Seven years ago, He Jiankui was imprisoned for "designer babies", setting an insurmountable "red line" for human embryo gene editing. Seven years later, a 29-year-old Chinese female entrepreneur who calls herself "Biotech Barbie" is trying to break into this "forbidden zone" with a high profile.Her name is Cathy Tie. She dropped out of school at the age of 18 to start a business. Now, she has named her new company "Manhattan Genome," unabashedly comparing it to the "Manhattan Project" that built the atomic bomb. Its goal is to edit human embryos and prevent genetic diseases.
Almost at the same time, another American company, Preventive, also announced its entry. The enthusiasm of capital and the ambition of entrepreneurs are violently impacting the fragile ethical defense line established by the scientific community after the He Jiankui incident. A fierce game about technology, ethics and the future of mankind has begun again.
He Jiankui’s shadow and the “dawn” of gene editing
Why does the term "editing human embryos" still make the scientific community frown? All this cannot be circumvented by a name——He Jiankui.
In 2018, the Chinese biophysicist announced that he had used CRISPR "genetic scissors" technology to edit the embryos of a pair of twin baby girls, aiming to make them naturally resistant to AIDS.This behavior was widely condemned by the global scientific community as reckless and irresponsible, and he was subsequently sentenced to three years in prison for "illegal medical practice."His experiments cast a long shadow over the entire field.
(It is worth mentioning that Cathy Tee and He Jiankui were in a relationship earlier this year, but Cathy Tee made it clear that the two had parted ways, and that He Jiankui was not involved in any affairs of "Manhattan Genome".)
since then,Scientists around the world have mostly called for a moratorium on this heritable gene editing(i.e., changing genes that will be passed on to future generations), many countries have strict restrictions on this.
But here the story takes a turn.
When embryo editing falls into ethical quagmire,However, "non-genetic" gene-editing therapies for pre-born people are advancing rapidly.In 2023, the world's first gene therapy based on CRISPR technology will be approved for marketing to treat certain genetic blood diseases.
The principle is that scientists remove hematopoietic stem cells from the patient's body, perform "gene repair" in the laboratory, and then infuse them back into the patient's body.This method only affects the patient himself and will not be passed on to the next generation.Therefore it is more ethically and safely acceptable.
Technology has been iterated, but the safety threshold is “extremely, extremely, extremely high”
So what is so special about editing embryos that has scientists so concerned?
To use a metaphor:Editing adult cells is like replacing a broken tire; editing embryos is like making changes to the blueprint of a car, the effects of which will be passed down from generation to generation.
Professor Huang Junjiu, a biologist at Sun Yat-sen University in China (who pioneered basic research on gene editing of human embryos in 2015, but did not allow the embryos to develop into babies) explained: "In embryos, the behavior of gene editing tools may be completely different from that in our adult bodies." Any unexpected, "off-target" genetic errors may spread to every cell of the baby as the embryo develops, leading to catastrophic and unforeseen consequences.
Alexis Komor, a biochemist at the University of California, San Diego, uses four “very”s in a row for emphasis: “The security threshold is very, very, very, very high. We're definitely not there yet.. "
Comer also raises a more realistic issue: There may be very few people who actually need this technology. Because at present, many parents who are at risk of genetic diseases can already use "preimplantation genetic diagnosis" (PGD) technology to screen out healthy embryos during the IVF stage. Only in rare cases, such as when both parents carry the same fatal genetic mutation, may the embryo need to be "repaired."
But Cathy Tee and her supporters believe thatTechnology is not what it used to be.
They pointed out that He Jiankui used the first generation of CRISPR technology, which was like a pair of "blunt scissors" and could easily cause chromosomal disorder. And now,New technologies such as "base editing" and "guided editing" are more like a "gene pencil", can accurately rewrite a single "letter" on DNA without cutting off the entire chain, which is theoretically safer.
However, scientists still have reservations. Dr. Comor responded that little is known about the unintended effects of these new technologies.Chinese scientist Professor Huang Junjiu also made it clear that this technology "has promise, but is not yet ready to enter clinical practice."
In the "no man's land" of ethics, who will legislate?
In addition to technical risks, the deeper controversy is ethical.
Professor Huang Junjiu believes that the timing of the establishment of "Manhattan Genome" is "inappropriate" becauseThe relevant ethical, social consensus and legal frameworks are also yet to mature.
But Cathy Tee countered that these frameworks will never mature if everyone does not promote them responsibly. “No progress will be made that way,” she said.
The debate has also torn the scientific community apart. Some top scientists, such as Jennifer Doudna, known for playing a key role in discovering the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, have been deeply concerned about heritable gene editing, emphasizing that it requires "more rigorous scrutiny than typical research." But she also admitted: "If this approach proves safe, it could shift genetic diseases from chronic management to prevention, a fundamental change in medicine."
The involvement of private enterprises is also "forced" by policies to some extent. Because government funds in places like the United States cannot fund embryo-editing research, progress at academic institutions has been slow. “This creates an opportunity for private industry to get involved,” said Dr. Paula Amato, a reproductive endocrinologist at Oregon Health & Science University. “I would be surprised if we don’t see more companies popping up,” she predicted.
"Designer babies" or "disease treatment"? public swing
Behind this technological competition is a huge capital push. Prevent has claimed to have raised nearly $30 million. Cathy Tee did not reveal the financial backers behind the Manhattan Genome, but was happy to cite polls to prove its legitimacy. For example, a 2018 Pew Research Center report showed that72% of Americans support editing the genes of unborn babies to treat serious diseases.
However, public opinion is complex. In the same survey,65% of people also believe that directly using human embryos for gene editing testing is "going too far."
Kelly Ormond, a bioethicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, adds that when the question changes from "treating a disease" to "Enhance capabilities” (such as raising IQ), public support plummets.
Cathy Tee adamantly denies that the company has any plans to enhance human capabilities. But many scientists worry that once the technology's doors are opened, it will be difficult to stop it from sliding in that direction.
Dr. Comor said frankly, “Currently we are not able to carry out complex enhancements because we don’t understand enough about the principles of genetics.But it's only a matter of time. We'll figure it out eventually."
Conclusion: Humanity Standing at the Crossroads
"Biotech Barbie" Cathy Tee and her peers are standing at a crossroads in history. Armed with powerful gene editing technology, they see a future free of genetic diseases. Opposite them, many scientists held up warning signs of "caution" and "ethics," reminding everyone that He Jiankui's lessons are still in front of them and that the risks of technology are far from clear.
This is a race between speed and safety, a collision between entrepreneurship and scientific conservatism, and the beginning of mankind's attempt to redefine its own destiny. Does editing embryos open a new world full of hope, or is it a Pandora's box that cannot be closed? There is no simple answer to this question, but the answer will be written by all of us. (Liu Chun)