In Depth

For China, a CRISPR first goes too far

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  07 Dec 2018:
Vol. 362, Issue 6419, pp. 1091
DOI: 10.1126/science.362.6419.1091

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: No CRISPR regulation in China but in the EU a GVO or no-GVO vicious circle

    A researcher of the Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China, has reported the live birth of twin baby girls with genetically engineered genomes (Science 07 Dec 2018: Vol. 362, Issue 6419, pp. 1091, DOI: 10.1126/science.362.6419.1091). Researchers and ethicists all over the world are now calling for new or revised regulations. Just to recall, few months ago, in Europe, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published his decision in Case C‑528/16 on the regulative status of organisms derived from newly developed targeted mutagenesis approaches (“Genome Editing”, including CRISPR) but as well of those obtained by whatever kind of mutagenesis techniques. The judgement clearly says that all organisms obtained by whatever kind of mutagenesis are classified as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and thus are subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive 2001/18/EC (press release no 111/18 of the ECJ). However, the judgment exempted organisms from those obligations that were obtained by mutagenesis techniques which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record (press release no 111/18 of the ECJ).

    Since this judgement, an exploding number of statements and commentaries have been published ranging from benevolent approval to scientific nonsense. Most of them have called for European and national GMO laws and regulations to be adapted to the current state of science. According to...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.