He Jiankui: Scientist who edited babies’ genes jailed for three years

Chinese authorities say Dr He ‘in seeking fame and wealth’ violated regulations and ‘crossed the bottom line’ of ethics

First gene-edited babies reported in China

China has jailed a researcher who made headlines around the world after announcing his involvement in the births of the first genetically-edited babies.

He Jiankui told an international gene editing conference in November last year he had led a project that resulted in the births of twin babies with an added resistance to the Aids infection.

While Dr He did not provide any corroborating evidence or submit his research for peer review, after an investigation Chinese authorities confirmed the work had been carried out and that the researchers had “deliberately evaded oversight”.

Dr He was convicted on Monday of practising medicine illegally and violating Chinese scientific research regulations, as well as forging ethical review documents. He was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 3 million yuan (£330,000).

The sentencing, reported by the state-run Xinhua news agency, confirmed for the first time that a third baby – from a different mother to the twins – was born as part of the project before it was shut down by the authorities.

Two other people, researchers working under Dr He, were convicted and received lesser sentences. Zhang Renli was sentenced to two years in prison and fined 1 million yuan. Qin Jinzhou received an 18-month sentence, suspended for two years, and a 500,000 yuan fine.

Dr He had been held under armed guard at a university guesthouse since he declared his work to the world, including in major interviews with western media.

The court said he and his team “crossed the bottom line of ethics” and “in seeking fame and wealth, deliberately violated national regulations in scientific research and medical treatment”.

Dr He used gene-editing technology called Crispr to alter the genomes of embryos during the IVF process. Crispr is a low-cost, easy-to-use technique whereby an enzyme is targeted to cut out an unwanted section of DNA.

Since the method of teaching the enzyme which DNA to target was first described in 2012 and 2013, the technique has already led to major breakthroughs in crop development and fixing genetic diseases in animals.

But ethicists say using it to alter the DNA of human embryos is inherently problematic. Not only will the desired genetic change be passed on to all the subject’s future offspring, but it is also impossible to know for sure what untended consequences the editing process might have.

Human clinical trials have been carried out with Crispr – but as therapies for treating blood disorders like sickle cell anaemia, not to alter a person’s entire genetic make-up.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in