A cutting-edge gene-editing trial in China went disastrously wrong. A family wants accountability
34 Comments
Comments from other communities
Wasn’t even a deadly disease. I’m all for gen editing since it has potential to save lives but killing a 6 year okd because you would rather risk it than have an intellectually disabled child seems a bit intense.
They paid like 800k for it so this very much feels like “I’m rich enough not to have to deal with the shame my child will bring me”. They should of just accepted her, what she had was basically down syndrome.
I mean… the researchers lied to the parents about the risks. How are parents supposed to make an informed decision with false information.
…Qiu and his team downplayed the trial’s risks in describing them to the parents, overlooked safety signals in animal studies, and proceeded even though success was unlikely. “This shouldn’t have gone to trial,” says Steven Gray of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center… … “Learning the reality of these missing safeguards has fundamentally changed how we now view the entire project,” says the father… “We did not realize how unusual and dangerous many of the arrangements were.
Yupppp, which is what IMO made this whole thing extra tragic. The disease wasn’t even that bad to begin with… definitely didn’t necessitate literally doing the very first in-brain gene editing (which is why they needed much higher viral dose… which caused the death)
I have no clue where the family coughed up the $800K though. They don’t seem to be the particularly rich type based on what the news report was saying, but maybe the parents did hide some information…?
Can they edit the depression and OCD out of my genes?
Maybe yes, maybe no, but they definitely can make you die from immune reponse though.
Yes but it might kill you
Not currently and this would be very difficult. These disorders are linked to the physical and chemical structure of the brain. The physical structure in particular develops as you become an adult and it would be fairly difficult to reverse once this happens. Shaping the formation process in younger people would be much easier.
The chemistry component might be easier to alter but then why not just use a safer and more reversible chemical approach for that?
Plus a lot of depression is highly linked to the environment you are in. I know it was for me. Changing to a healthier environment is the best cure for most people, though there are some for whom it won’t work.
Good money in anti-china news these days.. Narratives seem to be turned on/off like a faucet..
Some Chinese institution: lies
Some journalist: Points it out
Chinese government: “Stop spreading these baseless lies about us!”
This guy: “There sure is a lot of Sinophobia around here these days!”
One research team breaking / bending the rules to do unethical experiments isn’t ‘anti-China news’. Although there could be a bit of Science taking Nature down a peg in the article.
ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86
RetroFed
Share on Mastodon
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown
daggermoon
Loaf
LibertyLizard
Yeah that’s something that should have been tested for prior to actually starting the therapy.
How? I mean the way every drug for example is tested for safety, they give it to people (healthy volunteers) in escalating doses, and watch them for adverse effects.
Rarely, it happens that a drug that was expected to be safe based on animal testing turns out to be dangerous in humans, and healthy volunteers die. It’s a tragedy, it happens rarely, but it happens, and safety trials are still the best way to start the process of clinical trials for new drugs. For some treatments, such as gene therapy, it’s not ethical to ask a volunteer to just try it to see if it’s safe. So they look for sick people, who are consenting to risking a new treatment with unproven safety, because their other choice is to not be treated.
This is how it’s always done. I wonder what you mean when you say the treatment should be tested for safety before giving it to patients.
Edit: this was a personalized experimental treatment developed specifically for this girl, on the parents’ initiative. The clinical team did test for antibodies against the virus before injecting the AAV into the csf. Lots of shady and wrong things on the research side, I’m not protecting them, just disagreeing with the previous comment that this tragedy would have been prevented by a simple test.
A virus that doesn’t actually do anything is how. Or a test injection that doesn’t have any virus at all, if the reaction was to something else in it.
It has to be the exact virus or it’s irrelevant, and it kind of can’t be done.
The virus has to get to the brain and spread around and “infect” cells in order to edit the DNA. It’s why it had trillions of the virus. It needs a slow and unprepared immune response so it can do the editing.
If they did a small dose test, you just vaccinated her against the virus. Her immune system would more quickly go after and destroy the virus. They expected her to get sick. They didn’t expect it to get that bad. She needed more powerful immunosuppressants beforehand.
Neither of those things is what the patient received. Do you mean they should test the vector without the payload on the patient? If the adverse reaction is to the vector, the patient would then experience the negative effects without a chance of getting any benefits. So why not give the real thing then? If you mean a control vector should be tested on healthy volunteers, idk, maybe, but it’s hard to come up with a relevant control that certainly doesn’t do anything to dna.
Yeah but she wouldn’t be fucking dead.
Wtf. If she died from the dna editing, doing the test you mention wouldn’t have prevented it. If she died from the formulation, she would have died from the test you talk about. I don’t see a scenario where a test with a control virus makes a difference.
An allergy test uses small amounts to test for a reaction.
Turns out they did on both mice and primates, and the side effect is also evaluated:
However, the ethics board did not review the safety report:
Even worse, the brain development data from the primate study is entirely unconvincing:
So im reading through and sorta rolling my eyes at the idea of gambling on this disease with ones life but wow. Thats some negligence.
Even worse, I have a feeling that this is most likely gambling on fame, money, and a nature paper, instead of solving a disease.
Oh man…
This is sad, but its going to happen quite a few more times before they really understand large scale gene editing. And even after they do understand it better, probably some percentage of the time its gonna go wrong.
Blinded by fame and greediness
Holy shit