https://www.aol.com/hong-kong-revokes-visa-disgraced-123800967.html
Recently, AOL published an article about a scientist who conducted gene-editing experiments. Chinese scientist He Jiankui recently had his Hong Kong visa revoked after it was shown that he conducted controversial gene-editing experiments. Four years ago, He Jiankui reportedly edited the genes of three babies using CRISPR technology to deactivate a gene that would make them susceptible to HIV. Jiankui defended his experiments by saying that the babies were born healthy and that his experiments did not harm them. However, he was arrested for conducting the experiments without the approval of an ethics committee and for violating policies regarding ethical research. Although the experiments were conducted years ago, they recently re-emerged in the news after Jiankui announced an intention to conduct further experiments in Hong Kong. As a result, Hong Kong chose to revoke his visa, effectively preventing him from continuing his experiments.
This photo of Dr. Jiankui was taken from www.techdigest.tv
Image taken from https://med.stanford.edu/allergyandasthma/news/news-from-our-center/crispr.html
CRISPR is a technology used to edit genomes and stands for “clustered
regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.” A protein called Cas9 is attached
to an RNA sequence that corresponds to the DNA sequence to be edited. This allows
Cas9 to attach to the correct region, or gene, in the DNA. Cas9 then cuts the
DNA at this site, a new gene can be inserted into that region, and the DNA can
be stitched back together. CRISPR is commonly used in laboratory settings to
study the effects of gene mutations on non-human systems, but its use in humans
is still a matter of controversy.
The image of the Cas9 protein interacting with DNA was taken from https://biosciences.lbl.gov/2016/02/05/crisprcas9-ready-for-action/
This article paints a negative picture of scientists in
general. The article suggests several times that Jiankui may not have been
honest about his research and the outcomes of his experiments. Interestingly,
the author of the article does not seem to be very familiar with gene-editing
technology or even science in general. First, the author misspells CRISPR as
Crisper, suggesting that the author did not know anything about this technology
prior to writing this article. Secondly, the author provides an inadequate
explanation for why Jiankui’s experiments may have been unethical. The article
states that the controversy surrounding this experiment centers around the consequences
of introducing heritable traits into the population. A person more familiar
with science would likely recognize that one of the primary ethical concerns with
Jiankui’s experiments was instead the fact that he bypassed ethical protocols, which
are designed to protect both individual and human rights.
This article could be damaging to the reputation of scientists
for several reasons. First, the topic of the article is a scientist who
certainly appears to have acted unethically, which could give people a negative
view of scientists in general and cause a loss of trust in scientists.
Additionally, the author of the article gave a superficial and somewhat inaccurate
description of the issues at hand. Misrepresentation of science in media can deal
a significant blow to people’s trust in science.
References
Sharma, S. Hong Kong revokes visa of disgraced scientist
who created first gene-edited babies. 2023. Retrieved from https://www.aol.com/hong-kong-revokes-visa-disgraced-123800967.html.
Smith, M. CRISPR. National Genome Research Institute.
Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/CRISPR.
Your title and lede are informative, concise and engaging. Your source is interesting. It is certainly a general interest news source. Your explanation of the problem is concise and understandable. Your figures are interesting and similarly engaging. Although the cartoon of the CRISPR mechanism is a little busy it would be difficult to make the point using anything simpler. Your analysis of the ethical issues and the difficulties posed for the popular reputation for science by this work is clear and to the point. Overall a very timely and interesting post.
ReplyDelete