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

Im­ple­ment­ing re­silience in the clin­i­cal tri­al sup­ply chain

Since January 2020, the clinical trials ecosystem has quickly evolved to manage roadblocks impeding clinical trial integrity, and patient care and safety amid a global pandemic. Closed borders, reduced air traffic and delayed or canceled flights disrupted global distribution, revealing how flexible logistics and supply chains can secure the timely delivery of clinical drug products and therapies to sites and patients.

Pascal Soriot (AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: As­traZeneca, Ox­ford on the de­fen­sive as skep­tics dis­miss 70% av­er­age ef­fi­ca­cy for Covid-19 vac­cine

On the third straight Monday that the world wakes up to positive vaccine news, AstraZeneca and Oxford are declaring a new Phase III milestone in the fight against the pandemic. Not everyone is convinced they will play a big part, though.

With an average efficacy of 70%, the headline number struck analysts as less impressive than the 95% and 94.5% protection that Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have boasted in the past two weeks, respectively. But the British partners say they have several other bright spots going for their candidate. One of the two dosing regimens tested in Phase III showed a better profile, bringing efficacy up to 90%; the adenovirus vector-based vaccine requires minimal refrigeration, which may mean easier distribution; and AstraZeneca has pledged to sell it at a fraction of the price that the other two vaccine developers are charging.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vas Narasimhan, Novartis CEO (Jason Alden/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Vas Narasimhan's 'Wild Card' drugs: No­var­tis CEO high­lights po­ten­tial jack­pots, as well as late-stage stars, in R&D pre­sen­ta­tion

Novartis is always one of the industry’s biggest R&D spenders. As they often do toward the end of each year, company execs are highlighting the drugs they expect will most likely be winners in 2021.

And they’re also dreaming about some potential big-time lottery tickets.

As part of its annual investor presentation Tuesday, where the company allows investors and analysts to virtually schmooze with the bigwigs, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan will outline what he thinks are the pharma’s “Wild Cards.” The slate of five experimental drugs are those that Novartis hopes can be high-risk, high-reward entrants into the market over the next half-decade or so, and cover a wide range of indications.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The ad­u­canum­ab co­nun­drum: The PhI­II failed a clear reg­u­la­to­ry stan­dard, but no one is cer­tain what that means any­more at the FDA

Eighteen days ago, virtually all of the outside experts on an FDA adcomm got together to mug the agency’s Billy Dunn and the Biogen team when they presented their upbeat assessment on aducanumab. But here we are, more than 2 weeks later, and the ongoing debate over that Alzheimer’s drug’s fate continues unabated.

Instead of simply ruling out any chance of an approval, the logical conclusion based on what we heard during that session, a series of questionable approvals that preceded the controversy over the agency’s recent EUA decisions has come back to haunt the FDA, where the power of precedent is leaving an opening some experts believe can still be exploited by the big biotech.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Pur­due Phar­ma pleads guilty in fed­er­al Oxy­Con­tin probe, for­mal­ly rec­og­niz­ing it played a part in the opi­oid cri­sis

Purdue Pharma, the producer of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, admitted Tuesday that, yes, it did contribute to America’s opioid epidemic.

The drugmaker formally pleaded guilty to three criminal charges, the AP reported, including getting in the way of the DEA’s efforts to combat the crisis, failing to prevent the painkillers from ending up on the black market and encouraging doctors to write more painkiller prescriptions through two methods: paying them in a speakers program and directing a medical records company to send them certain patient information. Purdue’s plea deal calls for $8.3 billion in criminal fines and penalties, but the company is only liable for a fraction of that total — $225 million.

John Maraganore, Alnylam CEO (Scott Eisen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Al­ny­lam gets the green light from the FDA for drug #3 — and CEO John Maraganore is ready to roll

Score another early win at the FDA for Alnylam.

The FDA put out word today that the agency has approved its third drug, lumasiran, for primary hyperoxaluria type 1, better known as PH1. The news comes just 4 days after the European Commission took the lead in offering a green light.

An ultra rare genetic condition, Alnylam CEO John Maraganore says there are only some 1,000 to 1,700 patients in the US and Europe at any particular point. The patients, mostly kids, suffer from an overproduction of oxalate in the liver that spurs the development of kidney stones, right through to end stage kidney disease.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bob Nelsen (Photo by Michael Kovac/Getty Images)

Bob Nelsen rais­es $800M and re­cruits a star-stud­ded board to build the 'Fox­con­n' of biotech

Bob Nelsen spent his pandemic spring in his Seattle home, talking on the phone with Luciana Borio, the scientist who used to run pandemic preparedness on the National Security Council, and fuming with her about the dire state of American manufacturing.

Companies were rushing to develop vaccines and antibodies for the new virus, but even if they succeeded, there was no immediate supply chain or infrastructure to mass-produce them in a way that could make a dent in the outbreak.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Frank Zhang (AP Images)

Plot thick­ens around Leg­end Biotech, Gen­Script with founder Frank Zhang's ar­rest

Two months after Legend Biotech made the startling disclosure that founder and then-CEO Frank Zhang was placed under “residential surveillance,” its parent company revealed that he’s been formally arrested.

Zhang — who, since founding GenScript 18 years ago, has taken the CRO public and groomed Legend Biotech in-house until the J&J-partnered CAR-T player was mature enough for its own Nasdaq listing — is severing his final ties with both. He is resigning as board chair/non-executive director of GenScript and director of Legend.

Carl Hansen, AbCellera CEO (University of British Columbia)

From a pair of Air Jor­dans to a $200M-plus IPO, Carl Hansen is craft­ing an overnight R&D for­tune fu­eled by Covid-19

Back in the summer of 2019, Carl Hansen left his post as a professor at the University of British Columbia to go full time as the CEO at a low-profile antibody shop he had founded called AbCellera.

As biotech CEOs go, even after a fundraise Hansen wasn’t paid a whole heck of a lot. He ended up earning right at $250,000 for the year. His compensation package included a loan — which he later paid back — and a pair of Air Jordan tennis shoes. His newly-hired CFO, Andrew Booth, got a sweeter pay packet than that — which included his own pair of Air Jordans.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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