Close­ly-watched in­ter­na­tion­al CRISPR ethics pan­el leaves door ajar for germline edit­ing — one day

In 2017, some of the world’s top sci­en­tists and ethi­cists emerged from over a year of de­lib­er­a­tions with a re­port meant to fi­nal­ly lay down guid­ing prin­ci­ples for how CRISPR, the awe­some-pow­er-awe­some-re­spon­si­bil­i­ty genome edit­ing tool, should be safe­ly and moral­ly used.

Then, just months lat­er, a sci­en­tist named He Jiankui an­nounced he had used the tool to ed­it em­bryos and cre­ate so-called “CRISPR ba­bies.” That was baf­fling to the ex­perts who uni­ver­sal­ly preached cau­tion, but so was his next claim: That he had done so while fol­low­ing the — in hind­sight, vague — prin­ci­ples set out in the re­port.

So the sci­en­tists went back to the draw­ing board. Less than two years af­ter the ini­tial project, the Na­tion­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences launched a sec­ond pan­el to pro­duce a re­port less open to in­ter­pre­ta­tion.

Yes­ter­day, they re­leased the re­sults. Un­like the pre­vi­ous re­port, the new one starts with a list of de­clar­a­tive and un­am­bigous de­c­la­ra­tions: With­out clos­ing the door on edit­ing em­bryos, the pan­el con­clud­ed that the sci­en­tif­ic tools were not yet avail­able to do so safe­ly, and even when they were avail­able, they could on­ly be eth­i­cal­ly ap­plied in a nar­row set of cir­cum­stances. They al­so called for the cre­ation of in­ter­na­tion­al bod­ies that could coun­sel sci­en­tists and gov­ern­ments and track re­ports of sci­en­tists, such as He Jiankui, car­ry­ing out po­ten­tial­ly du­bi­ous projects.

One of the key points of con­tention around the 2017 re­port was the ques­tion of where germline edit­ing may one day be al­low­able. These types of ed­its are par­tic­u­lar­ly con­cern­ing be­cause, un­like edit­ing cells in an adult, the changes to the genome be­come her­i­ta­ble, al­ter­ing hu­man evo­lu­tion. There are al­so con­cerns around con­sent — the per­son be­ing edit­ed can’t give it. Still, the 2017 pan­el ruled that such an ed­it might be used in cas­es of “se­ri­ous, un­met med­ical need.” He in­ter­pret­ed that to cov­er a gene that af­fect­ed HIV trans­mis­sion. Many oth­er schol­ars did not.

The new guide­lines are far more tai­lored. Ini­tial us­es, they write, should be “lim­it­ed to se­ri­ous mono­genic dis­eases,” ones that “cause se­vere mor­bid­i­ty or death.” That could in­clude mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy, be­ta-tha­lassemia, cys­tic fi­bro­sis, and Tay-Sachs dis­ease, among oth­ers, they write. No­tably, they ex­clude dis­eases caused by mul­ti­ple genes, even when a par­tic­u­lar gene vari­ant such as APOE4 in Alzheimer’s puts some­one at a greater risk of de­vel­op­ing that dis­ease. APOE4, they note, on­ly cor­re­lates with a 5% greater risk of Alzheimer’s be­tween ages 60 and 69.

Richard Lifton

“Edit­ing a gene vari­ant as­so­ci­at­ed with a com­plex dis­ease is like­ly to have on­ly a mi­nor ef­fect on the risk of de­vel­op­ing that dis­ease,” the re­port’s au­thors, chaired by Ox­ford’s Kay Davies and Rock­e­feller Uni­ver­si­ty’s Richard Lifton, write, “while al­so po­ten­tial­ly in­tro­duc­ing un­known ef­fects be­cause of oth­er bi­o­log­i­cal roles the gene may play and oth­er ge­net­ic net­works in which it may in­ter­act.”

Even in cas­es of se­vere mono­genic dis­eases, though, CRISPR use would be se­vere­ly cur­tailed. With IVF and neo-na­tal screen, doc­tors can al­ready screen em­bryos for Tay-Sachs and oth­er con­di­tions and se­lect the best ones. So such ed­its would on­ly be per­mis­si­ble in cas­es where there are no al­ter­na­tives, such as when every one of a prospec­tive par­ent’s em­bryos car­ry the ge­net­ic vari­ant. The ed­it would al­so have to cor­rect a vari­ant in­to the com­mon form of the gene, elim­i­nat­ing the form of edit­ing He used, where he tried to crip­ple the CCR5 gene HIV us­es to en­ter cells.

And edit­ing for those dis­or­ders would on­ly be per­mis­si­ble once sci­en­tif­ic tech­niques catch up to these sci­en­tif­ic ideas, the au­thors wrote, which they haven’t. Sci­ence writ­ers have com­pared us­ing CRISPR to edit­ing the hu­man genome like a Word doc­u­ment, but it might be more apt to com­pare it to edit­ing a Word doc­u­ment on cof­fee-stained key­board. It works of­ten, but in­vari­ably there are un­want­ed changes both at the site of the ed­it and oth­er sites on the genome.

The re­port warns strong­ly against germline edit­ing be­fore re­searchers de­vel­op meth­ods to not on­ly sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly ed­it em­bryos with­out those un­in­tend­ed changes, but to ad­e­quate­ly screen the em­bryos to as­sure they’ve been edit­ed safe­ly.

Kay Davies

“No at­tempt to es­tab­lish a preg­nan­cy with a hu­man em­bryo that has un­der­gone genome edit­ing should pro­ceed un­less and un­til it has been clear­ly es­tab­lished that it is pos­si­ble to ef­fi­cient­ly and re­li­ably make pre­cise ge­nom­ic changes with­out un­de­sired changes in hu­man em­bryos,” they write in rec­om­men­da­tion #1. “These cri­te­ria have not yet been met and fur­ther re­search and re­view would be nec­es­sary to meet them.”

While cau­tion­ing that de­ci­sions on germline edit­ing are left to in­di­vid­ual coun­tries, the re­port calls for in­ter­na­tion­al bod­ies that could set rec­om­men­da­tions and man­age re­ports of un­eth­i­cal be­hav­ior. That would in­clude an In­ter­na­tion­al Sci­en­tif­ic Ad­vi­so­ry Pan­el with “di­verse, mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary mem­ber­ship” and “in­de­pen­dent ex­perts who can as­sess sci­en­tif­ic ev­i­dence of safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy of both genome edit­ing and as­so­ci­at­ed as­sist­ed re­pro­duc­tive tech­nolo­gies.” That pan­el would give in­sight be­fore any new form of germline edit­ing was used in hu­mans.

The un­spec­i­fied body for re­port­ing un­eth­i­cal be­hav­ior would pass those con­cerns to na­tion­al au­thor­i­ties and pub­licly dis­close them. No­tably, mul­ti­ple sci­en­tists knew of He’s work be­fore the an­nounce­ment but said they lacked au­thor­i­ties to re­port to.

Since He’s an­nounce­ment – which ul­ti­mate­ly land­ed him a 3-year prison sen­tence in Chi­na — there have been no oth­er known cas­es of a re­searcher edit­ing an em­bryo be­fore preg­nan­cy. A Russ­ian sci­en­tist, though, has pur­sued a project to cor­rect blind­ness in em­bryos, rais­ing sim­i­lar alarm among out­side ex­perts. He told Sci­ence’s Jon Co­hen he op­posed the new rec­om­men­da­tions as “far too nar­row.”

Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos (via Getty Images)

With ad­u­canum­ab caught on a cliff, Bio­gen’s Michel Vounatsos bets bil­lions on an­oth­er high-risk neu­ro play

With its FDA pitch on the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab hanging perilously close to disaster, Biogen is rolling the dice on a $3.1 billion deal that brings in commercial rights to one of the other spotlight neuro drugs in late-stage development — after it already failed its first Phase III.

The big biotech has turned to Sage Therapeutics for its latest deal, close to a year after the crushing failure of Sage-217, now dubbed zuranolone, in the MOUNTAIN study.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pascal Soriot (AP Images)

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 94,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Jason Kelly, Ginkgo Bioworks CEO (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Af­ter Ko­dak de­ba­cle, US lends $1.1B to a syn­thet­ic bi­ol­o­gy com­pa­ny and their big Covid-19, mR­NA plans

In mid-August, as Kodak’s $765 million government-backed push into drug manufacturing slowly fell apart in national headlines, Ginkgo Bioworks CEO Jason Kelly got a message from his company’s government liaison: HHS wanted to know if they, too, might want a loan.

The government’s decision to lend Kodak three quarters of a billion dollars raised eyebrows because Kodak had never made drugs before. But Ginkgo, while not a manufacturing company, had spent the last decade refining new ways to produce materials inside cells and building automated facilities across Boston.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,300+ 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.

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

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 94,300+ 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 94,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

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.

In fi­nal days at Mer­ck, Roger Perl­mut­ter bets big on a lit­tle-known Covid-19 treat­ment

Roger Perlmutter is spending his last days at Merck, well, spending.

Two weeks after snapping up the antibody-drug conjugate biotech VelosBio for $2.75 billion, Merck announced today that it had purchased OncoImmune and its experimental Covid-19 drug for $425 million. The drug, known as CD24Fc, appeared to reduce the risk of respiratory failure or death in severe Covid-19 patients by 50% in a 203-person Phase III trial, OncoImmune said in September.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vipin Suri, Catamaran Bio CSO

Cata­ma­ran Bio sails in­to the CAR-NK wa­ters with a $42M launch round

Catamaran Bio’s founding members decided to jump into the CAR-NK game last December over drinks at a trendy bar in Boston.

They were sitting around a table, discussing an MD Anderson study which provided some of the first clinical proof that natural killer (NK) cells can be reengineered to attack tumors, much like CAR-T therapies. It was a “long and lively” discussion, COO Mark Boshar recalls. And by the time it was over, they had a starting point to launch a company.