Part I: Background 1
1 Just What Did He Jiankui Do? 3
2 Human Germline Genome Editing- What Is It? 23
3 CRISPR- What Is It, Why Is It Important, and Who Will Benefit
from It? 33
4 Ethics Discussions of CRISPR'd Babies before He 49
5 The Law of CRISPR'd Babies before He 75
Part II: The Revelation and Its Aftermath 89
6 The He Experiment Revealed 91
7 The World Reacts- And So Does China 109
8 Who Knew What When? Revelations of Pre- Summit
Part III: Assessing and Responding to the He Experiment 145
9 Assessing the He Experiment 147
10 Responses 173
Part IV: Human Germline Genome Editing Generally- Now
11 Is Human Germline Genome Editing Inherently Bad? 203
12 Could Human Germline Genome Editing Sometimes
Be Bad? 217
13 Just How Useful Is Human Germline Genome Editing? 225
14 How to Test Human Germline Genome Editing 247
15 The Big Decisions- And How to Make Them 269
Henry T. Greely is Professor of Law, Professor by Courtesy of Genetics, and Director of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, where he also chairs the Steering Committee of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics and directs the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society.
"CRISPR People is an accessible, clearly written,
fact-filled analysis of a new biological frontier. Readers will
come away not only with a deep understanding of CRISPR and how it
works, but also with an appreciation of how a Chinese scientist
created the first gene-edited humans and what that means for the
rest of us. Greely believes that He's experiment was nothing less
than 'a cross between bad fiction and reckless fiasco, shrouded in
a deep fog of secrets.''"
-the Washington Post
"Packed with facts and analysis, Henry Greely's CRISPR People examines what He did, explains why Greely believes it was wrong, describes the world's reaction, and details what we can and should do about work like this in the future...Greely provides an exquisite view of the wide-ranging issues at play in this particular case."
"In Crispr People, law professor and bioethicist Henry Greely provides a detailed framework for how to think about regulating to get the best out of Crispr, while avoiding a repeat of He's experiment with life... the book provides an academic map for how to think about the regulation we need.
"A serious and scholarly work."
"Greely, one of the US' most-cited bioethicists, has spent close to a decade contemplating how society might handle gene-edited humans. But the He Jiankui affair cast his many nebulous concerns into concrete form. In this book, which he says lies "somewhat uneasily between history and journalism," Greely goes deep into the aftermath of the 2018 revelations and lays out in lawyerly detail the big questions now facing the future of Crispr technology."
"What does it mean to rebuild people through gene editing or other medical interventions? CRISPR People by Henry T. Greely, an ethics and law professor at Stanford University in California, dives in at the deep end with the story of non-identical twin girls who were born in 2018 in China with their DNA edited as embryos. For Greely, the experiment by Chinese scientist He Jiankui that enabled this was reckless and illegal, using technologies that have no extra benefits over existing ones, and is something we should ponder carefully."
"Greely describes the science, ethics and legal framework of genome editing before CRISPR; how that technology changed the game; what He Jiankui actually did in the laboratory, as far as we know; and how the world responded to the news of the births of genome-edited twins in 2018...Greely argues that human genome editing isn't inherently wrong, but it can be under certain circumstances - for instance, if used under coercion or before it's shown to be reasonably safe, or if it reduces genetic diversity (unlikely) or increases social inequality (quite probable). Where Greely stands out is his clear and detailed discussion of situations in which germline genome editing in humans would actually be necessary. His conclusion, shared with commentators is that they would be very rare, either because there are good alternatives or because, in the cases that might call for it, genome editing would be unlikely to work at all."