Chinese Gene Editing Doctor Jailed for CRISPR Edited Embryos

He Jiankui shocked the world in 2018 when he revealed that he’d used CRISPR technology, or gene editing, on babies—the first such application in history. Now, a Chinese court has sentenced him to three years in prison and a $430,000 fine for the controversial experiment, which is considered illegal since it involves CRISPR gene editing in reproduction, according to China’s Xinhua news agency.

He and associates allegedly carried out gene-editing experiments on embryos that led to the birth of three gene-edited “CRISPR babies.” Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou were also sentenced to more than two years in prison, albeit with a reprieve, in the case.

The process was meant to prevent these babies from being infected with HIV from a parent—though the scientific community including CRISPR pioneers Jennifer Doudna and Feng Zhang, along with drug makers, widely condemned the experiment.

It’s unclear how these babies are currently doing, though there have been no reports of adverse events.

A district court in Shenzhen ruled that He and his partners had conducted the embryonic gene-editing experiments “in the pursuit of personal fame and gain” and have seriously “disrupted medical order.” He’s partners

He has previously defended his efforts, even saying that he was “proud” of the results.

In Fortune‘s recent list of 25 ideas which will shape the 2020s, Doudna—a University of California at Berkeley professor and executive director of the Innovative Genomics Institute—addressed the ethical controversies that still dog gene editing, including He’s actions.

“I certainly hope that over the coming decade we see an increasing global effort to put in place appropriate regulations for using genome editing, especially in applications that could have a very profound impact on everyone,” she told Fortune.

Gene editing has been hailed for its potential to help treat diseases like cancer and sickle cell anemia. But the technology remains in its earliest stages. And as this case shows, ethical questions remain a significant concern.