Genes that have been altered to make children immune to HIV can improve their intellectual ability.
How can we not recall the already forgotten theories about the creation of "supermen". If earlier enthusiasts suggested selecting geniuses at the embryonic stage by analyzing their DNA, now the prodigy can be “edited”. It turned out that Chinese twins, whose genome was recently secretly altered by a Chinese scientist, are likely to have some "superpowers."
REFERENCE
Who and why changed the genome of children
The birth of genetically modified Chinese twins Lulu and Nana in November last year caused a global scandal. Their “father,” geneticist He Jiankui, said that he had altered the CCR5 gene in the children to make the children immune to HIV infection. But instead of showering the pioneer with the laurels of the winner, the world community unanimously branded Comrade He for violating ethical and legislative norms. The Chinese government has disowned excessively revolutionary experimentation, and the scientist appears to be under house arrest.
Mice worked
Alcino Silva, a neuroscientist at the University of California at Los Angeles, published an article in the authoritative scientific journal Cell, which suggests that the same CCR5 gene edited in Chinese twins is associated not only with HIV immunity, but also with the development of cognitive qualities. Simply put, kids can grow up to be geeks.
Promotional video:
Alchino and his colleagues conducted experiments on laboratory rodents, "turning off" the CCR5 gene in them, and came to the conclusion that these manipulations improved the memory and intelligence of mice. Mutations are likely to have an impact on the intellectual abilities of the twins. By the way, it is possible that it was precisely this goal that He Jiankui pursued, hiding behind the theme of protection against HIV.
SPECIALIST COMMENT
What is the risk for?
Are we really on the verge of a new era when it will be possible to create Einsteins and Mendeleevs with the help of medical manipulations? We talked about this with the Doctor of Biological Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Genome Analysis Laboratory of the Institute of General Genetics. NI Vavilova by Svetlana Borinskaya.
Svetlana Aleksandrovna, how true are the assumptions that the intervention of a Chinese geneticist led to the birth of intellectually better people?
- There is no reason to think so. One experiment on mice proves nothing, not only for humans, but also for mice. It is argued that inactivation of the CCR5 protein increases the plasticity of nerve connections, that is, they are formed faster and are rebuilt faster. This is typical for animals and humans at a young age. As they grow older, plasticity decreases. Nature did not come up with this in vain. The acquired skills are selected, the useful ones are fixed (become less plastic), the not useful ones are eliminated. Adults hardly need to be as playful as children. While retaining learning ability is attractive. But a much greater reserve here is not in manipulating genes, but in improving the school curriculum. If at school they train only to solve the problems of the exam, then no genes will help develop creative thinking.
Why is everyone so up in arms against the Chinese geneticist? The scientist did a good deed, gave children a useful quality - immunity to HIV …
- Because he used a method whose safety is not clear at the moment. In addition to the changes outlined by the researcher, unpredictable changes in other parts of the genome can occur. Such methods - if there is a hope to benefit a person, to somehow improve his health - can be used on terminal patients for whom all the methods approved in medicine have not helped. Such methods cannot be used on human embryos. These children still live, and what could have happened to their genome is not known. The children's health did not require such intervention, the introduced mutation gives one of the two girls (meaning Chinese twins - Ed.) Resistance to HIV. But without this mutation, billions of people live. What is the risk for? Moreover, the second girl managed to change only one copy of the gene, and for stability it is necessary,so that the mutation is in both copies. That is, this girl's intervention was ineffectual. Experiments are performed on rabbits and mice, and then in compliance with research ethics. And here a pure experiment, which, in principle, cannot bring any benefit, was staged on children. It is unacceptable.
How do you think this story will end: the ban on interference with the human genome will be strengthened? Or will enthusiasts use such actions to ensure that the genie will still be released from the bottle and that editing of people will become widespread?
- In order to massively apply any methods, one must be sure that the benefits are greater than the risks. For genome editing, we are still far from this: the methods have not yet been worked out, their safety has not been confirmed. Genome modification technologies are still very young, and legal regulation does not yet take into account all aspects. Last year, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research launched about 40 projects developing this topic, and did so long before the sensation with Chinese children. It's just that the problem is ripe.
YAROSLAV KOROBATOV
