 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Recent developments have taken the scientific community by storm as the first genetically modified babies were announced by a Chinese scientist, Hu Zhuangke. So we have with us today Prabhupur Kayaosa, NewsClicks Editor-in-Chief, to discuss what this could mean for the future of humanity. So Prabhupur, questions have been raised over ethics, over if consent was taken properly, and also over if the procedure was itself performed properly. But what do you feel, are we ready for this? Is CRISPR developed enough for this sort of procedures to be carried out with humans? You know, the first issue is really understanding what has been done and why this few role. What has been done is something which till now has been considered off limits, which is that you don't carry out a genetic modification which is inheritable. If you do do gene therapy, you do it to correct genetic diseases you may carry the disease load you have, and it still only affects you, not future generations. So this is in effect a germ line modification, as it has been called, which means it's something which will be inherited by future generations as well. So it's some sense it's introducing an irreversible change into the human population, and therefore the push back or therefore the criticism that has come. Now why have we not thought of applying a germ line modification in terms of gene therapies? So the argument is that we still do not know what are the unintended possible effects that can take place by any modification we carry out at any location. There are unintended consequences that means it will not just be limited to that location, it could happen elsewhere as well. There could be unintended consequences of editing a gene and we do not know what the full expression of that really means, it could have other consequences which we're not aware of. So there is apart from the ethical issues, there are also technical issues involved that is it something which is at the moment ready for introducing this kind of irreversible changes. So one of the things I think we have to accept that it is going to come up increasingly that there are parents if a particular treatment is available who will say why should not our babies have inherited these traits which we can now genetically induce through modifications. So this is a question that we will have to more and more confront but that's not what we are confronting right now. Right now we are confronting the issue that we have not agreed the community as a whole that agreed not to do germline modifications. It was also agreed that this is something which will be followed as a guideline. So essentially the geneticist in question the Chinese scientist has in that sense violated what was the consensus of the scientific community. So I think that's the other major issue that irrespective of whether this was possible, was it good, was it bad, all of these aside. Also it remains that this was a consensus which was reached three years back and there was a moratorium on introducing such changes which was voluntarily accepted by the scientific community and this ability of the scientific community to discipline itself has actually been put at danger. So the risks are really twofold at the moment that will we see such a pushback that the entire field of genetic modifications, particularly human genetic modifications could be harmed and also are we likely to see a pushback in terms of therefore laws which will be yes or no kind of laws and therefore may leave a very little room for maneuver in terms of what is a scientific advance that needs to be pursued as against something which is not really desirable at this stage of knowledge. Lastly, I think in a philosophical sense we have to confront the issue of what is increasingly be called designer babies but that's not the debate at the moment. I'm talking about the experiment itself what the scientist did. He wanted to make the babies resistant to HIV by the he targeted the CCR5 genome. CCR5 gene, yeah. So can you explain what exactly was done what he tried to do and how successful he could be? Well, the argument is the CCR5 gene allows a certain pathway for infection of the HIV AIDS virus. So therefore, if you deactivate this CCR5 gene then you stop the pathway for possible pathway for infection. Now here the issue is really twofold. One is that yes, it is known that is a particular mutation of the CCR5 gene which then could effectively stop this infection pathway from taking place got being blocked. But the point is what he has done is not that mutation. So question is, have we seen this particular mutation is introduced and do we know what are the possible consequences of this? This is in fact the scientific question that has been raised. The other issue that has been raised is that HIV is a treatable disease today. Yes, of course, it is not something we can cure but we can treat, control and people can live normal lives. So that's the other reason why this was not in that sense a life-threatening condition needing a genetic intervention. And the third is even if you think that you don't want this to happen then the child could get infected with the HIV virus which the father had, father was an HIV patient. Then the question is of course that you can strain the semen in a way that non-infected sperm really is then available for insemination. Therefore there are other ways of also addressing the problem. So the key issue which the scientific guideline had said that when we talk about doing this kind of experiments, if you will it has to be there has to be something which can't be fixed otherwise. So even a gene therapy or a genetic modification should be only thought of only when there is no other possible method of addressing the problem that this was certainly not such a case. So even scientifically this perhaps was not really the appropriate one that we should have targeted. There are far more serious conditions which if you want to target would be the natural targets leaving aside whether it's ethical or otherwise to introduce as we said germline changes the state of knowledge the state of tools we have. The essential argument here is also that this was something which was not necessary to do. And of course the way it has been done is the second set of questions that comes up. And moving on to the regulation bit which you raised earlier also that the scientific community had reached a consensus that we are not ready for this yet. So this does put self-regulation which scientists do in question whether it's really effective or not. So what do you feel is the future of this regulation because if this scientist could perform this kind of experiment it does mean that there is a possibility that other scientists can do this sort of tinkering at way more dangerous levels. Well I think this is really an issue that we have to increasingly face that CRISPR-Cas9 tools have been genetic modifications much easier. Therefore shall we say rogue scientists and rogue laboratories doing this is something which can happen. It does not require a huge scientific apparatus or a machinery or a large team to do this. And that I think the scaling down of the technology itself raises question therefore the possibility of people violating what would be a consensus. So I do think that the scientific establishment in this case the Chinese scientific establishment will have to take steps since institute has taken steps the Chinese government and the scientific establishment is taking steps on this. So we'll have to see how it happens. So I think it is true that self-regulation when technology can be scaled down to a small level becomes increasingly more difficult but I don't think we have a choice because I don't think policing science is an easy task either because the ability of using a hammer is on such experiments would also take away the areas of grace and if you take the Hong Kong meat which was really held by the US Academy, the UK Academy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences I mean the basic genetic bodies who held this conference where this was announced that that conference came out with a statement which also says the translation pathway should be available which shone of all the English what it really means there should also be there should be we should allow experiments to take place which can then later if we have enough evidence if we have enough control if you have enough knowledge and we have said the right protocols then can be translated into practice but what that practice should be what the guidelines should be and which are the cases needs the regulatory system to monitor so that it doesn't happen in a rogue or a wild way So now let me know that this has been done this technology has moved forward even without the consent of the community what could this mean for the future? Well I think much stronger protocols any of these cases that were undertaken his case was also that it was the we don't know what the consent was we do not know what kind of changes did actually take place he has introduced some slides in the conference that show something but there is really no evaluation before and after which would indicate what exactly has been done so weak protocols is also damaging to science so I think those need to be also strengthened so they are done under the control conditions there is an objective assessment what has been done and those researchers who are doing it take the responsibility if the experiment goes wrong in some way that they bear the responsibility in terms also don't forget it's a lifetime support in that case you might have to provide to the twins this is the third baby also the way we are told so these are the some of the issues which need to be really shall be put in place and these things need to be addressed before we let any of this translatable shall be said technology available to take place I think that's one thing which is very clear but you know in a larger way it is true the genie or the gene is out of the bottle that yes increasingly we are going to control over this technology and we'll have to address the fundamental question is it going to be done for controlling disease irreparable shall we say problems that may take place and therefore correct them before birth or is it going to be market driven and those who can buy are then going to buy designer babies this has been an issue that has been raised in the past and we always thought this is something that we can push much more in the future that this is not something which is imminent but with the CRISPR-Cas9 tools and its improvements I'm not so sure that it is in the distant future but it does seem that it could come much closer and therefore we'll have to address the fundamental ethical question is the next generation of shall we say the next generation of babies is going to be genetically engineered with money and social power being the determinant are we going to breed inequality into the biology of the human race and in that sense as Satyajit in one of the discussions here has said that theoretically it's possible to consider that you actually breed quote unquote the caste system into genetics and that is not socially going to be determined but it could also be maybe possible to breed this into the future of the human population that you breed a docile set of workers much like the bee population as it were and do we then confront the ultimate inequality or that is being constructed that it is not just going to be social but you're also going to breed into the human population genetic inequality I think these are some of the questions we need to confront and it is not just as I said in the distant future that these are increasingly questions we'll have to address here and now Thank you Praveel for joining us today and thank you for watching NewsClick