Latest news with #Crispr
Business Times
23-05-2025
- Science
- Business Times
How to be a great thinker
MOST people are getting dumber. Largely because of the smartphone, we're in an era of declining attention spans, reading skills, numeracy and verbal reasoning. How to buck the trend? I've charted seven intellectual habits of the best thinkers. True, these people exist in a different league from the rest of us. To use an analogy from computing, their high processing power allows them to crunch vast amounts of data from multiple domains. In other words, they have intellectual overcapacity. Still, we can learn from their methods. These can sound obvious, but few people live by them. Read books. A book is still the best technology to convey the nuanced complexity of the world. That complexity is a check on pure ideology. People who want to simplify the world will prefer online conspiracy theories. Don't use screens much. That frees time for books and creates more interstitial moments when the mind is left unoccupied, has freedom to roam and makes new connections. Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche and Immanuel Kant experienced these moments on walks. The biochemist Jennifer Doudna says she gets insights when 'out weeding my tomato plants' or while asleep. Do your own work, not the world's. The best thinkers don't waste much time maximising their income or climbing hierarchies. Doudna left the University of California, Berkeley to lead discovery research at biotech company Genentech. She lasted two months there. Needing full scientific freedom, she returned to Berkeley, where she ended up winning the chemistry Nobel Prize for co-inventing the gene-editing tool Crispr. Be multidisciplinary. Pre-war Vienna produced thinkers including Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Hayek, Kurt Godel and the irreducible polymath John von Neumann. The structure of the city's university helped. Most subjects were taught within the faculties of either law or philosophy. That blurred boundaries between disciplines, writes Richard Cockett in Vienna: How the City of Ideas Created the Modern World. 'There were no arbitrary divisions between 'science' and 'humanities' – all was 'philosophy', in its purest sense, the study of fundamental questions.' BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Hayek, for instance, 'trained at home as a botanist to a quasi-professional level; he then graduated in law, received a doctorate in political science from the university, but... spent most of his time there studying psychology, all before becoming a revered economist.' Breaking through silos goes against the set-up of modern academia. It also requires unprecedented processing power, given how much knowledge has accumulated in each field. But insights from one discipline can still revolutionise another. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for economics for his findings on human irrationality. Be an empiricist who values ideas. During World War II, Isaiah Berlin was first secretary at the British embassy in Washington. His weekly reports on the American political situation were brilliant empirical accounts of the world as it was. They mesmerised Winston Churchill, who was desperate to meet Berlin. (Due to a mix-up, Churchill invited Irving Berlin for lunch instead. The composer was baffled to be asked by Churchill himself: 'When do you think the European war will end?') In March 1944, Isaiah Berlin returned from Washington to London on a bomber plane. He had to wear an oxygen mask all flight, wasn't allowed to sleep for fear he would suffocate, and couldn't read as there was no light. 'One was therefore reduced to a most terrible thing,' he recalled, 'to having to think – and I had to think for about seven or eight hours in this bomber.' During this long interstitial moment, Berlin decided to become an historian of ideas. He ended up writing the classic essays The Hedgehog and the Fox and Two Concepts of Liberty. Always assume you might be wrong. Mediocre thinkers prefer to confirm their initial assumptions. This 'confirmation bias' stops them reaching new or deeper insights. By contrast, Darwin was always composing arguments against his own theories. Keep learning from everyone. Only mediocrities boast as adults about where they went to university aged 18. They imagine that intelligence is innate and static. In fact, people become more or less intelligent through life, depending on how hard they think. The best thinkers are always learning from others, no matter how young or low-status. I remember being at a dinner table where the two people who talked least and listened hardest were the two Nobel laureates. FINANCIAL TIMES
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Gene editing cures child of rare disease in world first
A child with an extremely rare genetic disorder has become the first to be genetically edited for his disease in a breakthrough for people suffering from uncommon conditions. KJ Muldoon was born with a rare metabolic disease known as severe carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1 (CPS1) deficiency, which causes a build-up of ammonia and can result in brain damage and organ failure. It affects fewer than one in a million people, so there is little incentive for pharmaceutical companies to find a treatment. But in a medical first, doctors at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Penn Medicine, used the genetic editing tool Crispr to correct the defect in his DNA which causes the condition. Crispr, which acts like genetic scissors to alter genetic code, is already being used for diseases such as sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia which affect hundreds of thousands of people. It is hoped the technique could be adapted to treat individuals with rare diseases for whom no medical treatments are available. 'Years and years of progress in gene editing and collaboration between researchers and clinicians made this moment possible, and while KJ is just one patient, we hope he is the first of many to benefit from a methodology that can be scaled to fit an individual patient's needs,' said Dr Rebecca Ahrens-Nicklas, director of the Gene Therapy for Inherited Metabolic Disorders Frontier Programme (GTIMD) at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 'While KJ will need to be monitored carefully for the rest of his life, our initial findings are quite promising.' The personal treatment was developed in just six months and delivered via fatty nanoparticles injected into the liver to correct a faulty enzyme which causes the overproduction of ammonia. KJ spent the first months of his life in hospital, living a very restricted diet before receiving the first round of his bespoke therapy in February, when he was around seven months old. He has since had two more injections and doctors say he is now growing well and thriving and has been able to go home. Kyle Muldoon, KJ's father, said: 'We've been in the thick of this since KJ was born, and our whole world's been revolving around this little guy and his stay in the hospital. 'We're so excited to be able to finally be together at home so that KJ can be with his siblings, and we can finally take a deep breath.' Typically, patients with CPS1 deficiency are treated with a liver transplant, but they need to be old enough to handle such a major procedure. During that time, episodes of increased ammonia can put patients at risk for ongoing, lifelong brain damage or even prove fatal. Dr Kiran Musunuru, professor for translational research in Penn's Perelman School of Medicine, said: 'We want each and every patient to have the potential to experience the same results we saw in this first patient, and we hope that other academic investigators will replicate this method for many rare diseases and give many patients a fair shot at living a healthy life. 'The promise of gene therapy that we've heard about for decades is coming to fruition, and it's going to utterly transform the way we approach medicine.' Commenting on the research, Dr Alena Pance, senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Hertfordshire, said: 'Crispr-based therapy has been used to correct genetic diseases before. The approach in the paper is applicable to this specific form of the disease. 'The approach is applicable to any disease caused by a single nucleotide change, however more often than not, diseases are caused by a variety of variants so perhaps more general strategies could be more effective than very precise ones.' The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
WIRED
15-05-2025
- Health
- WIRED
A Baby Received a Custom Crispr Treatment in Record Time
May 15, 2025 1:00 PM Scientists were able to create a bespoke treatment for KJ Muldoon's rare genetic disorder within six months. It could be a blueprint for potentially life-saving, gene-editing Crispr therapies. Photograph: Muldoon Family Last August, KJ Muldoon was born with a potentially fatal genetic disorder. Just six months later, he received a Crispr treatment designed just for him. Muldoon has a rare disorder known as CPS1 deficiency, which causes a dangerous amount of ammonia to build up in the blood. About half of babies born with it will die early in life. Current treatment options—a highly restrictive diet and liver transplantation—aren't ideal. But a team at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine was able to bypass the standard years-long drug development timeline and use Cripsr to create a personalized medicine for KJ in a matter of months. 'We had a patient who was facing a very, very devastating outcome,' says Kiran Musunuru, professor for translational research at the University of Pennsylvania and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who was part of the team that made KJ's treatment. When KJ was born, his muscles were rigid, he was lethargic, and he wouldn't eat. After three doses of his custom treatment, KJ is starting to hit developmental milestones his parents never thought they'd see him reach. He's now able to eat certain foods and sit upright by himself. 'He really has made tremendous strides,' his father Kyle Muldoon says. The case is detailed today in a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine and was presented at the American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy annual meeting in New Orleans. It could provide a blueprint for making customized gene-editing treatments for other patients with rare diseases that have few or no medical treatments available. When the body digests protein, ammonia is made in the process. An important enzyme called CPS1 helps clear this toxic byproduct, but people with CPS1 deficiency lack this enzyme. Too much ammonia in the system can lead to organ damage, and even brain damage and death. Since KJ's birth, he has been on special ammonia-reducing medicines and a low-protein diet. After receiving the bespoke Crispr drug, though, KJ was able to go on a lower dose of the medication and start eating more protein without any serious side effects. He's still in the hospital, but his doctors hope to send him home in the next month or so. Both KJ's parents and his medical team stop short of calling the Crispr therapy a cure, but they say it's promising to see his improvement. 'It's still very early, so we will need to continue to watch KJ closely to fully understand the full effects of this therapy,' says Rebecca Ahrens-Nicklas, director of the Gene Therapy for Inherited Metabolic Disorders Frontier Program at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Penn Medicine, who led the effort with Musunuru. She says the Crispr treatment probably turned KJ's severe deficiency into a milder form of the disease, but he may still need to be on medication in the future. Ahrens-Nicklas and Musunuru teamed up in 2023 to explore the feasibility of creating customized gene-editing therapies for individual patients. They decided to focus on urea cycle disorders, a group of genetic metabolic conditions that affect the body's ability to process ammonia that includes CPS1 deficiency. Often, patients require a liver transplant. While the procedure is possible in infants, it's medically complex. Ahrens-Nicklas and Musunuru saw an opportunity to find another path. When KJ was born, the researchers used genome sequencing to determine the specific genetic mutation driving his disease. It turns out KJ had actually inherited two different mutations in the CPS1 gene—one from each parent. The team decided to target the mutation that had been reported before in an unrelated patient known to have severe CPS1 deficiency; the other hadn't been seen before. KJ's team turned to Crispr, the Nobel Prize-winning technology that can precisely edit DNA. So far, only one Crispr-based medicine is commercially available. Approved in late 2023, it treats sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia. Other Crispr-based therapies are in development for more common diseases that affect tens or hundreds of thousands of patients. The allure of Crispr is its potential to directly address the underlying genetic cause of a disease rather than simply treat symptoms, as the vast majority of current medicine does. The approved Crispr therapy, Casgevy, is given as a one-time treatment. But the Philadelphia-led team specifically designed KJ's therapy to be redosable out of safety concerns, starting with a low dose to ensure there were no adverse effects. Terry Horgan, a 27-year-old with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, passed away in 2022 shortly after receiving the first known custom Crispr treatment. His death was likely due to a reaction to the virus used to deliver the Crispr molecules. For KJ's treatment, researchers used a version of Crispr called base editing that can change one 'letter' in a DNA sequence to another. They packaged the base-editing components in tiny bubbles called lipid nanoparticles, which were then delivered via an IV infusion. Before it could be given to KJ though, it was tested for safety in mice and monkeys. Since the drug was unapproved, the team needed permission from the Food and Drug Administration to use the experimental treatment in an individual patient. The researchers applied to the FDA on February 14 and received approval on February 21. They gave KJ his first dose on February 25. 'The clinical responses described are impressive,' says Timothy Yu, a neurologist at Boston Children's Hospital who wasn't involved in making KJ's treatment. He says the Philadelphia team's approach was a 'very thoughtful and comprehensive end-to-end process.' Yu's lab has been working on customized genetic medicines based on antisense oligonucleotides, or ASOs—short molecules that block the production of proteins. Yu developed a personalized ASO in 10 months for a young girl with Batten disease, a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disorder. The treatment was dubbed milasen, after the patient, Mila. It was the first medicine that was tailor-made to treat a single patient's genetic mutation. The treatment temporarily improved Mila's condition and quality of life, but ultimately, she died in February 2021 at 10 years old. 'The superpower of Crispr base editing is its broad applicability to many types of genetic mutations. Its kryptonite is that we are in the very early days of demonstrating efficient and safe Crispr delivery to many different organs,' Yu says. ASOs, meanwhile, are well vetted for use in the brain, spinal cord, and eye, which are more difficult to address with Crispr. Crispr could potentially address a variety of genetic diseases and types of cancer, but getting it to the right place in the body remains a challenge. The approved Crispr medicine, Casgevy, involves removing a patient's cells and editing them outside the body, an arduous and expensive process. A drug given directly to the body would be much more practical. The liver is an easy first target because lipid nanoparticles naturally gravitate there, but only some diseases can be treated in this way. Since urea cycle disorders primarily originate in the liver, they could be a prime target for custom Crispr medicines. 'We've just written a new playbook,' says Fyodor Urnov, scientific director at the Innovative Genomics Institute at UC Berkeley, who collaborated on the paper. Urnov says KJ's case demonstrates that bespoke genetic treatments can be made quickly and used successfully to treat critically ill patients. 'This could have failed in so many ways,' he says. 'Nothing was a given.' Every day, he worried that KJ would pass away before they could finish making the therapy. The team did not say exactly how much the therapy cost to produce, but Musunuru says it was comparable to the cost of a liver transplant, around $800,000. The companies involved in manufacturing—Aldevron, Danaher, and Integrated DNA Technologies—made in-kind contributions. 'Though it will take a lot of work to get there, my hope is that someday no rare disease patients will die prematurely from misspellings in their genes, because we'll be able to correct them,' Musunuru says.
Mint
08-05-2025
- Science
- Mint
Gene editing: Is humanity ready to rewrite the book of life?
When Watson and Crick discovered DNA's double helix in 1953, humanity stumbled upon something miraculous and menacing: the ability to edit genes. Not read them, not mildly tweak them, but rewrite them with a divinity complex. Think of it as opening Microsoft Word and creating your fantasy appearance. Rainbow-coloured eyes? Sure. Sounds amazing? It is. Terrifying? Definitely. Gene editing is like Prometheus handing humanity the genetic matchstick—except this time, instead of fire, we're toying with the instruction manual of life. It all started innocently enough, back in the 1970s, when scientists like Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen created recombinant DNA, enabling direct gene manipulation across species barriers. The 1980s saw the first genetically modified organisms and transgenic animals, while the 1990s brought the ambitious Human Genome Project. Also Read: Genetically engineered animals are here: Regulation mustn't get left behind By 2003, scientists had mapped 92% of humanity's complete genetic blueprint. The pace quickened with the 2012 invention of Crispr-Cas9, the tool that democratized precise genetic modification through its relative simplicity and affordability. In one bold move, we accelerated both progress and ethical concerns. Crispr tech is precise, cheap and fast. It is already being used to cure genetic diseases. Between 2023-25, the UK and US approved therapies that cured—and not just treated— sickle cell anaemia. Patients who lived their lives with chronic pain and blood transfusions are now free of the illness . Crispr tech do-it-yourself kits can be bought online. It sounds like a great Diwali gift, until someone starts editing mosquitoes to spread designer viruses or resurrects smallpox as a prank. Amazing and terrifying. Scientists, meanwhile, are re-programming immune cells to target tumours with high precision. Plant engineering is equally promising. We could soon have drought-resistant rice and bananas that resist going brown. More nutritious and resilient crops that can withstand climate change could revolutionize food security worldwide. Also Read: Colossal Biosciences' dire wolf pups aren't proof of gene-tech defeating extinction As for genetic re-engineering being a bugbear, the Lulu and Nana controversy is a prime example. It involved twin girls born in November 2018 who were the world's first known genetically modified humans, edited as embryos by scientist He Jiankui. He introduced a mutation to make the gene HIV resistant (the girls' father was HIV-positive while their mother wasn't). His secret research was exposed when documents appeared in China's clinical trials registry and other international publications. The case highlighted the reality of designer babies and underscored the urgent need for an international oversight and governance framework. Genetic inequality has moved beyond science fiction. Today, gene enhancement is available, even if only at a prohibitive cost. Cloning is another contentious issue that hit the news in 1996, with Dolly being the first cloned mammal. While animal cloning is practised in agriculture and conservation, human cloning remains ethically questionable and mainly in the realm of science fiction. Also Read: Genetic studies: Let's cast a wider DNA net The question of whether human genes should be patented is a hotly contested one. While patents incentivize research and drive innovation, critics argue that naturally occurring genes belong to the entire human race. A 2013 US Supreme Court ruling against Myriad Genetics that invalidated patents on naturally occurring genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2 (linked to breast cancer) set a legal precedent. Yet, synthetic or significantly altered genetic sequences remain patentable. Now let's then address the 'mammoth' in the room. Are we headed for a real-life Jurassic Park? The short answer is 'no.' We can't recreate dinosaurs. DNA degrades too fast, with a half-life of about 521 years. The longer answer is 'kind of.' Colossal Biosciences, a US startup, is working on bringing back woolly mammoths by modifying Asian-elephant DNA. It has tried to resurrect the dodo and dire wolf. This is called 'de-extinction,' but critics call it 'bio-dramatics with unpredictable ecological consequences." Let's not sugar-coat it. Gene modification could widen an already yawning gap between the haves and have-nots. Imagine rich engineered babies growing taller, smarter and resistant to everything except bad wi-fi, while the poor are stuck in queues for basic vaccines. Left unchecked, this could usher in genetic caste systems. Humanity, never one to resist temptation, has already produced some genetic oddities. Nasa has gene-edited mice to grow larger muscles in space. Scientists are now editing weed to remove the high THC and preserve its medicinal value. And there are also glow-in-the-dark pets: fluorescent cats, pigs and even bunnies. Also Read: What does a woolly mammoth have in common with Mars? Nothing, except neither will solve Earth's problems Gene-editing is a tool like fire or nuclear energy. Used wisely, it can rid us of suffering, feed billions and save species. Used recklessly, it can usher in a genetic dystopia. The current thinking in science and bioethics is cautiously optimistic. Therapeutic editing is okay, enhancement for aesthetics, intellect or athleticism is hotly debated and editing embryos for heritable traits is mostly banned or heavily restricted, while reviving dinosaurs is not on. As Dr Ian Malcolm grumbled in Jurassic Park : 'Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." It's finally time to confront that dilemma. The author is a technology advisor and podcast host.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Don't call me Chinese Frankenstein, says jailed scientist who tinkered with baby DNA
The Chinese scientist who was imprisoned for secretly creating the world's first genetically-engineered babies has claimed he will be remembered as China's Charles Darwin for ultimately eliminating natural selection. He Jiankui, who shocked the scientific world in 2018 when he said he had rewritten the DNA of two twins, Lulu and Nana, told The Telegraph that he had no regrets over the controversial experiment. An investigation by Chinese authorities – which also revealed a third gene-edited baby – resulted in a three-year prison sentence. 'I hope people remember me as the 'Chinese Darwin' in 50 years,' said Mr He, who asked to be called a 'pioneer of gene editing'. Mr He's defence of his work contrasts with his public image. He was dubbed 'China's Frankenstein' when it first emerged that he had illegally carried out gene editing on babies. He was sentenced to three years in jail in 2019. While the case shocked the world at the time, but Mr He claimed he will be proved to have been on the right side of history. He predicted that countries, including the UK, would legalise gene editing in humans within the next two years – as he claims it would allow people to cure Alzheimer's and cancer. The cost, he says, will be a few thousand dollars, suggesting that most parents will choose to edit embryos' DNA. The scientist has returned to a laboratory in China after leaving prison in 2022, and has proposed resuming his research to eliminate Alzheimer's disease. However, Mr He admitted that he was 'deeply worried' about where his work could ultimately lead. Genetic editing – effectively cutting out parts of DNA and replacing it to alter genetic makeup – has been the subject of lab experiments for decades, as well as being a plentiful source of inspiration for science fiction. However, editing humans was seen as an ethical and scientific minefield, and was widely banned. Mr He disregarded these concerns to conduct his own experiment on unborn babies. He ultimately announced on YouTube that 'two beautiful little Chinese girls, Lulu and Nana, came crying into the world as healthy as any other babies' after having their genetic code altered. Mr He was a relative unknown in the cutting-edge field of gene editing. The son of rice farmers in China, he was a promising student and had won a scholarship to study in the US, including a fellowship at California's revered Stanford University before returning to China. However, he had not made an enormous impression on senior academics and so his announcement seemingly came from nowhere. He was just 34 when the scandal broke. The twins' genes had been tweaked as IVF embryos using the Crispr gene editing technique to make them more resistant to HIV, which their father had contracted. 'I understand this work will be controversial,' Mr He said at the time, but added: 'I am willing to take the criticism.' The backlash came swiftly. Shenzhen's Southern University of Science and Technology, where Mr He worked, distanced itself from the research. The experiment was slammed as deeply unethical, as well as medically unnecessary, and it was alleged that the twins' parents were not fully consulted about the potential risks. In 2019, Mr He was arrested and sentenced to prison, with a court saying he had carried out 'illegal medical practices' while 'seeking fame and wealth'. It emerged that he had raised millions of investment for his own biotech start-ups. Mr He declined to answer questions about his prison experience. However, he said he did not harbour any regrets over his work: 'If I go back to 2018, I will do it again, in exactly the same way.' He said the response from the scientific community was unwarranted, but not unusual. 'I thought I had helped two families and their parents appreciated me. I did not expect that the world would respond so badly,' Mr He said. 'I once thought it is unfair. But now, I believe it is fair. Every pioneer or prophet must suffer.' Mr He has compared himself to Edward Jenner, the English physician who discovered the smallpox vaccine and was initially mocked for his work. Satirists claimed patients would grow cow horns after being inoculated. Last year, Mr He said he was attacked as he walked into his car, suffering multiple injuries, and that his assailant had been staking out his office for a week before the assault. Despite the public backlash, the scientist said the gene-edited twins – as well as a third baby born to a different mother – are healthy and living normal lives. Since his imprisonment, gene therapy, a less controversial treatment involving introducing new genes to fight disease, has made major breakthroughs. And gene editing has also advanced in the lab, including the recent creation of a 'woolly mouse' as a potential step to reviving the woolly mammoth. However, seven years later, there is little sign of human gene editing experiments being repeated again. China tightened up gene editing laws after Mr He's case, and the practice remains illegal in major countries as well as strongly discouraged by the World Health Organisation. Mr He has hit out at the scientific community that condemned him, saying Crispr's pioneers have wasted billions without helping patients. After prison, he returned to the lab at the Wuchang University of Technology in Wuhan, the city that was cradle of the pandemic. Mr He ducked the question of whether Covid-19 might have escaped from a lab, saying he has no idea. He is now working at a research park in Beijing 'with the help of an assistant and a few interns'. A photographer is also frequently present, it appears. Mr He frequently posts on X, pronouncing one-sentence assertions such as 'Tinkering with human embryos will certainly be worth the risk' and 'Gene editing in human embryos will be as popular as iPhone' with portrait photos of himself in the lab. Unnamed Chinese and American companies are funding his work, Mr He has said. No funding has come from the Chinese government, he said. One person who has reportedly offered to finance his work is Ryan Shea, a US cryptocurrency entrepreneur, who praised him as a 'brave scientist ... willing to challenge conventional wisdom'. However, Mr He insisted that gene editing should benefit society 'rather than servicing a few rich men'. Mr He recently released a research proposal for a gene editing experiment aimed at fighting Alzheimer's – a disease that has no effective drug – with a mutation that may decrease the disease's impact. His research proposal states that it will first be tested on mice, and then human embryos, but 'no human embryo will be implanted for pregnancy'. He insisted his revolution is moving forward. In November, South Africa's national health department revised its ethics guidelines in a way that appeared to allow for genome editing, something that has also provoked an ethical outcry. 'The first gene edited baby after my work will be born in South Africa in two years,' Mr He said, predicting that the UK, Japan, Korea and Canada will follow. There is little sign of British laws being changed to allow human gene editing, although a citizens' jury of people with genetic conditions overwhelmingly voted in favour of the idea in a project organised by the University of Cambridge in 2023. Mr He argued that governments should pay 'in full' for the treatment, given how much it will ease the burden on health services. Editing embryos' DNA will not only eliminate Alzheimer's but 'permanently eradicate cancer', he claimed. However, gene editing presents more than just economic and health concerns. There are ethical questions, too. The rise of genetic editing techniques has raised the prospect of designer babies: embryos edited for eye-colour, athletic ability or intelligence. Mr He has said he opposed allowing billionaires to create superior children, and that we should ban gene editing for these purposes. But he does worry that his experiments have started to erase natural selection in a way that will be difficult to control. Despite his hope to one day be remembered as the 'Chinese Darwin', Mr He admitted he is 'deeply worried that one day humans will no longer be controlled by Darwin's evolution'. If that prediction comes true, Mr He will certainly be part of the story, for good or bad. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
