Skip to Content
Biotechnology and health

Rogue Chinese CRISPR scientist cited US report as his green light

An expert finding from the National Academies of Sciences was He Jiankui’s excuse to edit the DNA of two babies.
November 27, 2018

Who has the authority to say yes or no to gene-modified babies?

In the mind of He Jiankui, the answer was simple: the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

That’s according to a March 2017 document that He, a professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, wrote as an ethics case for what he has claimed is the first successful attempt to make babies whose DNA was modified with the gene-editing tool CRISPR while they were eggs in a laboratory.

He is now under investigation by various bodies in China for possibly breaking ethics rules.

In his proposal, however (pictured above), He assured hospital ethics reviewers everything would be fine. He told them that just one month earlier, in February of 2017, the US Academies “for the first time” had approved the idea of editing human embryos in order to treat serious disease.

No matter that the US Academies isn’t a regulator or government body, that it doesn’t approve of or prohibit specific experiments, or that the advisory body’s big gene-editing report of that year cautioned that heritable genome editing “is not ready to be tried in humans.”

To He’s ears, it was the report’s fundamental conclusion that mattered. Despite many notes of caution, that report’s message was clear. It did not endorse a moratorium on CRISPR babies, as some had hoped at the time. Instead, it said the opposite: gene-edited children were ultimately permissible if the goal was to treat or prevent serious illnesses

He’s surprise effort, which he claims led to the birth of twin girls, is now being resoundingly criticized ahead of an international summit in Hong Kong involving many of the same people who authored the Academies report. So it’s not just He that we should scrutinize, but also the experts who released a report saying, in essence, that the technology of germ-line engineering was inevitable.

To Benjamin Hurlbut, a bioethicist at Arizona State University, the problem is the race to new discoveries, “even where there is serious uncertainty about whether the techniques that get developed should ever be put to use.”

“Researchers can just keep asserting that their ‘basic’ research has nothing to do with clinical applications, and the can gets kicked down the road,” he says. “For decades, the research has been oriented toward science racing ahead, shooting first and asking questions later. That is a circumstance of our own making. But it’s a hard one to wind backward.”

That’s a big deal, especially now that biologists are making huge leaps towards controlling embryos and stem cells in ways that may lead to novel reproductive methods—that is, new ways to make people.

“The dominoes are lined up toward a wide range of uses that many, many people will find irresponsible and objectionable,” says Hurlbut. “As the history of assisted reproductive technologies shows, it is a short step from developing a technique in the lab to using it to produce children, even where serious unknowns remain.”

The problem is that scientists jealously guard their autonomy and want to avoid regulation from governments that could impede some future, as yet undiscovered, truth or technology. That’s why, in their conclaves, you rarely hear them say “No, never” to areas of research.

Today the US Academies posted a statement in response to He’s claims of a CRISPR baby. And guess what? They simply restated the very same 2017 conclusions that the renegade scientist used as his justification.

“Very disappointing, bland statement from #GeneEditSummit organizers on news of rogue #CRISPR baby project by one of their pending meeting speakers. It basically says nothing,” stem-cell biologist Paul Knoepfler tweeted.

Deep Dive

Biotechnology and health

This grim but revolutionary DNA technology is changing how we respond to mass disasters

After hundreds went missing in Maui’s deadly fires, rapid DNA analysis helped identify victims within just a few hours and bring families some closure more quickly than ever before. But it also previews a dark future marked by increasingly frequent catastrophic events.

What’s next for bird flu vaccines

If we want our vaccine production process to be more robust and faster, we’ll have to stop relying on chicken eggs.

The messy quest to replace drugs with electricity

“Electroceuticals” promised the post-pharma future for medicine. But the exclusive focus on the nervous system is seeming less and less warranted.

That viral video showing a head transplant is a fake. But it might be real someday. 

BrainBridge is best understood as the first public billboard for a hugely controversial scheme to defeat death.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.