In this video I answer important questions like “Are we ready for genetically modified babies?” and “Which scientist would I most like to shake in my teeth like a rabid dog?” #stem

Human embryos with edited DNA. We're talking about it again. You may have may not have heard about a recent trial that used a DNA editing technique, sort of a subtype of CRISPR called base editing, to edit a gene called PCSK9 in a way that lowered people's cholesterol. Still put up a whole can of worms about DNA editing for preventative medicine. Hank Green did a whole video about it. I have a lot of thoughts, but I want to draw your attention to this other study that allegedly used the same technique to edit the same gene in human embryos. I say allegedly because this report has not passed peer review yet, so I'm not going to talk about any of the specific results of it. What I want to talk about is why scientists are talking about it and how it's different from what happened back in 2018. Eight years ago, Dr. Hurjunkwi used original flavor CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the DNA of human embryos, implanted them into women, and nine months later, the world's first CRISPR edited babies were born. This was widely regarded as an unacceptable thing to do. The scientific community was completely horrified. The technology just was not safe enough to use in this way, especially because any genetic changes whether intended or unintended would be passed down by those children to every single subsequent generation. Another conversation is starting back up in the public eye, so what is different this time around? Well, first of all, we've gotten a lot better at CRISPR, so we've made some huge breakthroughs in making the technology safer and more precise, and we've come up with some really brilliant tools for detecting when it makes mistakes. And this study was run ethically. Hurjunkwi didn't just violate bioethics by doing risky science. He also violated the very core tenets of how to do clinical studies ethically. He forged ethical approval documents, and he did not obtain informed consent before impregnating women with genetically altered embryos. If I ever meet this man, I'm going to bite him as hard as I can. This study, as far as we know, was done with proper ethical approval and oversight. And, most importantly, these embryos were never intended to be implanted into a womb for gestation. Even if that was allowed, the scientist in charge has said that he wouldn't have done it. When he was asked about using this technology to edit embryos that you actually intend to turn into babies, he said, quote, you can't use it. It's as clear as night and day. We are not ready to do this, but the only way to become ready is to do research like this, ethically, responsibly, and for the right reasons. Which raises the question, what are the right reasons? Are there any? That conversation is going to take a lot longer than three minutes, and also I'm not a bioethicist, so I'm not going to get into it, but feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments. The only thing I am academically qualified to talk about is the science itself, so I will be discussing the specifics of this paper once it passes peer review if there's anything juicy in there. For now, I just wanted to talk a little bit about what makes this different from what Huzheng we did, and also use it as kind of a check-in point for what the experts who are developing this technology are saying about whether or not it's ready to debut as an actual medicine. It isn't.