Stanford Probe into Researchers Linked to Gene-edited Babies in China

Stanford University is looking into the involvement of several researchers in connection with the Chinese, gene-edited babies, the MIT Technology Review reported today.

The article by Antonio Regalado said,

"Officials at Stanford University have opened an investigation into what several high-profile faculty members knew about a Chinese effort to create gene-edited babies led by a onetime researcher at the California school, He Jiankui. 

"The investigation, according to people familiar with it, aims to understand what liabilities or risks Stanford may have in connection with the controversial medical experiment, which led last year to the birth of two girls whose genomes had been altered with a molecular tool called CRISPR to render them immune to HIV."

Regalado reported, 

"Stanford launched the investigation following media reports that three of its faculty—more than at any other institution—were aware of He’s plans to create the gene-edited children. They are William Hurlbut, a medical ethicist and theologian who interacted extensively with He over many months; gene-editing specialist Matthew Porteus; and Stephen Quake, a biophysicist who holds a powerful role as co-president of the $600 million Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, as well as being He’s former postdoc advisor."

Porteus has received $7.7 million from the California stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). He Jiankui worked from 2010 to 2012 in Quake's lab. Quake is participating in a $40 million genomics program backed by the $3 billion stem cell agency.

Quake has declined comment in the past on his connections to He. Porteus told STAT in December that he had "strongly rebuked" the controversial researcher for what Porteus said was "reckless" work.  Hurlbut has said he had a number of conversations with He and advised him on the moral implications of the work.

Regalado wrote,

"University-led investigations are typically private, toothless affairs with few consequences for important faculty, especially those who pull in millions in grants. The question of research involving human subjects is a critical one, however, in part because serious violations can endanger a university’s federal research grants." 

Stem Cell 'Ethical Tensions,' Recouping the Public Investment, Affordability and Much More

"Staggering" amounts of public money have been spent on stem cell research, and "care must be taken" to assure that commercialization does not exact an excessive "human or monetary price," according to an article this week in the journal Science.

The cautionary note was sounded in the prestigious publication while the world's largest stem cell gathering is underway in Australia with more than 2,500 researchers and others in attendance. Plus next week, the $3 billion California stem cell agency convenes its directors to mull over its own programs and give away more millions. 

Written by Douglas Sipp, a researcher at RIKEN in Japan, Megan Munsie of University of Melbourne and Jeremy Sugarman of John Hopkins University, the Science article said

"Ethical tensions related to stem cell clinical translation and regulatory policy are now center stage...."

They said that expedited government procedures for use of stem cell treatments have been set up in the United States, Japan and Italy. At the same time, they wrote, 

"A staggering amount of public money has been spent on stem cell research globally."

The article declared, 

"The state and the taxpaying public's interests should arguably be reflected in the pricing of stem cell products that were developed through publicly funded research and the regulatory subsidies. Detailed programs for recouping taxpayers' investments in stem cell research and development must be established."

They warned, 

"Care must be taken to ensure that entry of stem cell–based products into the medical marketplace does not come at too high a human or monetary price."

Another journal article this week also sounded cautionary notes. Written by Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis, it was titled: 

"Too Much Carrot and Not Enough Stick in New Stem Cell Oversight Trends"

Knoepfler addressed the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to speed use of stem cell therapies. He wrote in Cell Stem Cell and also on his blog, saying,

"It’s been remarkable to see the FDA approve up to 20 regenerative medicine advanced therapy(RMAT) designations in just over a year. However, I think there’s a strong possibility the agency has swung too far from the too slow review of stem cell and regenerative medicine investigational therapies in the past to now going at warp speed. Since none of the current 20 designated RMAT products had any kind of prior expedited review designation given, is it reasonable to think all 20 now meet rigorous enough standards and all because of new data? It’s hard to say, but there’s likely a spectrum of existing data behind these RMAT designated studies.

"We won’t have an overall RMAT verdict for years as the RMAT trials play out. However, I predict that the agency has lowered the bar too far. There are also concerns that the conditional approval system in Japan is too liberal, as evidenced by discussion over the approval of a recent IPS cell cardiovascular study. Taken together this is what I mean by 'too much carrot.'  Another issue with RMAT is that the criteria by which the designations are given (or not) are not clear." 

Next Thursday, the governing board of California's $3 billion stem cell agency is scheduled to meet to give away more millions for stem cell research in the Golden State. The agency will also be examining the non-scientific considerations that it uses in deciding which applications to fund. It may be that some of the issues raised by these four researchers will also come into play.