Don't call me Chinese Frankenstein, says jailed scientist who tinkered with baby DNA
The Chinese scientist who was imprisoned for secretly creating the world's first genetically-engineered babies has claimed he will be remembered as China's Charles Darwin for ultimately eliminating natural selection.
He Jiankui, who shocked the scientific world in 2018 when he said he had rewritten the DNA of two twins, Lulu and Nana, told The Telegraph that he had no regrets over the controversial experiment. An investigation by Chinese authorities – which also revealed a third gene-edited baby – resulted in a three-year prison sentence.
'I hope people remember me as the 'Chinese Darwin' in 50 years,' said Mr He, who asked to be called a 'pioneer of gene editing'.
Mr He's defence of his work contrasts with his public image. He was dubbed 'China's Frankenstein' when it first emerged that he had illegally carried out gene editing on babies. He was sentenced to three years in jail in 2019.
While the case shocked the world at the time, but Mr He claimed he will be proved to have been on the right side of history. He predicted that countries, including the UK, would legalise gene editing in humans within the next two years – as he claims it would allow people to cure Alzheimer's and cancer.
The cost, he says, will be a few thousand dollars, suggesting that most parents will choose to edit embryos' DNA.
The scientist has returned to a laboratory in China after leaving prison in 2022, and has proposed resuming his research to eliminate Alzheimer's disease.
However, Mr He admitted that he was 'deeply worried' about where his work could ultimately lead.
Genetic editing – effectively cutting out parts of DNA and replacing it to alter genetic makeup – has been the subject of lab experiments for decades, as well as being a plentiful source of inspiration for science fiction. However, editing humans was seen as an ethical and scientific minefield, and was widely banned.
Mr He disregarded these concerns to conduct his own experiment on unborn babies. He ultimately announced on YouTube that 'two beautiful little Chinese girls, Lulu and Nana, came crying into the world as healthy as any other babies' after having their genetic code altered.
Mr He was a relative unknown in the cutting-edge field of gene editing. The son of rice farmers in China, he was a promising student and had won a scholarship to study in the US, including a fellowship at California's revered Stanford University before returning to China. However, he had not made an enormous impression on senior academics and so his announcement seemingly came from nowhere. He was just 34 when the scandal broke.
The twins' genes had been tweaked as IVF embryos using the Crispr gene editing technique to make them more resistant to HIV, which their father had contracted. 'I understand this work will be controversial,' Mr He said at the time, but added: 'I am willing to take the criticism.'
The backlash came swiftly. Shenzhen's Southern University of Science and Technology, where Mr He worked, distanced itself from the research. The experiment was slammed as deeply unethical, as well as medically unnecessary, and it was alleged that the twins' parents were not fully consulted about the potential risks.
In 2019, Mr He was arrested and sentenced to prison, with a court saying he had carried out 'illegal medical practices' while 'seeking fame and wealth'. It emerged that he had raised millions of investment for his own biotech start-ups.
Mr He declined to answer questions about his prison experience.
However, he said he did not harbour any regrets over his work: 'If I go back to 2018, I will do it again, in exactly the same way.'
He said the response from the scientific community was unwarranted, but not unusual. 'I thought I had helped two families and their parents appreciated me. I did not expect that the world would respond so badly,' Mr He said.
'I once thought it is unfair. But now, I believe it is fair. Every pioneer or prophet must suffer.'
Mr He has compared himself to Edward Jenner, the English physician who discovered the smallpox vaccine and was initially mocked for his work. Satirists claimed patients would grow cow horns after being inoculated.
Last year, Mr He said he was attacked as he walked into his car, suffering multiple injuries, and that his assailant had been staking out his office for a week before the assault.
Despite the public backlash, the scientist said the gene-edited twins – as well as a third baby born to a different mother – are healthy and living normal lives.
Since his imprisonment, gene therapy, a less controversial treatment involving introducing new genes to fight disease, has made major breakthroughs. And gene editing has also advanced in the lab, including the recent creation of a 'woolly mouse' as a potential step to reviving the woolly mammoth.
However, seven years later, there is little sign of human gene editing experiments being repeated again.
China tightened up gene editing laws after Mr He's case, and the practice remains illegal in major countries as well as strongly discouraged by the World Health Organisation. Mr He has hit out at the scientific community that condemned him, saying Crispr's pioneers have wasted billions without helping patients.
After prison, he returned to the lab at the Wuchang University of Technology in Wuhan, the city that was cradle of the pandemic. Mr He ducked the question of whether Covid-19 might have escaped from a lab, saying he has no idea.
He is now working at a research park in Beijing 'with the help of an assistant and a few interns'.
A photographer is also frequently present, it appears. Mr He frequently posts on X, pronouncing one-sentence assertions such as 'Tinkering with human embryos will certainly be worth the risk' and 'Gene editing in human embryos will be as popular as iPhone' with portrait photos of himself in the lab.
Unnamed Chinese and American companies are funding his work, Mr He has said. No funding has come from the Chinese government, he said.
One person who has reportedly offered to finance his work is Ryan Shea, a US cryptocurrency entrepreneur, who praised him as a 'brave scientist ... willing to challenge conventional wisdom'. However, Mr He insisted that gene editing should benefit society 'rather than servicing a few rich men'.
Mr He recently released a research proposal for a gene editing experiment aimed at fighting Alzheimer's – a disease that has no effective drug – with a mutation that may decrease the disease's impact.
His research proposal states that it will first be tested on mice, and then human embryos, but 'no human embryo will be implanted for pregnancy'.
He insisted his revolution is moving forward. In November, South Africa's national health department revised its ethics guidelines in a way that appeared to allow for genome editing, something that has also provoked an ethical outcry.
'The first gene edited baby after my work will be born in South Africa in two years,' Mr He said, predicting that the UK, Japan, Korea and Canada will follow.
There is little sign of British laws being changed to allow human gene editing, although a citizens' jury of people with genetic conditions overwhelmingly voted in favour of the idea in a project organised by the University of Cambridge in 2023.
Mr He argued that governments should pay 'in full' for the treatment, given how much it will ease the burden on health services. Editing embryos' DNA will not only eliminate Alzheimer's but 'permanently eradicate cancer', he claimed.
However, gene editing presents more than just economic and health concerns. There are ethical questions, too.
The rise of genetic editing techniques has raised the prospect of designer babies: embryos edited for eye-colour, athletic ability or intelligence. Mr He has said he opposed allowing billionaires to create superior children, and that we should ban gene editing for these purposes. But he does worry that his experiments have started to erase natural selection in a way that will be difficult to control.
Despite his hope to one day be remembered as the 'Chinese Darwin', Mr He admitted he is 'deeply worried that one day humans will no longer be controlled by Darwin's evolution'.
If that prediction comes true, Mr He will certainly be part of the story, for good or bad.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Over the moon: How the Trump-Musk feud helps the lunar mission
The alliance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk — to borrow a phrase from the space community — has undergone a rapid unscheduled disassembly. Yet amid all the fireworks Thursday from the duo's public meltdown, one area of the space world seems to have a brighter future: the moon mission. Musk, the SpaceX founder and well-known Mars enthusiast, has argued against returning astronauts to the lunar surface. But the stunning forced exit of the billionaire's handpicked nominee for NASA chief and Musk's massive rupture with the president have handed moon backers in Congress and industry an opening — and they're seizing it. 'Elon was the main reason for the fork in the road for NASA's human exploration plans,' said Clayton Swope, a former congressional adviser on space. 'With his exodus from D.C., there's a good chance NASA will refocus back to the moon with the plan: moon then Mars.' A number of major space companies — just not SpaceX — are launching an ad campaign going big on the moon, according to two industry officials granted anonymity to discuss the effort. The move is the first sign of real pushback against the behemoth space company and its founder, who only days ago seemed to lock down government contracts every time he blinked. A television ad funded by the companies, who do not go by an umbrella name, will appear on television in the coming days with a pitch clearly aimed at Trump. A narrator, underlaid by dramatic images of America's Apollo missions, implores voters to call senators in support of the moon mission and 'keep America first in space.' A separate letter addressed to the Senate Commerce Committee, and obtained by POLITICO, backs investments in the moon, and is signed by a lengthy slate of prominent space companies — but not SpaceX. As the feud between Trump and Musk escalated on Thursday evening, the Senate Commerce Committee unveiled a new reconciliation bill that would channel $10 billion to NASA. Much of it would go to the space agency's effort to return to the moon through the Artemis program. The White House's NASA budget had proposed major cuts to Artemis, including slashing a planned lunar space station and moon missions. 'Anybody who's following space will have noticed how deeply committed [the committee is] to getting back to the moon, particularly before the Chinese get there,' said a committee aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss the bill. All of this is happening amid Musk's very public fall from grace. Trump, during the social media showdown with his former confidante, threatened to cancel Musk's contracts with the government. The SpaceX founder responded by saying he would end the Dragon spacecraft contract, which is the U.S.' only reliable way of accessing the International Space Station. (But he also suggested late Thursday night that he might not actually do so, and Trump played down the dispute in a POLITICO interview.) The president had already abruptly pulled the NASA administrator nomination for Musk ally Jared Isaacman last week, just days ahead of his likely confirmation by the Senate. Isaacman, speaking on a podcast this week, linked his ouster to Musk's provocative departure from the White House. 'I don't think the timing was much of a coincidence,' he said. This all means Congress may now have a stronger hand in negotiations with the White House over the NASA budget, which was written before Musk's break from Trump and heavily favors Mars. The administration's budget proposes major cuts to spending for the moon in favor of nearly $1 billion for landing an astronaut on Mars. SpaceX, thanks to provisions in the bill, was likely to snag a lucrative contract to build the landing system for any red planet mission. That seems much less feasible now. Senators from states with large NASA centers — such as Alabama and Louisiana — are particularly keen to latch on to moon funding. Trump has voiced support for a Mars mission, meaning the idea may not have completely faded. But with Musk's implosion and the latest moon push, a return to the lunar surface is on firmer ground than it was just a week ago. POLITICO PRO SPACE: Need an insider's guide to the politics behind the new space race? From battles over sending astronauts to Mars to the ways space companies are vying to influence regulators, this weekly newsletter decodes the personalities, policy and power shaping the final frontier. Try it for free for a limited time starting today. Find out more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Alzheimer's blood test can accurately pick up early symptoms
A new blood test for Alzheimer's disease can accurately detect people with early symptoms, research suggests. Experts from the Mayo Clinic in the US have provided further evidence that blood tests can work to accurately diagnose dementia, by examining two proteins in blood plasma. These proteins – amyloid beta 42/40 and p-tau217 – are associated with amyloid plaque build-up, which is a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. Researchers found the blood test was highly accurate, with 95% sensitivity, which means it was 95% accurate in picking up people with memory problems, with very few cases missed. It was also 82% for specificity, which means it was also highly accurate in ruling out people without dementia. The study was carried out on more than 500 people in an outpatient memory clinic, meaning it is real-world data. The blood test has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration regulator in the US. Dr Gregg Day, who led the study in the Alzheimer's and Dementia journal, said the test was as good as more invasive tests currently in use. 'Our study found that blood testing affirmed the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease with 95% sensitivity and 82% specificity,' he said. 'When performed in the outpatient clinical setting, this is similar to the accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of the disease and is much more convenient and cost-effective.' Overall, researchers found that p-tau217 levels were higher in patients with Alzheimer's disease versus those without the disease. Dr Day said the next steps in the research were to evaluate blood-based testing in more diverse patient populations and people with early Alzheimer's who show no cognitive symptoms. Dr Richard Oakley, associate director for research and innovation at the Alzheimer's Society in the UK, said the results 'suggest this test is very accurate' and could be used alongside other tests and observations from a trained health professional. "This study shows how blood tests are making diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease quicker, easier and more accessible than ever before in a real-world setting," he added. "While focused on Alzheimer's disease, the test was evaluated in people with other types of dementias too, showing that it may help with differentiate causes of cognitive decline – though more research in diverse groups of individuals and in community-based setting is still needed."