Jiankui He at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing, November 2018. (AP Images)

Chi­nese court sen­tences Jiankui He to 3 years in jail — and con­firms birth of 3rd CRISPR ba­by

A year af­ter shock­ing the world with the rev­e­la­tion that the world’s first CRISPR gene edit­ed ba­bies had been born, Jiankui He is go­ing to jail for three years.

The ini­tial tri­al found He — a for­mer pro­fes­sor at the South­ern Uni­ver­si­ty of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy in Shen­zhen who hadn’t been seen pub­licly for months — guilty of il­lic­it­ly prac­tic­ing med­i­cine along­side two oth­er re­searchers who as­sist­ed him in “il­le­gal­ly ex­e­cut­ing hu­man em­bryo edit­ing and re­pro­duc­tive med­ical ac­tiv­i­ties with re­pro­duc­tive pur­pos­es,” ac­cord­ing to state news agency Xin­hua. The trio were al­so fined about $640,000 (RMB$4.5 mil­lion) col­lec­tive­ly.

He’s con­tro­ver­sial ex­per­i­ment in­volved re­cruit­ing HIV pos­i­tive men and their wives for an IVF pro­ce­dure in which the sperm were “washed” and the em­bryo was ge­net­i­cal­ly tin­kered to in­ac­ti­vate the CCR5 gene — as one par­tic­u­lar mu­ta­tion, Δ32, had been tied to pro­tec­tion against the virus. While de­fend­ing his ac­tions at a Hong Kong con­fer­ence last No­vem­ber, He said the pro­tec­tion can free the chil­dren of stig­ma as­so­ci­at­ed with HIV.

A to­tal of three ba­bies, in­clud­ing twin girls with the pseu­do­nyms Lu­lu and Nana , were born as a re­sult. While He had made it clear that a third preg­nan­cy was un­der­way, the birth wasn’t con­firmed un­til to­day.

Sci­en­tists, bioethi­cists, biotech ex­ec­u­tives and re­search in­sti­tu­tions from around the world have since torn his case to pieces, ques­tion­ing every­thing from the med­ical need and the con­sent process to tech­ni­cal flaws and spot­ty da­ta.

The sen­tence af­firmed on­ly some of those wor­ries, no­tably find­ing that He and his as­so­ciates forged doc­u­ments of eth­i­cal ap­proval.

William Hurl­but, a Stan­ford bioethi­cist who has talked to He about his work, de­scribed it as a sad sto­ry in which every­one — He, his young fam­i­ly with a 1-year-old and a 3-year-old, his col­leagues, and his coun­try — lost. But it’s al­so awak­ened the world to “the se­ri­ous­ness of our ad­vanc­ing ge­net­ic tech­nolo­gies.”

“Re­gard­ing the ver­dict, that is a ju­di­cial is­sue and I am not fa­mil­iar with Chi­nese law on these mat­ters,” he wrote in a state­ment pro­vid­ed to End­points News. “Hav­ing said that, it is im­por­tant to re­al­ize that he did not act alone and re­ceived con­sid­er­able en­cour­age­ment and co­op­er­a­tion in his project—both with­in Chi­na and in­ter­na­tion­al­ly. It would be a mis­take to con­sid­er what he did to be dri­ven sim­ply by self­ish goals of fame and for­tune. I talked with him at great length and I can as­sure you that he al­so had strong­ly ide­al­is­tic mo­tives in what he was try­ing to do—and be­lieved he would bring hon­or to his na­tion.”

He con­tin­ued:

This means that we must take the oc­ca­sion not just to mete out pun­ish­ment, but to ini­ti­ate a se­ri­ous in­ter­na­tion­al dis­cus­sion about how to guide and gov­ern the ap­pli­ca­tion of our emerg­ing biotech­nol­o­gy.

Ki­ran Musunuru

While He’s sen­tence was longer than the oth­er two (Yin­li Zhang was sen­tenced to 2 years in jail and fined $140,000 while Jinzhou Qin gets 1 year and 6 months and $72,000 in fines), it ap­pears to be a “rel­a­tive­ly light sen­tence” ac­cord­ing to Ki­ran Musunuru, a gene edit­ing ex­pert at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia and a co-founder of Verve Ther­a­peu­tics.

“Ap­par­ent­ly the max­i­mum sen­tence un­der Chi­nese law is 10 years of jail — but it’s ac­tu­al­ly in line with the max­i­mum penal­ties for vi­o­lat­ing the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cos­met­ic Act which to me seems like the clos­est par­al­lel in U.S. law,” he wrote to End­points News.

The Peo­ple’s Court of Nan­shan Dis­trict of Shen­zhen ruled that He, Qin and Zhang or­ga­nized mul­ti­ple pre-IVF checks for prospec­tive par­ents, in­ject­ed gene edit­ing reagents banned in clin­i­cal set­tings in­to fer­til­ized em­bryos and tricked un­know­ing hos­pi­tal per­son­nel in­to im­plant­i­ng the em­bryos for preg­nan­cies. In do­ing so, their ac­tions verged be­yond sci­en­tif­ic ex­per­i­ments and should be con­sid­ered med­ical. Fur­ther­more, they al­so vi­o­lat­ed reg­u­la­tions that pro­hib­it­ed IVF pro­ce­dures for any­one with se­ri­ous her­i­ta­ble dis­eases (HIV in this case) and ethics guide­lines for­bid­ding the edit­ing of hu­man em­bryos.

Xin­hua re­port­ed that the case was tried in pri­vate on De­cem­ber 27 af­ter the procu­ra­torate (Chi­na’s pros­e­cu­tion and in­ves­ti­ga­tion body) pros­e­cut­ed on Ju­ly 31. He, Qin and Zhang pled guilty in court, per CCTV News.

The whole de­ba­cle be­gan in March 2017, the re­port stat­ed, when He au­tho­rized Qin — an em­bryo cul­ture tech­ni­cian and cell re­searcher at Lu­o­hu Hu­man Hos­pi­tal — to search for eight cou­ples with HIV-pos­i­tive hus­bands. They al­leged­ly arranged for some­one to stand in for six of them dur­ing med­ical tests as they wouldn’t oth­er­wise be el­i­gi­ble for IVF. He then asked Zhang, a re­searcher at the Guang­dong Peo­ple’s Hos­pi­tal, to forge eth­i­cal as­sess­ment doc­u­ments and lat­er in­ject CRISPR reagents they ob­tained from over­seas to fer­til­ized em­bryos from six cou­ples.

Ap­par­ent­ly be­tween May and June in 2018, the team al­so arranged for the oth­er two cou­ples to fly to Thai­land for em­bryo im­plan­ta­tion. One of the cou­ples’ em­bryos got CRISPR’d but the surgery failed to re­sult in a preg­nan­cy.

News of the ex­per­i­ment leaked in late No­vem­ber 2018 just as He was fi­nal­iz­ing a painstak­ing­ly planned pub­lic de­but of what he clear­ly as­sumed was a cel­e­brat­ed land­mark achieve­ment. In­stead, his em­ploy­er and coun­try prompt­ly dis­owned him and it elicit­ed a mael­strom of crit­i­cism high­light­ing fears that un­bri­dled hu­man em­bryo edit­ing could be dan­ger­ous from a sci­en­tif­ic, eth­i­cal, and so­ci­etal per­spec­tive.

Calls for a bind­ing glob­al mora­to­ri­um on hu­man clin­i­cal germline ex­per­i­men­ta­tion were made by a cadre of sci­en­tists, in­clud­ing those who orig­i­nal­ly de­vel­oped CRISPR/Cas9 as a gene edit­ing tool, un­til the safe­ty of the tech­nique has been es­tab­lished and a con­sen­sus on ac­cept­able use has been reached. The NIH sup­port­ed the call and a group of biotech ex­ecs fol­lowed suit.

Glob­al­ly, guide­lines vary wide­ly about the ex­tent (or lack there­of) of germline re­search — in­tro­duc­ing her­i­ta­ble changes to sperm, eggs or em­bryos — is per­mit­ted. Some re­gions ban it al­to­geth­er; some al­low lab re­search but not preg­nan­cies (like in the UK); while oth­ers have no poli­cies. In the US, the NIH does not fund germline re­search, but pri­vate fund­ing is sanc­tioned.

As part of guide­lines in­tro­duced in 2003, Chi­na re­quires projects that in­volve gene edit­ing to so­lic­it the ap­proval of ethics com­mit­tees be­fore they can be sanc­tioned. How­ev­er, those reg­u­la­tions pro­hib­it the im­plan­ta­tion of ge­net­i­cal­ly tweaked em­bryos in­to women or oth­er species. Fol­low­ing He’s eth­i­cal­ly du­bi­ous ex­per­i­ment, Chi­na up­dat­ed its draft reg­u­la­tions this Feb­ru­ary.

De­spite the unan­i­mous con­dem­na­tion, some in­clud­ing Musunuru ar­gue that He’s pa­pers should be pub­lished for the sci­en­tif­ic record and to keep oth­er rogue sci­en­tists in check. But that might seem even more un­like­ly now.

“In the Xin­hua an­nounce­ment about the jail sen­tence, it’s stat­ed that the sci­en­tists will be on a ‘black list’ and will have ‘life-long bans from var­i­ous types of sci­en­tif­ic re­search projects for fi­nan­cial sup­port’ — hard to know ex­act­ly what that means, but it sug­gests to me that they won’t be per­mit­ted to go back to do­ing sci­ence, which would make it hard for them to ever pub­lish their work in le­git­i­mate peer-re­viewed jour­nals,” Musunuru, who chron­i­cled the scan­dal in a book ti­tled The CRISPR Gen­er­a­tion, wrote.

Of­fi­cials told Xin­hua that the health au­thor­i­ties have com­mit­ted to fol­low-up vis­its and check­ups for all the ba­bies un­der their guardians’ con­sent.


With con­tri­bu­tion by Na­tal­ie Grover

BiTE® Plat­form and the Evo­lu­tion To­ward Off-The-Shelf Im­muno-On­col­o­gy Ap­proach­es

Despite rapid advances in the field of immuno-oncology that have transformed the cancer treatment landscape, many cancer patients are still left behind.1,2 Not every person has access to innovative therapies designed specifically to treat his or her disease. Many currently available immuno-oncology-based approaches and chemotherapies have brought long-term benefits to some patients — but many patients still need other therapeutic options.3

Fangliang Zhang (Imaginechina via AP Images)

The big mon­ey: Poised to make drug R&D his­to­ry, a Chi­na biotech un­veils uni­corn rac­ing am­bi­tions in a bid to raise $350M-plus on Nas­daq

Almost exactly three years after Shanghai-based Legend came out of nowhere to steal the show at ASCO with jaw-dropping data on their BCMA-targeted CAR-T for multiple myeloma, the little player with Big Pharma connections is taking a giant step toward making it big on Wall Street. And this time they want to seal the deal on a global rep after staking out a unicorn valuation in what’s turned out to be a bull market for biotech IPOs — in the middle of a pandemic.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Gilead re­leas­es an­oth­er round of murky remde­sivir re­sults

A month after the NIH declared the first trial on remdesivir in Covid-19 a success, Gilead is out with new results on their antiviral. But although the study met one of its primary endpoints, the data are likely to only add to a growing debate over how effective the drug actually is.

In a Phase III trial, patients given a 5-day dose of remdesivir were 65% more likely to show “clinical improvement” compared to an arm given standard-of-care. The trial, though, gave little indication for whether the drug had an impact on key endpoints such as survival or time-to-recovery. And in a surprising twist, a 10-day dosing arm of remdesivir didn’t lead to a statistically significant improvement over standard of care.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 81,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Iterum's fu­ture looks un­cer­tain, af­ter lead an­tibi­ot­ic fails con­sec­u­tive piv­otal stud­ies

While the market for antibiotics remains in tatters — unlike many of its bankrupt (or at the brink of bankruptcy) peers — Iterum is suffering not because its antibiotic isn’t selling, but because the compound has now failed back-to-back late-stage studies.

The experimental drug, sulopenem, was designed to tackle drug-resistant infections with an outpatient focus (in addition to hospitals), to avert those reimbursement challenges that incentivize hospitals to prescribe cheaper, generic broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Len Schleifer (left) and George Yancopoulos, Regeneron (Vimeo)

Eyes on he­mo­phil­ia prize, Re­gen­eron adds a $100M wa­ger on joint de­vel­op­ment cam­paign with In­tel­lia

When George Yancopoulos first signed up Intellia to be its CRISPR/Cas9 partner on gene editing projects 4 years ago, the upstart smartly ramped up its IPO at the same time. Today, Regeneron $REGN is coming back in, adding $100 million in an upfront fee and equity to significantly boot up a whole roster of new development projects.

And they’re highlighting some clinical hemophilia research plans in the process.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 81,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Covid-19 roundup: Did in­sid­ers cash in on pos­i­tive news re­port about Gilead be­fore pub­li­ca­tion?

A series of bullish trades on Gilead options just before the release of a favorable news story is raising questions among regulatory experts, Reuters reported.

On April 16, just hours before STAT published anecdotes from a Chicago hospital that served as one of the clinical sites to test Gilead’s remdesivir in Covid-19 patients, the California-based company’s shares were trading at around $75. Four large blocks of options were purchased for about $1.5 million each, betting that the stock would rise beyond that to as much as $87.5 by mid-August.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 81,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

IPOs abound in the time of coro­n­avirus, as For­ma Ther­a­peu­tics pen­cils in $150M Nas­daq de­but

The IPO engine is thriving, never mind the rampage of the coronavirus crisis on R&D timelines.

On Friday, along with synthetic lethality-focused biotech Repare Therapeutics, another Bristol Myers partner Forma Therapeutics also unveiled its plans to vault on to the Nasdaq — penciling in a target of $150 million.

The Watertown, Massachusetts-based company — which poached senior Genentech executive Frank Lee to take over the reins last year after more than a decade under founder Steve Tregay — raised a plump $100 million late last year, while shepherding its sickle cell disease (SCD) drug through an early-stage trial.

Jean-Jacques Bienaimé, BioMarin chairman and CEO

Bio­Marin holds the line on bleeds with 4-year val­rox up­date on he­mo­phil­ia A — but what's this about an­oth­er de­cline in Fac­tor 8 lev­els?

BioMarin has posted some top-line results for their 4-year followup on the most advanced gene therapy for hemophilia A — extending its streak on keeping a handful of patients free of bleeds and off Factor VIII therapy, but likely stirring fresh worries over a continued drop in Factor VIII levels.

We just don’t know how big a drop.

We’ll see more data when the results are presented at the World Federation of Hemophilia in a couple of weeks. But in a statement out Sunday night, BioMarin $BMRN reported that none of the patients required Factor VIII treatment, adding:

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 81,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche nabs front­line OK for Avastin/Tecen­triq in com­mon liv­er can­cer, best­ing an old Bay­er drug

For the first time in 12 years, the FDA has approved a new frontline treatment for the most common form of liver cancer.

The agency okayed a combination of Roche’s anti-VEGF antibody Avastin and their immunotherapy Tecentriq for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The approval comes two weeks after Roche and their big biotech sub Genentech published Phase III results showing the combo improved both progression-free survival and, crucially, helped patients live longer than the long-running standard-of-care, Bayer’s Nexavar.