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

2019 Trin­i­ty Drug In­dex Eval­u­ates Ac­tu­al Com­mer­cial Per­for­mance of Nov­el Drugs Ap­proved in 2016

Fewer Approvals, but Neurology Rivals Oncology and Sees Major Innovations

This report, the fourth in our Trinity Drug Index series, outlines key themes and emerging trends in the industry as we progress towards a new world of targeted and innovative products. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2016, scoring each on its commercial performance, therapeutic value, and R&D investment (Table 1: Drug ranking – Ratings on a 1-5 scale).

UP­DAT­ED: FDA’s golodirsen CRL: Sarep­ta’s Duchenne drugs are dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, of­fer­ing on­ly a small ben­e­fit. And where's that con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al?

Back last summer, Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram told Duchenne MD families and investors that the FDA’s shock rejection of their second Duchenne MD drug golodirsen was due to some concerns regulators raised about the risk of infection and the possibility of kidney toxicity. But when pressed to release the letter for all to see, he declined, according to a report from BioPharmaDive, saying that kind of move “might not look like we’re being as respectful as we’d like to be.”

He went on to assure everyone that he hadn’t misrepresented the CRL.

But Ingram’s public remarks didn’t include everything in the letter, which — following the FDA’s surprise about-face and unexplained approval — has now been posted on the FDA’s website and broadly circulated on Twitter early Wednesday.

The CRL raises plenty of fresh questions about why the FDA abruptly decided to reverse itself and hand out an OK for a drug a senior regulator at the FDA believed — 5 months ago, when he wrote the letter — is dangerous to patients. It also puts the spotlight back on Sarepta $SRPT, which failed to launch a confirmatory study of eteplirsen, which was only approved after a heated internal controversy at the FDA. Ellis Unger, director of CDER’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, notes that study could have clarified quite a lot about the benefit and risks associated with their drugs — which can cost as much as a million dollars per patient per year, depending on weight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

How to cap­i­talise on a lean launch

For start-up biotechnology companies and resource stretched pharmaceutical organisations, launching a novel product can be challenging. Lean teams can make setting a launch strategy and achieving your commercial goals seem like a colossal undertaking, but can these barriers be transformed into opportunities that work to your brand’s advantage?
We spoke to Managing Consultant Frances Hendry to find out how Blue Latitude Health partnered with a fledgling subsidiary of a pharmaceutical organisation to launch an innovative product in a
complex market.
What does the launch environment look like for this product?
FH: We started working on the product at Phase II and now we’re going into Phase III trials. There is a significant unmet need in this disease area, and everyone is excited about the launch. However, the organisation is still evolving and the team is quite small – naturally this causes a little turbulence.

Wuhan virus out­break trig­gers in­evitable small-biotech ral­ly

Every few years, a public health crisis (think Ebola, Zika) spurred by a rogue pathogen triggers a small-biotech rally, as drugmakers emerge from the woodwork with ambitious plans to treat the mounting outbreak. In most cases, that enthusiasm never quite delivers.

Things are no different, as the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China takes hold. There have been close to 300 confirmed human infections in China, and at least four deaths. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, which include MERS and SARS. On Tuesday, the CDC reported the virus was detected in a US traveler returning from Wuhan.

Brex­it fears, Wood­ford woes over­shad­owed UK biotech and cut 2019 fi­nanc­ing by al­most half

The venture tide might have subsided, the IPO window may be closing and certain listed biotechs may be having a tough time amid Neil Woodford’s well-publicized demised, but there’s still plenty to celebrate in the UK BioIndustry Association’s eyes.

Overall investment in UK biotech last year fell from the record-breaking £2.2 billion levels of 2018 to £1.3 billion — including £679 million in venture capital, a meager £64 million in IPOs plus £596 million when you add up all public financings, according to a new report from the BIA.

Blue­print Med­i­cines po­ten­tial­ly de­lays Ay­vak­it de­ci­sion; Con­trol beats treat­ment in mesothe­lioma tri­al

→ Blueprint Medicines filed an amendment to its application to get the gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) drug Ayvakit approved in fourth-line GIST, the company disclosed in the prospectus for a new $325 million public offering.  Blueprint got a big accelerated OK on the drug this month in a particular mutation, but because the FDA decided to split their review in two, they didn’t hear on fourth-line GIST. They were supposed to hear before February 14, but this amendment could push that date back by 3 months. Blueprint wrote that the amendment is designed to allow the company to comply with the FDA’s request for data from the Phase III Voyage trial before they give a judgment.

Io­n­is, Akcea boost­ed by a pos­i­tive PhII for their No­var­tis castoff car­dio drug — and they plan to push ahead in­to piv­otals

Late last year Novartis abandoned a cardio drug from Ionis’ spinoff Akcea just after the pharma giant snapped up inclisiran, going the RNAi way in guarding against heart disease in the $9.7 billion Medco buyout.

Now the pharma goliath — which is headed down the PCSK9 road with a drug it believes can be used in a mass population — can get a clearer picture of just what they gave up.

Akcea $AKCA and the mother company $IONS put out a statement early Wednesday saying that their Phase II study of AKCEA-APOCIII-LR delivered solid efficacy data, with the high dose clearly outperforming placebo in significantly reducing triglycerides as a means to cutting the risk of cardiovascular disease. In addition, investigators concluded that the drug slashed apoC-III, very low-density lipoprotein and remnant cholesterol while boosting “good” HDL levels.

Hal Barron and Emma Walmsley, GSK

GSK’s ‘break­through’ BC­MA can­cer drug gets a pri­or­i­ty re­view — and a big win for the on­col­o­gy R&D team

After largely whiffing the past 2 years on the pharma R&D front, GlaxoSmithKline research chief Hal Barron has seized boasting rights to a key win that puts them back in the cancer drug development game.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Who are the young bio­phar­ma lead­ers shap­ing the in­dus­try? Nom­i­nate them for End­points' spe­cial re­port

Update: Nominations open through end of day, Monday, January 27

Two years ago, when we did our first Endpoints 20-under-40, we profiled a set of up-and-comers who promised to help reshape the industry as we know it. Now we’re back and once again looking for the top 20 biopharma professionals under the age of 40. We’ll be profiling folks who have accomplished a lot at a young age but seem on the verge of accomplishing so much more.