He Jiankui is seeking to reintegrate into the scientific community after serving a prison sentence for unethical practices related to creating the first designer babies. He plans to publish research on the genetically modified twins, Lulu and Nana, despite significant ethical concerns raised about his past work, which involved risky gene editing without proper consent. Critics argue that publishing his findings would undermine scientific integrity and potentially encourage future misconduct, prioritizing sensationalism over genuine scientific progress.
He Jiankui’s Quest for Redemption in Science
He Jiankui appears eager to make a return to the scientific community. The Chinese biophysicist has been sharing daily updates from his new laboratory in Beijing on X, stirring curiosity among the public. He gained notoriety six years ago when he created the first designer babies, twins Lulu and Nana. After facing a prison sentence of three years for “illegal medical practices,” He is now attempting to reclaim his position as a scientist.
The Controversial Push for Publication
In a recent announcement, He expressed his intention to publish previously unseen research on the genetically modified twins. He believes this step is essential for global scientific dialogue. Some researchers have argued that the release of this data is overdue, claiming it could offer valuable insights for humanity.
However, these calls for publication fail to consider the significant ethical concerns involved. He’s past actions were not only unethical but also violated established scientific guidelines. By using the CRISPR gene-editing technology, he attempted to modify a healthy gene, placing the twins at an unacceptable risk without sufficient benefit. The results were alarming, with unintended mutations that potentially heightened cancer risks for Lulu and Nana. Furthermore, the twins’ parents were inadequately informed and were reportedly coerced into participating in the experiments under false pretenses.
He plans to submit his work to a scientific journal, a move that raises serious ethical questions. Allowing this publication would undermine the integrity of scientific guidelines and could inadvertently glorify the unethical data collection process. It could also set a dangerous precedent, potentially inspiring similar misconduct in the future.
The possibility of He or others publishing these manuscripts in alternative formats, such as the blog “Retraction Watch,” also invites scrutiny. Rarely is it acceptable to utilize unethically obtained data, according to the established code of the American Medical Society. Such publication is only permissible under exceptional circumstances where the data is unique, lives are at stake, and findings have undergone rigorous validation.
While He’s work may be considered distinctive, it does not hold the potential to save lives. His failed experiment aimed to render the twins immune to HIV, yet effective treatments are now available that prevent the virus’s transmission. Independent researchers who have reviewed the manuscripts found them lacking in scientific rigor, raising ongoing concerns about the integrity of the data gathered by someone with a history of ethical violations.
Ultimately, the publication of this data serves merely to satisfy voyeuristic interests rather than contributing to scientific knowledge. The potential harm of legitimizing He’s unethical experiments outweighs any perceived benefits. Out of respect for the victims—Lulu, Nana, and their parents—it is imperative that this work remains unpublished, especially if it serves to elevate a controversial figure back into the limelight.