Controversial biophysicist He Jiankui has been released from prison after serving a three-year sentence for creating the world’s first gene-edited babies. Jiankui’s early experiments aimed to modify the genomes of embryos to provide resistance to HIV, sparking significant ethical and safety concerns. Following his release, he is now focusing on employing similar gene-editing techniques to combat Alzheimer’s disease.
Despite the serious repercussions of his previous work, Jiankui appears undeterred. He has begun fundraising efforts to introduce a genetic mutation he discovered among individuals in Iceland who are notably free from Alzheimer’s and enjoy longer lifespans. His strategy includes conducting tests on animals before potentially advancing to human trials. This ambitious plan, however, raises questions about the ethics of germline editing, which remains prohibited in most countries.
Past Controversy and Future Aspirations
Jiankui gained international notoriety in 2018 when he announced that he had modified a gene in embryos, leading to the birth of twins with edited genomes. This announcement, made at a conference without prior peer review, ignited a firestorm of criticism regarding safety protocols, informed consent, and broader ethical implications. As a result, Chinese authorities sentenced Jiankui to prison for illegal medical practices.
His current proposal to address Alzheimer’s through gene editing has drawn attention as advancements in the field continue to evolve. While somatic therapies that do not alter eggs, sperm, or embryos are gaining regulatory approval for serious diseases, germline editing aimed at reproductive processes remains highly contentious. The scientific community largely agrees that while gene editing could revolutionize treatments for existing conditions, using it to modify embryos for complex diseases poses significant ethical dilemmas.
Potential Implications of Jiankui’s Work
Jiankui’s intent to conduct human trials may face significant challenges, particularly in regions where germline editing is not legally sanctioned. However, South Africa has recently approved such practices, indicating a possible pathway for Jiankui to continue his research. As he navigates these complex ethical and legal landscapes, the implications of his work could reverberate through the fields of genetics and biomedical ethics.
The juxtaposition of Jiankui’s controversial past with his ambitious future underscores a pivotal moment in gene editing. While his actions have prompted widespread debate about the responsibilities of scientists and the boundaries of medical research, the rapid advancement of gene-editing technology suggests that society must grapple with these issues more urgently than ever. The outcome of Jiankui’s new endeavors will likely influence not only the future of Alzheimer’s treatment but also the broader conversation surrounding human genetic modification.
