I know I am going to be all over the place in my first post about this discussion. That is simpy because I have moral issues with it. But here goes.
The article is real. Here is a write up in The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/world/asia/he-jiankui-china-scientist-gene-editing.html
The article seems to imply he is under guard in the apartment complex and did not state if it's house arrest or for his preotection:
Quote: That evening, four unidentified men in plainclothes stood guard outside Dr. He’s apartment. One said, “How did you know that Professor He is here?”
It was unclear whether the guards were affiliated with the police, the university or another organization. The police in Shenzhen did not respond to a faxed request for comment, and the university did not answer phone calls.
And this:
Quote: Among the questions that Dr. He failed to fully address was the issue of informed consent, and whether his volunteers understood what they were getting into. Bai Hua, the head of Baihualin, an AIDS advocacy group that helped Dr. He recruit the couples, said that he now regretted doing so and was deeply worried about the families.
Many scientists have noted that there are simpler ways to protect newborn babies from the infection. It was wondered what his real reson behind doing this was as some implyed fame and fortune.
Now with all that said. When I first saw this post I was appaled that a scientist had done this. That was a few days ago. Now that the shock has worn off I can reply with my thoughts on this issue. Breeding the perfect human seems to be where some scientist wish to experiment in. In news like this the issue arise as it should the disregard for ethical standards.
In 2012, Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier were the first to propose thatCRISPR/Cas9 (enzymes from bacteria that control microbial immunity) could be used for programmable editing of genomes, which is now considered one of the most significant discoveries in the history of biology.
It's a fascinating issue, even for a guy that generally doesn't care much for science heading this way, like myself. I'll say that I don't agree with ...but to go the other route and simply open the floodgates is something I would object to even more.
Remember the whole stem cell research issue years ago? That's where the argument breaks down; where do you think these disposable embryos came from in the first place? That is, fertility clinics purposefully create multiple zygotes for each patient. Part of that is a limitation of the techniques they use, and the difficulty in making just one viable zygote, so to compensate they make a batch of them.
However, if you hold that it is unethical to create embryos knowing that you will dispose of them, then you must also argue that the techniques that these fertility clinics use to create "spares" is also unethical.
Bare with me here.
When you go into a fertility clinic, you go in with the intent of creating a human being. You don't go in saying "cmon honey, let's go destroy some embryos today". The embryos are created with the intent of producing a baby. I have no problems with that.....you need to use as many eggs as possible. That's how it works. Some would not survive pregnancy anyway....and the mother obviously couldn't possibly carry anywhere near all of them to term, even if she tried. Furthermore, they are embryos that would not likely have been created WITHOUT this process.
Intent makes all the difference.
Bear with me on this one, because it gets kind of hairy. It is so morally detestable as to be inconceivable that a woman would go out and get pregnant on purpose with the predetermined intent of aborting the pregnancy. To even suggest that someone would do so is ridiculous. However, I think we can agree that if a woman were to do so, it would be considered morally appalling almost universally.
By comparison, take a woman who gets pregnant by accident, or gets pregnant intentionally and then finds reason to end the pregnancy (e.g. a risk to her own health).....in the former, there is no advance intent to create an embryo, in the latter there is no advance intent to destroy an embryo.
It's a pretty fine line to tread I am pro-life and I'm also in favor of capital punishment....just to confuse you even more.
Therefore, there should not be any spares lying around for scientific use. Further, allowing spares to be donated/sold to embryotic research puts pressure on the clinics to maintain a high number of zygotes per fertility attempt, since they are the only supplier. This creates a motive for them to not only "accidentally" create additional zygotes as a byproduct of the process, but to be proactive in the effort.
There are a couple options at this point. If you accept absolute morality (Jewish, Christian, Muslem, etc), you don't have a lot of choice - it's immoral. Even if you/your wife can't have kids and this is the only way, too bad. If you feel morality is relative, then you've more freedom. If part of your standards are that it's unethical to create an embryo with the intent of destroying it, then a fertility clinic is unethical. If that same person comes back to say that "no, in this case it's ethical", they're either being illogical (due to special pleading), or the rules to determine morality weren't all stated.
I think I'd rather take the chance that producing embryos for research purposes is immoral than take the chance I'll die of some horrible disease that might be cured with the research. While the thought may be icky, I think such research could be very beneficial, and any oversight on the process that is needed would be worth the effort.
was the first CAR-T cell therapy patient who got cured of leukemia. Like Emily, Lulu and Nana will conjure the innate curiosities of scientists. Did Lulu and Nana consent to this? They will be subjected to monitoring, testing, if not further experimentation. Perhaps they should get to know each other to share their experiences. Have they been reduced to experimental subjects or have they ascended to be the first transhumans on our planet? 
