “We have a legal
moratorium on that here,” said U.S. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb…
The potential applications are also relatively dangerous if they get
into the hands of people who don’t have good judgment or have ill
intent.” (Bloomberg SFGate, November 27, 2018)
A moratorium on behalf of those who own
the CRISPR patent does not foreclose the development and marketing for
profit of genetic editing of human embryos. Money is the driving force.
The Moratorium will eventually be lifted. Potentially, what is at stake
is a multi-billion dollar undertaking.
In
all likelihood, there will be a battle for the intellectual property
rights pertaining to CRISPR-Cas9 technology, involving both US and
Chinese corporate interests.
While
the Broad Institute was granted ownership of the CRISPR-Cas9 patent by
the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, less than 3 months
prior to Dr. He’s announcement in Hong Kong, the ownership of CRISP is
actively contested. The University of California at Berkeley is also
involved in the fight for patent ownership against the Cambridge based
Broad Institute. (Wired, September 11, 2018).
The Takeaway/Deeper Discussion
Obviously Dr. Chossudovsky makes some
great points, but what if human beings are meant to make these
discoveries in order to possibly expand human life and wipe out disease,
for example? The issue here is not the potential and the act of gene
editing, it’s the corporate takeover of humanity, and big corporations
acting from the intent of profit and control instead of acting from a
service to others type of mentality.
At the end of the day, when it comes to
this type of discovery and development, it’s key that humanity have a
shift in consciousness, and completely operate from an entirely
different level, one that can benefit all, and one from a place of good,
instead of operating from a lower level of consciousness that bring in
the concerns that Chossudovsky mentions above.
Help Support Collective Evolution
In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!
SUPPORT CE HERE!
No comments:
Post a Comment