Tag Archives: Stanford Unviersity

It’s a golden world

I have a number of stories concerning gold where researchers seemed to have had an extraordinarily rich set of findings within the last month. One of these is especially interesting in light of what I published yesterday (August 11, 2025 “Turning lead into gold (for approximately a microsecond“) about an event in May 2025.

I will be providing my usual citations and links but will not be tagging all the researchers (there are far too many) other than those mentioned in the news releases.

Two from SLAC (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, originally named the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California)

While both projects took place at SLAC, there’s virtually no crossover between the team members and the findings are of an entirely different nature.

Defying the limits and surviving the entropy catastrophe

An August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily announces that physics limits have been defied,

Scientists have simultaneously broken a temperature record, overturned a long-held theory and utilized a new laser spectroscopy method for dense plasmas in a groundbreaking article published on July 23 in the journal Nature.

In their research article, “Superheating gold beyond the predicted entropy catastrophe threshold,” physicists revealed they were able to heat gold to over 19,000 Kelvin (33,740 degrees Fahrenheit), over 14 times its melting point, without it losing its solid, crystalline structure.

A July 23, 2025 University of Nevada news release, which originated the news item, delves further into the topic,

“This is possibly the hottest crystalline material ever recorded,” Thomas White, lead author and Clemons-Magee Endowed Professor in Physics at the University of Nevada, Reno said.

This result overturns the long-held theoretical limit known as the entropy catastrophe. The entropy catastrophe theory states that solids cannot remain stable above approximately three times their melting temperature without spontaneously melting. The melting point of gold, 1,337 Kelvin (1,947 degrees Fahrenheit), was far more than tripled in this experiment utilizing an extremely powerful laser at Stanford University’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

“I was expecting the gold to heat quite significantly before melting, but I wasn’t expecting a fourteen-fold temperature increase,” White said.

To heat the gold, researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Oxford, Queen’s University Belfast, the European XFEL and the University of Warwick designed an experiment to heat a thin gold foil using a laser fired for 50 quadrillionths of a second (one millionth of a billionth). The speed with which the gold was heated seems to be the reason the gold remained solid. The findings suggest that the limit of superheating solids may be far higher – or nonexistent – if heating occurs quickly enough. The new methods used in this study open the field of high energy density physics to more exploration, including in areas of planetary physics and fusion energy research.

White and his team expected that the gold would melt at its melting point, but to measure the temperature inside the gold foil, they would need a very special thermometer.

“We used the Linac Coherent Light Source, a 3-kilometer-long X-ray laser at SLAC, as essentially the world’s largest thermometer,” White said. “This allowed us to measure the temperature inside the dense plasma for the first time, something that hasn’t been possible before.”

“This development paves the way for temperature diagnostics across a broad range of high-energy-density environments,” Bob Nagler, staff scientist at SLAC and coauthor on the paper, said. “In particular, it offers the only direct method currently available for probing the temperature of warm dense states encountered during the implosion phase of inertial fusion energy experiments. As such, it is poised to make a transformative contribution to our understanding and control of fusion-relevant plasma conditions.”

Along with the experimental designers, the research article is the result of a decade of work and collaboration between Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of Padova and the University of California, Merced.

“It’s extremely exciting to have these results out in the world, and I’m really looking forward to seeing what strides we can make in the field with these new methods,” White said.

The research, funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration, will open new doors in studies of superheated materials.

“The National Nuclear Security Administrations’ Academics Program is a proud supporter of the groundbreaking innovation and continued learning that Dr. White and his team are leading for furthering future critical research areas beneficial to the Nuclear Security Enterprise,” Jahleel Hudson, director at the Techology and Partnerships Office of the NNSA said.

White and his colleagues returned to the Linac Coherent Light Source in July to measure the temperature inside hot compressed iron and are using those results to gain insights into the interiors of planets.

Several of White’s graduate students and one undergraduate student were coauthors on the study, including doctoral student Travis Griffin, undergraduate student Hunter Stramel, Daniel Haden, a former postdoctoral scholar in White’s lab, Jacob Molina, a former undergraduate student currently pursuing his doctoral degree at Princeton University and Landon Morrison, a former undergraduate student pursuing his master’s degree at the University of Oxford. Jeremy Iratcabal, research assistant professor in the Department of Physics, was also a coauthor on the paper.

“I’m incredibly grateful for the opportunity to contribute to such cutting-edge science using billion-dollar experimental platforms alongside world-class collaborators,” Griffin said. “This discovery highlights the power of this technique, and I’m excited by the possibilities it opens for the future of high-energy-density physics and fusion research. After graduation, I’ll be continuing this work as a staff scientist at the European XFEL.”

SLAC issued a July 23, 2025 news release (by Erin Woodward) of its own and UK’s University of Warwick also issued a July 23, 2025.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Superheating gold beyond the predicted entropy catastrophe threshold by Thomas G. White, Travis D. Griffin, Daniel Haden, Hae Ja Lee, Eric Galtier, Eric Cunningham, Dimitri Khaghani, Adrien Descamps, Lennart Wollenweber, Ben Armentrout, Carson Convery, Karen Appel, Luke B. Fletcher, Sebastian Goede, J. B. Hastings, Jeremy Iratcabal, Emma E. McBride, Jacob Molina, Giulio Monaco, Landon Morrison, Hunter Stramel, Sameen Yunus, Ulf Zastrau, Siegfried H. Glenzer, Gianluca Gregori, Dirk O. Gericke & Bob Nagler. Nature volume 643, pages 950–954 (2025) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09253-y Published: 23 July 2025 Issue Date: 24 July 2025

This paper is open access.

Gold’s secret chemistry

An August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily announces how researchers at SLAC unexpectedly created gold hydride,

Scientists at SLAC unexpectedly created gold hydride, a compound of gold and hydrogen, while studying diamond formation under extreme pressure and heat. This discovery challenges gold’s reputation as a chemically unreactive metal and opens doors to studying dense hydrogen, which could help us understand planetary interiors and fusion processes. The results also suggest that extreme conditions can produce exotic, previously unknown compounds, offering exciting opportunities for future high-pressure chemistry research.

Serendipitously and for the first time, an international research team led by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory formed solid binary gold hydride, a compound made exclusively of gold and hydrogen atoms.

An August 4, 2025 SLAC news release by Chris Patrick, which originated the news release, provides more details, Note: Links have been removed,

The researchers were studying how long it takes hydrocarbons, compounds made of carbon and hydrogen, to form diamonds under extremely high pressure and heat. In their experiments at the European XFEL (X-ray Free-Electron Laser) in Germany, the team studied the effect of those extreme conditions in hydrocarbon samples with an embedded gold foil, which was meant to absorb the X-rays and heat the weakly absorbing hydrocarbons. To their surprise, they not only saw the formation of diamonds, but also discovered the formation of gold hydride. 

“It was unexpected because gold is typically chemically very boring and unreactive – that’s why we use it as an X-ray absorber in these experiments,” said Mungo Frost, staff scientist at SLAC who led the study. “These results suggest there’s potentially a lot of new chemistry to be discovered at extreme conditions where the effects of temperature and pressure start competing with conventional chemistry, and you can form these exotic compounds.”

The results, published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition, provide a glimpse of how the rules of chemistry change under extreme conditions like those found inside certain planets or hydrogen-fusing stars.

Studying dense hydrogen

In their experiment, the researchers first squeezed their hydrocarbon samples to pressures greater than those within Earth’s mantle using a diamond anvil cell. Then, they heated the samples to over 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit by hitting them repeatedly with X-ray pulses from the European XFEL. The team recorded and analyzed how the X-rays scattered off the samples, which allowed them to resolve the structural transformations within.

As expected, the recorded scattering patterns showed that the carbon atoms had formed a diamond structure. But the team also saw unexpected signals that were due to hydrogen atoms reacting with the gold foil to form gold hydride. 

Under the extreme conditions created in the study, the researchers found hydrogen to be in a dense, “superionic” state, where the hydrogen atoms flowed freely through the gold’s rigid atomic lattice, increasing the conductivity of the gold hydride. 

Hydrogen, which is the lightest element of the periodic table, is tricky to study with X-rays because it scatters X-rays only weakly. Here, however, the superionic hydrogen interacted with the much heavier gold atoms, and the team was able to observe hydrogen’s impact on how the gold lattice scattered X-rays. “We can use the gold lattice as a witness for what the hydrogen is doing,” Mungo said. 

The gold hydride offers a way to study dense atomic hydrogen under conditions that might also apply to other situations that are experimentally not directly accessible. For example, dense hydrogen makes up the interiors of certain planets, so studying it in the lab could teach us more about those foreign worlds. It could also provide new insights into nuclear fusion processes inside stars like our sun and help develop technology to harness fusion energy here on Earth.

Exploring new chemistry

In addition to paving the way for studies of dense hydrogen, the research also offers an avenue for exploring new chemistry. Gold, which is commonly regarded as an unreactive metal, was found to form a stable hydride at extremely high pressure and temperature. In fact, it appears to be only stable at those extreme conditions as when it cools down, the gold and hydrogen separate. The simulations also showed that more hydrogen could fit in the gold lattice at higher pressure.

The simulation framework could also be extended beyond gold hydride. “It’s important that we can experimentally produce and model these states under these extreme conditions,” said Siegfried Glenzer, High Energy Density Division director and professor for photon science at SLAC and the study’s principal investigator. “These simulation tools could be applied to model other exotic material properties in extreme conditions.” 

The team also included researchers from Rostock University, DESY, European XFEL, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Frankfurt University and Bayreuth University, all in Germany; the University of Edinburgh, UK; the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University and the Stanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences (SIMES). Parts of this work were supported by the DOE Office of Science.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Synthesis of Gold Hydride at High Pressure and High Temperature by Mungo Frost, Kilian Abraham, Alexander F. Goncharov, R. Stewart McWilliams, Rachel J. Husband, Michal Andrzejewski, Karen Appel, Carsten Baehtz, Armin Bergermann, Danielle Brown, Elena Bykova, Anna Celeste, Eric Edmund, Nicholas J. Hartley, Konstantin Glazyrin, Heinz Graafsma, Nicolas Jaisle, Zuzana Konôpková, Torsten Laurus, Yu Lin, Bernhard Massani, Maximilian Schörner, Maximilian Schulze, Cornelius Strohm, Minxue Tang, Zena Younes, Gerd Steinle-Neumann, Ronald Redmer, Siegfried H. Glenzer. Angewandte Chemie International Edition DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202505811 First published: 04 August 2025

This paper is behind a paywall.

Gold and a quantum revolution?

An August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily announces joint research from Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) and Colorado State University,

The efficiency of quantum computers, sensors and other applications often relies on the properties of electrons, including how they are spinning. One of the most accurate systems for high performance quantum applications relies on tapping into the spin properties of electrons of atoms trapped in a gas, but these systems are difficult to scale up for use in larger quantum devices like quantum computers. Now, a team of researchers from Penn State and Colorado State has demonstrated how a gold cluster can mimic these gaseous, trapped atoms, allowing scientists to take advantage of these spin properties in a system that can be easily scaled up.

A July 22, 2025 Penn State news release (also on EurekAlert) by Gail McCormick, which originated the news item, reveals more about the work which resulted in two published papers, Note: Links have been removed,

“For the first time, we show that gold nanoclusters have the same key spin properties as the current state-of-the-art methods for quantum information systems,” said Ken Knappenberger, department head and professor of chemistry in the Penn State Eberly College of Science and leader of the research team. “Excitingly, we can also manipulate an important property called spin polarization in these clusters, which is usually fixed in a material. These clusters can be easily synthesized in relatively large quantities, making this work a promising proof-of-concept that gold clusters could be used to support a variety of quantum applications.”

Two papers describing the gold clusters and confirming their spin properties appeared in ACS Central Science, ACS Central Science and The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters.

“An electron’s spin not only influences important chemical reactions, but also quantum applications like computation and sensing,” said Nate Smith, graduate student in chemistry in the Penn State Eberly College of Science and first author of one of the papers. “The direction an electron spins and its alignment with respect to other electrons in the system can directly impact the accuracy and longevity of quantum information systems.”

Much like the Earth spins around its axis, which is tilted with respect to the sun, an electron can spin around its axis, which can be tilted with respect to its nucleus. But unlike Earth, an electron can spin clockwise or counterclockwise. When many electrons in a material are spinning in the same direction and their tilts are aligned, the electrons are considered correlated, and the material is said to have a high degree of spin polarization. 

“Materials with electrons that are highly correlated, with a high degree of spin polarization, can maintain this correlation for a much longer time, and thus remain accurate for much longer,” Smith said.

The current state-of-the-art system for high accuracy and low error in quantum information systems involve trapped atomic ions — atoms with an electric charge — in a gaseous state. This system allows electrons to be excited to different energy levels, called Rydberg states, which have very specific spin polarizations that can last for a long period of time. It also allows for the superposition of electrons, with electrons existing in multiple states simultaneously until they are measured, which is a key property for quantum systems. 

“These trapped gaseous ions are by nature dilute, which makes them very difficult to scale up,” Knappenberger said. “The condensed phase required for a solid material, by definition, packs atoms together, losing that dilute nature. So, scaling up provides all the right electronic ingredients, but these systems become very sensitive to interference from the environment. The environment basically scrambles all the information that you encoded into the system, so the rate of error becomes very high. In this study, we found that gold clusters can mimic all the best properties of the trapped gaseous ions with the benefit of scalability.”

Scientists have heavily studied gold nanostructures for their potential use in optical technology, sensing, therapeutics and to speed up chemical reactions, but less is known about their magnetic and spin-dependent properties. In the current studies, the researchers specifically explored monolayer-protected clusters, which have a core of gold and are surrounded by other molecules called ligands. The researchers can precisely control the construction of these clusters and can synthesize relatively large amounts at one time. 

“These clusters are referred to as super atoms, because their electronic character is like that of an atom, and now we know their spin properties are also similar,” Smith said. “We identified 19 distinguishable and unique Rydberg-like spin-polarized states that mimic the super-positions that we could do in the trapped, gas-phase dilute ions. This means the clusters have the key properties needed to carry out spin-based operations.”

The researchers determined the spin polarization of the gold clusters using a similar method used with traditional atoms. While one type of gold cluster had 7% spin polarization, a cluster with different a ligand approached 40% spin polarization, which Knappenberger said is competitive with some of the leading two-dimensional quantum materials.

“This tells us that the spin properties of the electron are intimately related to the vibrations of the ligands,” Knappenberger said. “Traditionally, quantum materials have a fixed value of spin polarization that cannot be significantly changed, but our results suggest we can modify the ligand of these gold clusters to tune this property widely.”

The research team plans to explore how different structures within the ligands impact spin polarization and how they could be manipulated to fine tune spin properties.

“The quantum field is generally dominated by researchers in physics and materials science, and here we see the opportunity for chemists to use our synthesis skills to design materials with tunable results,” Knappenberger said. “This is a new frontier in quantum information science.”

In addition to Smith and Knappenberger, the research team includes Juniper Foxley, graduate student in chemistry at Penn State; Patrick Herbert, who earned a doctoral degree in chemistry at Penn State in 2019; Jane Knappenberger, researcher in the Penn State Eberly College of Science; as well as Marcus Tofanelli and Christopher Ackerson at Colorado State

Funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the U.S. National Science Foundation supported this research.

At Penn State, researchers are solving real problems that impact the health, safety and quality of life of people across the commonwealth, the nation and around the world.

For decades, federal support for research has fueled innovation that makes our country safer, our industries more competitive and our economy stronger. Recent federal funding cuts threaten this progress.

Learn more about the implications of federal funding cuts to our future at Research or Regress. [Research or Regress can found here]

Here are links to and citation for the paper,

The Influence of Passivating Ligand Identity on Au25(SR)18 Spin-Polarized Emission by Nathanael L. Smith, Patrick J. Herbert, Marcus A. Tofanelli, Jane A. Knappenberger, Christopher J. Ackerson, Kenneth L. Knappenberger Jr. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2025, 16, 20, 5168–5172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c00723 Published May 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 American Chemical Society

This paper is behind a paywall.

Diverse Superatomic Magnetic and Spin Properties of Au144(SC8H9)60 Clusters by Juniper Foxley, Marcus Tofanelli, Jane A. Knappenberger, Christopher J. Ackerson, Kenneth L. Knappenberger Jr ACS Central Science 2025, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.5c00139
Published May 29, 2025 © 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 .

This paper is open access.

Lead into gold, the second time around

There are reasons why news releases are issued twice and/or months after a research paper was published. Whoever is scanning for news may have missed it or it was a big news day and science was not top of mind or e.g., a number of teams are publishing research in your field and are generating a lot of interest and you hope your institution will benefit from it.

This August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily resuscitates a story from May 2025,

Nuclear physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider recently made headlines by achieving the centuries-old dream of alchemists (and nightmare of precious-metals investors): They transformed lead into gold.

At least for a fraction of a second. The scientists reported their results in Physical Reviews.

The accomplishment at the Large Hadron Collider, the 17-mile particle accelerator buried under the French-Swiss border, happened within a sophisticated and sensitive detector called ALICE, a scientific instrument roughly the size of a McMansion.

A July 30, 2025 University of Kansas news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the August 11, 2025 news item, adds new details about the work, Note: A link has been removed,

It was scientists from the University of Kansas, working on the ALICE experiment, who developed the technique that tracked “ultra-peripheral” collisions between protons and ions that made gold in the LHC.

“Usually in collider experiments, we make the particles crash into each other to produce lots of debris,” said Daniel Tapia Takaki, professor of physics and leader of KU’s group at ALICE. “But in ultra-peripheral collisions, we’re interested in what happens when the particles don’t hit each other. These are near misses. The ions pass close enough to interact — but without touching. There’s no physical overlap.”

The ions racing around the LHC tunnel are heavy nuclei with many protons, each generating powerful electric fields. When accelerated, these charged ions emit photons — they shine light.

“When you accelerate an electric charge to near light speeds, it starts shining,” Tapia Takaki said. “One ion can shine light that essentially takes a picture of the other. When that light is energetic enough, it can probe deep inside the other nucleus, like a high-energy flashbulb.”

The KU researcher said during these UPC “flashes” surprising interactions can occur, including the rate event that sparked worldwide attention.

“Sometimes, the photons from both ions interact with each other — what we call photon-photon collisions,” he said. “These events are incredibly clean, with almost nothing else produced. They contrast with typical collisions where we see sprays of particles flying everywhere.”

However, the ALICE detector and the LHC were designed to collect data on head-on collisions that result in messy sprays of particles.

“These clean interactions were hard to detect with earlier setups,” Tapia Takaki said. “Our group at KU pioneered new techniques to study them. We built up this expertise years ago when it was not a popular subject.”

These methods allowed for the news-making discovery that the LHC team transmuted lead into gold momentarily via ultra-peripheral collisions where lead ions lose three protons (turning the speck of lead into a gold speck) for a fraction of a second.

Tapia Takaki’s KU co-authors on the paper are graduate student Anna Binoy; graduate student Amrit Gautam; postdoctoral researcher Tommaso Isidori; postdoctoral research assistant Anisa Khatun; and research scientist Nicola Minafra.

The KU team at the LHC ALICE experiment plans to continue studying the ultra-peripheral collisions. Tapia Takaki said that while the creation of gold fascinated the public, the potential of understanding the interactions goes deeper.

“This light is so energetic, it can knock protons out of the nucleus,” he said. “Sometimes one, sometimes two, three or even four protons. We can see these ejected protons directly with our detectors.”

Each proton removed changes the elements: One gives thallium, two gives mercury, three gives gold.

“These new nuclei are very short-lived,” he said. “They decay quickly, but not always immediately. Sometimes they travel along the beamline and hit parts of the collider — triggering safety systems.”

That’s why this research matters beyond the headlines.

“With proposals for future colliders even larger than the LHC — some up to 100 kilometers in Europe and China — you need to understand these nuclear byproducts,” Tapia Takaki said. “This ‘alchemy’ may be crucial for designing the next generation of machines.”

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics.

Here’s a new link and citation, which includes each team member’s name, for the paper,

Proton emission in ultraperipheral Pb-Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV by S. Acharya, A. Agarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, L. Aglietta, M. Agnello, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, S. Ahmad, S. U. Ahn, I. Ahuja, A. Akindinov, V. Akishina, M. Al-Turany, D. Aleksandrov, B. Alessandro, H. M. Alfanda, R. Alfaro Molina, B. Ali, A. Alici, N. Alizadehvandchali, A. Alkin, J. Alme, G. Alocco, T. Alt, A. R. Altamura, I. Altsybeev, J. R. Alvarado, C. O. R. Alvarez, M. N. Anaam, C. Andrei, N. Andreou, A. Andronic, E. Andronov, V. Anguelov, F. Antinori, P. Antonioli, N. Apadula, L. Aphecetche, H. Appelshäuser, C. Arata, S. Arcelli, R. Arnaldi, J. G. M. C. A. Arneiro, I. C. Arsene, M. Arslandok, A. Augustinus, R. Averbeck, D. Averyanov, M. D. Azmi, H. Baba, A. Badalà, J. Bae, Y. Bae, Y. W. Baek, X. Bai, R. Bailhache, Y. Bailung, R. Bala, A. Baldisseri, B. Balis, Z. Banoo, V. Barbasova, F. Barile, L. Barioglio, M. Barlou, B. Barman, G. G. Barnaföldi, L. S. Barnby, E. Barreau, V. Barret, L. Barreto, C. Bartels, K. Barth, E. Bartsch, N. Bastid, S. Basu, G. Batigne, D. Battistini, B. Batyunya, D. Bauri, J. L. Bazo Alba, I. G. Bearden, C. Beattie, P. Becht, D. Behera, I. Belikov, A. D. C. Bell Hechavarria, F. Bellini, R. Bellwied, S. Belokurova, L. G. E. Beltran, Y. A. V. Beltran, G. Bencedi, A. Bensaoula, S. Beole, Y. Berdnikov, A. Berdnikova, L. Bergmann, M. G. Besoiu, L. Betev, P. P. Bhaduri, A. Bhasin, B. Bhattacharjee, L. Bianchi, J. Bielčík, J. Bielčíková, A. P. Bigot, A. Bilandzic, A. Binoy, G. Biro, S. Biswas, N. Bize, J. T. Blair, D. Blau, M. B. Blidaru, N. Bluhme, C. Blume, F. Bock, T. Bodova, J. Bok, L. Boldizsár, M. Bombara, P. M. Bond, G. Bonomi, H. Borel, A. Borissov, A. G. Borquez Carcamo, E. Botta, Y. E. M. Bouziani, D. C. Brandibur, L. Bratrud, P. Braun-Munzinger, M. Bregant, M. Broz, G. E. Bruno, V. D. Buchakchiev, M. D. Buckland, D. Budnikov, H. Buesching, S. Bufalino, P. Buhler, N. Burmasov, Z. Buthelezi, A. Bylinkin, S. A. Bysiak, J. C. Cabanillas Noris, M. F. T. Cabrera, H. Caines, A. Caliva, E. Calvo Villar, J. M. M. Camacho, P. Camerini, F. D. M. Canedo, S. L. Cantway, M. Carabas, A. A. Carballo, F. Carnesecchi, R. Caron, L. A. D. Carvalho, J. Castillo Castellanos, M. Castoldi, F. Catalano, S. Cattaruzzi, R. Cerri, I. Chakaberia, P. Chakraborty, S. Chandra, S. Chapeland, M. Chartier, S. Chattopadhay, M. Chen, T. Cheng, C. Cheshkov, D. Chiappara, V. Chibante Barroso, D. D. Chinellato, E. S. Chizzali, J. Cho, S. Cho, P. Chochula, Z. A. Chochulska, D. Choudhury, S. Choudhury, P. Christakoglou, C. H. Christensen, P. Christiansen, T. Chujo, M. Ciacco, C. Cicalo, F. Cindolo, M. R. Ciupek, G. Clai, F. Colamaria, J. S. Colburn, D. Colella, A. Colelli, M. Colocci, M. Concas, G. Conesa Balbastre, Z. Conesa del Valle, G. Contin, J. G. Contreras, M. L. Coquet, P. Cortese, M. R. Cosentino, F. Costa, S. Costanza, P. Crochet, M. M. Czarnynoga, A. Dainese, G. Dange, M. C. Danisch, A. Danu, P. Das, S. Das, A. R. Dash, S. Dash, A. De Caro, G. de Cataldo, J. de Cuveland, A. De Falco, D. De Gruttola, N. De Marco, C. De Martin, S. De Pasquale, R. Deb, R. Del Grande, L. Dello Stritto, W. Deng, K. C. Devereaux, G. G. A. de Souza, P. Dhankher, D. Di Bari, A. Di Mauro, B. Di Ruzza, B. Diab, R. A. Diaz, Y. Ding, J. Ditzel, R. Divià, Ø. Djuvsland, U. Dmitrieva, A. Dobrin, B. Dönigus, J. M. Dubinski, A. Dubla, P. Dupieux, N. Dzalaiova, T. M. Eder, R. J. Ehlers, F. Eisenhut, R. Ejima, D. Elia, B. Erazmus, F. Ercolessi, B. Espagnon, G. Eulisse, D. Evans, S. Evdokimov, L. Fabbietti, M. Faggin, J. Faivre, F. Fan, W. Fan, A. Fantoni, M. Fasel, G. Feofilov, A. Fernández Téllez, L. Ferrandi, M. B. Ferrer, A. Ferrero, C. Ferrero, A. Ferretti, V. J. G. Feuillard, V. Filova, D. Finogeev, F. M. Fionda, E. Flatland, F. Flor, A. N. Flores, S. Foertsch, I. Fokin, S. Fokin, U. Follo, E. Fragiacomo, E. Frajna, U. Fuchs, N. Funicello, C. Furget, A. Furs, T. Fusayasu, J. J. Gaardhøje, M. Gagliardi, A. M. Gago, T. Gahlaut, C. D. Galvan, S. Gami, D. R. Gangadharan, P. Ganoti, C. Garabatos, J. M. Garcia, T. García Chávez, E. Garcia-Solis, S. Garetti, C. Gargiulo, P. Gasik, H. M. Gaur, A. Gautam, M. B. Gay Ducati, M. Germain, R. A. Gernhaeuser, C. Ghosh, M. Giacalone, G. Gioachin, S. K. Giri, P. Giubellino, P. Giubilato, A. M. C. Glaenzer, P. Glässel, E. Glimos, D. J. Q. Goh, V. Gonzalez, P. Gordeev, M. Gorgon, K. Goswami, S. Gotovac, V. Grabski, L. K. Graczykowski, E. Grecka, A. Grelli, C. Grigoras, V. Grigoriev, S. Grigoryan, F. Grosa, J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus, R. Grosso, D. Grund, N. A. Grunwald, G. G. Guardiano, R. Guernane, M. Guilbaud, K. Gulbrandsen, J. J. W. K. Gumprecht, T. Gündem, T. Gunji, W. Guo, A. Gupta, R. Gupta, R. Gupta, K. Gwizdziel, L. Gyulai, C. Hadjidakis, F. U. Haider, S. Haidlova, M. Haldar, H. Hamagaki, Y. Han, B. G. Hanley, R. Hannigan, J. Hansen, M. R. Haque, J. W. Harris, A. Harton, M. V. Hartung, H. Hassan, D. Hatzifotiadou, P. Hauer, L. B. Havener, E. Hellbär, H. Helstrup, M. Hemmer, T. Herman, S. G. Hernandez, G. Herrera Corral, S. Herrmann, K. F. Hetland, B. Heybeck, H. Hillemanns, B. Hippolyte, I. P. M. Hobus, F. W. Hoffmann, B. Hofman, M. Horst, A. Horzyk, Y. Hou, P. Hristov, P. Huhn, L. M. Huhta, T. J. Humanic, A. Hutson, D. Hutter, M. C. Hwang, R. Ilkaev, M. Inaba, G. M. Innocenti, M. Ippolitov, A. Isakov, T. Isidori, M. S. Islam, S. Iurchenko, M. Ivanov, M. Ivanov, V. Ivanov, K. E. Iversen, M. Jablonski, B. Jacak, N. Jacazio, P. M. Jacobs, S. Jadlovska, J. Jadlovsky, S. Jaelani, C. Jahnke, M. J. Jakubowska, M. A. Janik, T. Janson, S. Ji, S. Jia, T. Jiang, A. A. P. Jimenez, F. Jonas, D. M. Jones, J. M. Jowett, J. Jung, M. Jung, A. Junique, A. Jusko, J. Kaewjai, P. Kalinak, A. Kalweit, A. Karasu Uysal, D. Karatovic, N. Karatzenis, O. Karavichev, T. Karavicheva, E. Karpechev, M. J. Karwowska, U. Kebschull, M. Keil, B. Ketzer, J. Keul, S. S. Khade, A. M. Khan, S. Khan, A. Khanzadeev, Y. Kharlov, A. Khatun, A. Khuntia, Z. Khuranova, B. Kileng, B. Kim, C. Kim, D. J. Kim, D. Kim, E. J. Kim, J. Kim, J. Kim, J. Kim, M. Kim, S. Kim, T. Kim, K. Kimura, S. Kirsch, I. Kisel, S. Kiselev, A. Kisiel, J. L. Klay, J. Klein, S. Klein, C. Klein-Bösing, M. Kleiner, T. Klemenz, A. Kluge, C. Kobdaj, R. Kohara, T. Kollegger, A. Kondratyev, N. Kondratyeva, J. Konig, S. A. Konigstorfer, P. J. Konopka, G. Kornakov, M. Korwieser, S. D. Koryciak, C. Koster, A. Kotliarov, N. Kovacic, V. Kovalenko, M. Kowalski, V. Kozhuharov, G. Kozlov, I. Králik, A. Kravčáková, L. Krcal, M. Krivda, F. Krizek, K. Krizkova Gajdosova, C. Krug, M. Krüger, D. M. Krupova, E. Kryshen, V. Kučera, C. Kuhn, P. G. Kuijer, T. Kumaoka, D. Kumar, L. Kumar, N. Kumar, S. Kumar, S. Kundu, P. Kurashvili, A. B. Kurepin, A. Kuryakin, S. Kushpil, V. Kuskov, M. Kutyla, A. Kuznetsov, M. J. Kweon, Y. Kwon, S. L. La Pointe, P. La Rocca, A. Lakrathok, M. Lamanna, S. Lambert, A. R. Landou, R. Langoy, P. Larionov, E. Laudi, L. Lautner, R. A. N. Laveaga, R. Lavicka, R. Lea, H. Lee, I. Legrand, G. Legras, J. Lehrbach, A. M. Lejeune, T. M. Lelek, R. C. Lemmon, I. León Monzón, M. M. Lesch, P. Lévai, M. Li, P. Li, X. Li, B. E. Liang-Gilman, J. Lien, R. Lietava, I. Likmeta, B. Lim, H. Lim, S. H. Lim, V. Lindenstruth, C. Lippmann, D. Liskova, D. H. Liu, J. Liu, G. S. S. Liveraro, I. M. Lofnes, C. Loizides, S. Lokos, J. Lömker, X. Lopez, E. López Torres, C. Lotteau, P. Lu, Z. Lu, F. V. Lugo, J. R. Luhder, G. Luparello, Y. G. Ma, M. Mager, A. Maire, E. M. Majerz, M. V. Makariev, M. Malaev, G. Malfattore, N. M. Malik, S. K. Malik, D. Mallick, N. Mallick, G. Mandaglio, S. K. Mandal, A. Manea, V. Manko, F. Manso, G. Mantzaridis, V. Manzari, Y. Mao, R. W. Marcjan, G. V. Margagliotti, A. Margotti, A. Marín, C. Markert, C. F. B. Marquez, P. Martinengo, M. I. Martínez, G. Martínez García, M. P. P. Martins, S. Masciocchi, M. Masera, A. Masoni, L. Massacrier, O. Massen, A. Mastroserio, S. Mattiazzo, A. Matyja, F. Mazzaschi, M. Mazzilli, Y. Melikyan, M. Melo, A. Menchaca-Rocha, J. E. M. Mendez, E. Meninno, A. S. Menon, M. W. Menzel, M. Meres, L. Micheletti, D. Mihai, D. L. Mihaylov, K. Mikhaylov, N. Minafra, D. Miśkowiec, A. Modak, B. Mohanty, M. Mohisin Khan, M. A. Molander, M. M. Mondal, S. Monira, C. Mordasini, D. A. Moreira De Godoy, I. Morozov, A. Morsch, T. Mrnjavac, V. Muccifora, S. Muhuri, J. D. Mulligan, A. Mulliri, M. G. Munhoz, R. H. Munzer, H. Murakami, S. Murray, L. Musa, J. Musinsky, J. W. Myrcha, B. Naik, A. I. Nambrath, B. K. Nandi, R. Nania, E. Nappi, A. F. Nassirpour, V. Nastase, A. Nath, S. Nath, C. Nattrass, M. N. Naydenov, A. Neagu, A. Negru, E. Nekrasova, L. Nellen, R. Nepeivoda, S. Nese, N. Nicassio, B. S. Nielsen, E. G. Nielsen, S. Nikolaev, V. Nikulin, F. Noferini, S. Noh, P. Nomokonov, J. Norman, N. Novitzky, A. Nyanin, J. Nystrand, M. R. Ockleton, S. Oh, A. Ohlson, V. A. Okorokov, J. Oleniacz, A. Onnerstad, C. Oppedisano, A. Ortiz Velasquez, J. Otwinowski, M. Oya, K. Oyama, S. Padhan, D. Pagano, G. Paić, S. Paisano-Guzmán, A. Palasciano, I. Panasenko, S. Panebianco, C. Pantouvakis, H. Park, J. Park, S. Park, J. E. Parkkila, Y. Patley, R. N. Patra, B. Paul, H. Pei, T. Peitzmann, X. Peng, M. Pennisi, S. Perciballi, D. Peresunko, G. M. Perez, Y. Pestov, M. T. Petersen, V. Petrov, M. Petrovici, S. Piano, M. Pikna, P. Pillot, O. Pinazza, L. Pinsky, C. Pinto, S. Pisano, M. Płoskoń, M. Planinic, D. K. Plociennik, M. G. Poghosyan, B. Polichtchouk, S. Politano, N. Poljak, A. Pop, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais, V. Pozdniakov, I. Y. Pozos, K. K. Pradhan, S. K. Prasad, S. Prasad, R. Preghenella, F. Prino, C. A. Pruneau, I. Pshenichnov, M. Puccio, S. Pucillo, S. Qiu, L. Quaglia, A. M. K. Radhakrishnan, S. Ragoni, A. Rai, A. Rakotozafindrabe, L. Ramello, M. Rasa, S. S. Räsänen, R. Rath, M. P. Rauch, I. Ravasenga, K. F. Read, C. Reckziegel, A. R. Redelbach, K. Redlich, C. A. Reetz, H. D. Regules-Medel, A. Rehman, F. Reidt, H. A. Reme-Ness, K. Reygers, A. Riabov, V. Riabov, R. Ricci, M. Richter, A. A. Riedel, W. Riegler, A. G. Riffero, M. Rignanese, C. Ripoli, C. Ristea, M. V. Rodriguez, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi, S. A. Rodríguez Ramírez, K. Røed, R. Rogalev, E. Rogochaya, T. S. Rogoschinski, D. Rohr, D. Röhrich, S. Rojas Torres, P. S. Rokita, G. Romanenko, F. Ronchetti, E. D. Rosas, K. Roslon, A. Rossi, A. Roy, S. Roy, N. Rubini, J. A. Rudolph, D. Ruggiano, R. Rui, P. G. Russek, R. Russo, A. Rustamov, E. Ryabinkin, Y. Ryabov, A. Rybicki, J. Ryu, W. Rzesa, B. Sabiu, S. Sadovsky, J. Saetre, S. Saha, B. Sahoo, R. Sahoo, D. Sahu, P. K. Sahu, J. Saini, K. Sajdakova, S. Sakai, M. P. Salvan, S. Sambyal, D. Samitz, I. Sanna, T. B. Saramela, D. Sarkar, P. Sarma, V. Sarritzu, V. M. Sarti, M. H. P. Sas, S. Sawan, E. Scapparone, J. Schambach, H. S. Scheid, C. Schiaua, R. Schicker, F. Schlepper, A. Schmah, C. Schmidt, M. O. Schmidt, M. Schmidt, N. V. Schmidt, A. R. Schmier, J. Schoengarth, R. Schotter, A. Schröter, J. Schukraft, K. Schweda, G. Scioli, E. Scomparin, J. E. Seger, Y. Sekiguchi, D. Sekihata, M. Selina, I. Selyuzhenkov, S. Senyukov, J. J. Seo, D. Serebryakov, L. Serkin, L. Šerkšnytė, A. Sevcenco, T. J. Shaba, A. Shabetai, R. Shahoyan, A. Shangaraev, B. Sharma, D. Sharma, H. Sharma, M. Sharma, S. Sharma, S. Sharma, U. Sharma, A. Shatat, O. Sheibani, K. Shigaki, M. Shimomura, J. Shin, S. Shirinkin, Q. Shou, Y. Sibiriak, S. Siddhanta, T. Siemiarczuk, T. F. Silva, D. Silvermyr, T. Simantathammakul, R. Simeonov, B. Singh, B. Singh, K. Singh, R. Singh, R. Singh, S. Singh, V. K. Singh, V. Singhal, T. Sinha, B. Sitar, M. Sitta, T. B. Skaali, G. Skorodumovs, N. Smirnov, R. J. M. Snellings, E. H. Solheim, C. Sonnabend, J. M. Sonneveld, F. Soramel, A. B. Soto-Hernandez, R. Spijkers, I. Sputowska, J. Staa, J. Stachel, I. Stan, P. J. Steffanic, T. Stellhorn, S. F. Stiefelmaier, D. Stocco, I. Storehaug, N. J. Strangmann, P. Stratmann, S. Strazzi, A. Sturniolo, C. P. Stylianidis, A. A. P. Suaide, C. Suire, A. Suiu, M. Sukhanov, M. Suljic, R. Sultanov, V. Sumberia, S. Sumowidagdo, L. H. Tabares, S. F. Taghavi, J. Takahashi, G. J. Tambave, S. Tang, Z. Tang, J. D. Tapia Takaki, N. Tapus, L. A. Tarasovicova, M. G. Tarzila, A. Tauro, A. Tavira García, G. Tejeda Muñoz, L. Terlizzi, C. Terrevoli, S. Thakur, M. Thogersen, D. Thomas, A. Tikhonov, N. Tiltmann, A. R. Timmins, M. Tkacik, T. Tkacik, A. Toia, R. Tokumoto, S. Tomassini, K. Tomohiro, N. Topilskaya, M. Toppi, V. V. Torres, A. G. Torres Ramos, A. Trifiró, T. Triloki, A. S. Triolo, S. Tripathy, T. Tripathy, S. Trogolo, V. Trubnikov, W. H. Trzaska, T. P. Trzcinski, C. Tsolanta, R. Tu, A. Tumkin, R. Turrisi, T. S. Tveter, K. Ullaland, B. Ulukutlu, S. Upadhyaya, A. Uras, G. L. Usai, M. Vala, N. Valle, L. V. R. van Doremalen, M. van Leeuwen, C. A. van Veen, R. J. G. van Weelden, P. Vande Vyvre, D. Varga, Z. Varga, P. Vargas Torres, M. Vasileiou, A. Vasiliev, O. Vázquez Doce, O. Vazquez Rueda, V. Vechernin, P. Veen, E. Vercellin, R. Verma, R. Vértesi, M. Verweij, L. Vickovic, Z. Vilakazi, O. Villalobos Baillie, A. Villani, A. Vinogradov, T. Virgili, M. M. O. Virta, A. Vodopyanov, B. Volkel, M. A. Völkl, S. A. Voloshin, G. Volpe, B. von Haller, I. Vorobyev, N. Vozniuk, J. Vrláková, J. Wan, C. Wang, D. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, A. Wegrzynek, F. T. Weiglhofer, S. C. Wenzel, J. P. Wessels, P. K. Wiacek, J. Wiechula, J. Wikne, G. Wilk, J. Wilkinson, G. A. Willems, B. Windelband, M. Winn, J. R. Wright, W. Wu, Y. Wu, Z. Xiong, R. Xu, A. Yadav, A. K. Yadav, Y. Yamaguchi, S. Yang, S. Yano, E. R. Yeats, Z. Yin, I.-K. Yoo, J. H. Yoon, H. Yu, S. Yuan, A. Yuncu, V. Zaccolo, C. Zampolli, F. Zanone, N. Zardoshti, A. Zarochentsev, P. Závada, N. Zaviyalov, M. Zhalov, B. Zhang, C. Zhang, L. Zhang, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, M. Zhao, V. Zherebchevskii, Y. Zhi, D. Zhou, Y. Zhou, J. Zhu, S. Zhu, Y. Zhu, S. C. Zugravel, N. Zurlo. Physical Review C, 2025; 111 (5) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.111.054906

This paper is open access. A PDF version is available here. h/t to ScienceDaily for the complete list of names

July 2020 update on Dr. He Jiankui (the CRISPR twins) situation

This was going to be written for January 2020 but sometimes things happen (e.g., a two-part overview of science culture in Canada from 2010-19 morphed into five parts with an addendum and, then, a pandemic). By now (July 28, 2020), Dr. He’s sentencing to three years in jail announced by the Chinese government in January 2020 is old news.

Regardless, it seems a neat and tidy ending to an international scientific scandal concerned with germline-editing which resulted in at least one set of twins, Lulu and Nana. He claimed to have introduced a variant (“Delta 32” variation) of their CCR5 gene. This does occur naturally and scientists have noted that people with this mutation seem to be resistant to HIV and smallpox.

For those not familiar with the events surrounding the announcement, here’s a brief recap. News of the world’s first gene-edited twins’ birth was announced in November 2018 just days before an international meeting group of experts who had agreed on a moratorium in 2015 on exactly that kind of work. The scientist making the announcement about the twins was scheduled for at least one presentation at the meeting, which was to be held in Hong Kong. He did give his presentation but left the meeting shortly afterwards as shock was beginning to abate and fierce criticism was rising. My November 28, 2018 posting (First CRISPR gene-edited babies? Ethics and the science story) offers a timeline of sorts and my initial response.

I subsequently followed up with two mores posts as the story continued to develop. My May 17, 2019 posting (Genes, intelligence, Chinese CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) babies, and other children) featured news that Dr. He’s gene-editing may have resulted in the twins having improved cognitive skills. Then, more news broke. The title for my June 20, 2019 posting (Greater mortality for the CRISPR twins Lulu and Nana?) is self-explanatory.

I have roughly organized my sources for this posting into two narratives, which I’m contrasting with each other. First, there is one found in the mainstream media (English language), ‘The Popular Narrative’. Second, there is story where Dr. He is viewed more sympathetically and as part of a larger community where there isn’t nearly as much consensus over what should or shouldn’t be done as ‘the popular narrative’ insists.

The popular narrative: Dr. He was a rogue scientist

A December 30, 2019 article for Fast Company by Kristin Toussaint lays out the latest facts (Note: A link has been removed),

… Now, a court in China has sentenced He to three years in prison, according to Xinhua, China’s state-run press agency, for “illegal medical practices.”

The court in China’s southern city of Shenzhen says that He’s team, which included colleagues Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou from two medical institutes in Guangdong Province, falsified ethical approval documents and violated China’s “regulations and ethical principles” with their gene-editing work. Zhang was sentenced to two years in jail, and Qin to 18 months with a two-year reprieve, according to Xinhau.

Ian Sample’s December 31, 2020 article for the Guardian offers more detail (Note: Links have been removed),

The court in Shenzhen found He guilty of “illegal medical practices” and in addition to the prison sentence fined him 3m yuan (£327,360), according to the state news agency, Xinhua. Two others on He’s research team received lesser fines and sentences.

“The three accused did not have the proper certification to practise medicine, and in seeking fame and wealth, deliberately violated national regulations in scientific research and medical treatment,” the court said, according to Xinhua. “They’ve crossed the bottom line of ethics in scientific research and medical ethics.”

[…] the court found He had forged documents from an ethics review panel that were used to recruit couples for the research. The couples that enrolled had a man with HIV and a woman without and were offered IVF in return for taking part.

Zhang Renli, who worked with He, was sentenced to two years in prison and fined 1m yuan. Colleague Qin Jinzhou received an 18-month sentence, but with a two-year reprieve, and a 500,000 yuan fine.

He’s experiments, which were carried out on seven embryos in late 2018, sent shockwaves through the medical and scientific world. The work was swiftly condemned for deceiving vulnerable patients and using a risky, untested procedure with no medical justification. Earlier this month, MIT Technology Review released excerpts from an early manuscript of He’s work. It casts serious doubts on his claims to have made the children immune to HIV.

Even as the scientific community turned against He, the scientist defended his work and said he was proud of having created Lulu and Nana. A third child has since been born as a result of the experiments.

Robin Lovell-Badge at the Francis Crick Institute in London said it was “far too premature” for anyone to pursue genome editing on embryos that are intended to lead to pregnancies. “At this stage we do not know if the methods will ever be sufficiently safe and efficient, although the relevant science is progressing rapidly, and new methods can look promising. It is also important to have standards established, including detailed regulatory pathways, and appropriate means of governance.”

A December 30, 2019 article, by Carolyn Y. Johnson for the Washington Post, covers much the same ground although it does go on to suggest that there might be some blame to spread around (Note: Links have been removed),

The Chinese researcher who stunned and alarmed the international scientific community with the announcement that he had created the world’s first gene-edited babies has been sentenced to three years in prison by a court in China.

He Jiankui sparked a bioethical crisis last year when he claimed to have edited the DNA of human embryos, resulting in the birth of twins called Lulu and Nana as well as a possible third pregnancy. The gene editing, which was aimed at making the children immune to HIV, was excoriated by many scientists as a reckless experiment on human subjects that violated basic ethical principles.

The judicial proceedings were not public, and outside experts said it is hard to know what to make of the punishment without the release of the full investigative report or extensive knowledge of Chinese law and the conditions under which He will be incarcerated.

Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at the University of California at Berkeley who co-invented CRISPR, the gene editing technology that He utilized, has been outspoken in condemning the experiments and has repeatedly said CRISPR is not ready to be used for reproductive purposes.

R. Alta Charo, a fellow at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, was among a small group of experts who had dinner with He the night before he unveiled his controversial research in Hong Kong in November 2018.

“He Jiankui is an example of somebody who fundamentally didn’t understand, or didn’t want to recognize, what have become international norms around responsible research,” Charo said. “My impression is he allowed his personal ambition to completely cloud rational thinking and judgment.”

Scientists have been testing an array of powerful biotechnology tools to fix genetic diseases in adults. There is tremendous excitement about the possibility of fixing genes that cause serious disease, and the first U.S. patients were treated with CRISPR this year.

But scientists have long drawn a clear moral line between curing genetic diseases in adults and editing and implanting human embryos, which raises the specter of “designer babies.” Those changes and any unanticipated ones could be inherited by future generations — in essence altering the human species.

“The fact that the individual at the center of the story has been punished for his role in it should not distract us from examining what supporting roles were played by others, particularly in the international scientific community and also the environment that shaped and encouraged him to push the limits,” said Benjamin Hurlbut [emphasis mine], associate professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University.

Stanford University cleared its scientists, including He’s former postdoctoral adviser, Stephen Quake, finding that Quake and others did not participate in the research and had expressed “serious concerns to Dr. He about his work.” A Rice University spokesman said an investigation continues into bioengineering professor Michael Deem, He’s former academic adviser. Deem was listed as a co-author on a paper called “Birth of Twins After Genome Editing for HIV Resistance,” submitted to scientific journals, according to MIT Technology Review.

It’s interesting that it’s only the Chinese scientists who are seen to be punished, symbolically at least. Meanwhile, Stanford clears its scientists of any wrongdoing and Rice University continues to investigate.

Watch for the Hurlbut name (son, Benjamin and father, William) to come up again in the ‘complex narrative’ section.

Criticism of the ‘twins’ CRISPR editing’ research

Antonio Regalado’s December 3, 2020 article for the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Technology Review features comments from various experts on an unpublished draft of Dr. He Jiankui’s research

Earlier this year a source sent us a copy of an unpublished manuscript describing the creation of the first gene-edited babies, born last year in China. Today, we are making excerpts of that manuscript public for the first time.

Titled “Birth of Twins After Genome Editing for HIV Resistance,” and 4,699 words long, the still unpublished paper was authored by He Jiankui, the Chinese biophysicist who created the edited twin girls. A second manuscript we also received discusses laboratory research on human and animal embryos.

The metadata in the files we were sent indicate that the two draft papers were edited by He in late November 2018 and appear to be what he initially submitted for publication. Other versions, including a combined manuscript, may also exist. After consideration by at least two prestigious journals, Nature and JAMA, his research remains unpublished.

The text of the twins paper is replete with expansive claims of a medical breakthrough that can “control the HIV epidemic.” It claims “success”—a word used more than once—in using a “novel therapy” to render the girls resistant to HIV. Yet surprisingly, it makes little attempt to prove that the twins really are resistant to the virus. And the text largely ignores data elsewhere in the paper suggesting that the editing went wrong.

We shared the unpublished manuscripts with four experts—a legal scholar, an IVF doctor, an embryologist, and a gene-editing specialist—and asked them for their reactions. Their views were damning. Among them: key claims that He and his team made are not supported by the data; the babies’ parents may have been under pressure to agree to join the experiment; the supposed medical benefits are dubious at best; and the researchers moved forward with creating living human beings before they fully understood the effects of the edits they had made.

1. Why aren’t the doctors among the paper’s authors?

The manuscript begins with a list of the authors—10 of them, mostly from He Jiankui’s lab at the Southern University of Science and Technology, but also including Hua Bai, director of an AIDS support network, who helped recruit couples, and Michael Deem, an American biophysicist whose role is under review by Rice University. (His attorney previously said Deem never agreed to submit the manuscript and sought to remove his name from it.)

It’s a small number of people for such a significant project, and one reason is that some names are missing—notably, the fertility doctors who treated the patients and the obstetrician who delivered the babies. Concealing them may be an attempt to obscure the identities of the patients. However, it also leaves unclear whether or not these doctors understood they were helping to create the first gene-edited babies.

To some, the question of whether the manuscript is trustworthy arises immediately.

Hank Greely, professor of law, Stanford University: We have no, or almost no, independent evidence for anything reported in this paper. Although I believe that the babies probably were DNA-edited and were born, there’s very little evidence for that. Given the circumstances of this case, I am not willing to grant He Jiankui the usual presumption of honesty. 

That last article by Regalado is the purest example I have of how fierce the criticism is and how almost all of it is focused on Dr. He and his Chinese colleagues.

A complex, measured narrative: multiple players in the game

The most sympathetic and, in many ways, the most comprehensive article is an August 1, 2019 piece by Jon Cohen for Science magazine (Note: Links have been removed),

On 10 June 2017, a sunny and hot Saturday in Shenzhen, China, two couples came to the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) to discuss whether they would participate in a medical experiment that no researcher had ever dared to conduct. The Chinese couples, who were having fertility problems, gathered around a conference table to meet with He Jiankui, a SUSTech biophysicist. Then 33, He (pronounced “HEH”) had a growing reputation in China as a scientist-entrepreneur but was little known outside the country. “We want to tell you some serious things that might be scary,” said He, who was trim from years of playing soccer and wore a gray collared shirt, his cuffs casually unbuttoned.

He simply meant the standard in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. But as the discussion progressed, He and his postdoc walked the couples through informed consent forms [emphasis mine] that described what many ethicists and scientists view as a far more frightening proposition. Seventeen months later, the experiment triggered an international controversy, and the worldwide scientific community rejected him. The scandal cost him his university position and the leadership of a biotech company he founded. Commentaries labeled He, who also goes by the nickname JK, a “rogue,” “China’s Frankenstein,” and “stupendously immoral.” [emphases mine]

But that day in the conference room, He’s reputation remained untarnished. As the couples listened and flipped through the forms, occasionally asking questions, two witnesses—one American, the other Chinese—observed [emphasis mine]. Another lab member shot video, which Science has seen [emphasis mine], of part of the 50-minute meeting. He had recruited those couples because the husbands were living with HIV infections kept under control by antiviral drugs. The IVF procedure would use a reliable process called sperm washing to remove the virus before insemination, so father-to-child transmission was not a concern. Rather, He sought couples who had endured HIV-related stigma and discrimination and wanted to spare their children that fate by dramatically reducing their risk of ever becoming infected. [emphasis mine]

He, who for much of his brief career had specialized in sequencing DNA, offered a potential solution: CRISPR, the genome-editing tool that was revolutionizing biology, could alter a gene in IVF embryos to cripple production of an immune cell surface protein, CCR5, that HIV uses to establish an infection. “This technique may be able to produce an IVF baby naturally immunized against AIDS,” one consent form read.[emphasis mine]

The couples’ children could also pass the protective mutation to future generations. The prospect of this irrevocable genetic change is why, since the advent of CRISPR as a genome editor 5 years earlier, the editing of human embryos, eggs, or sperm has been hotly debated. The core issue is whether such germline editing would cross an ethical red line because it could ultimately alter our species. Regulations, some with squishy language, arguably prohibited it in many countries, China included.

Yet opposition was not unanimous. A few months before He met the couples, a committee convened by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) concluded in a well-publicized report that human trials of germline editing “might be permitted” if strict criteria were met. The group of scientists, lawyers, bioethicists, and patient advocates spelled out a regulatory framework but cautioned that “these criteria are necessarily vague” because various societies, caregivers, and patients would view them differently. The committee notably did not call for an international ban, arguing instead for governmental regulation as each country deemed appropriate and “voluntary self-regulation pursuant to professional guidelines.”

[…] He hid his plans and deceived his colleagues and superiors, as many people have asserted? A preliminary investigation in China stated that He had forged documents, “dodged supervision,” and misrepresented blood tests—even though no proof of those charges was released [emphasis mine], no outsiders were part of the inquiry, and He has not publicly admitted to any wrongdoing. (CRISPR scientists in China say the He fallout has affected their research.) Many scientists outside China also portrayed He as a rogue actor. “I think there has been a failure of self-regulation by the scientific community because of a lack of transparency,” virologist David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize–winning researcher at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena and co-chair of the Hong Kong summit, thundered at He after the biophysicist’s only public talk on the experiment.

Because the Chinese government has revealed little and He is not talking, key questions about his actions are hard to answer. Many of his colleagues and confidants also ignored Science‘s requests for interviews. But Ryan Ferrell, a public relations specialist He hired, has cataloged five dozen people who were not part of the study but knew or suspected what He was doing before it became public. Ferrell calls it He’s circle of trust. [emphasis mine]

That circle included leading scientists—among them a Nobel laureate—in China and the United States, business executives, an entrepreneur connected to venture capitalists, authors of the NASEM report, a controversial U.S. IVF specialist [John Zhang] who discussed opening a gene-editing clinic with He [emphasis mine], and at least one Chinese politician. “He had an awful lot of company to be called a ‘rogue,’” says geneticist George Church [emphases mine], a CRISPR pioneer at Harvard University who was not in the circle of trust and is one of the few scientists to defend at least some aspects of He’s experiment.

Some people sharply criticized He when he brought them into the circle; others appear to have welcomed his plans or did nothing. Several went out of their way to distance themselves from He after the furor erupted. For example, the two onlookers in that informed consent meeting were Michael Deem, He’s Ph.D. adviser at Rice University in Houston, Texas, and Yu Jun, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and co-founder of the Beijing Genomics Institute, the famed DNA sequencing company in Shenzhen. Deem remains under investigation by Rice for his role in the experiment and would not speak with Science. In a carefully worded statement, Deem’s lawyers later said he “did not meet the parents of the reported CCR5-edited children, or anyone else whose embryos were edited.” But earlier, Deem cooperated with the Associated Press (AP) for its exclusive story revealing the birth of the babies, which reported that Deem was “present in China when potential participants gave their consent and that he ‘absolutely’ thinks they were able to understand the risks. [emphasis mine]”

Yu, who works at CAS’s Beijing Institute of Genomics, acknowledges attending the informed consent meeting with Deem, but he told Science he did not know that He planned to implant gene-edited embryos. “Deem and I were chatting about something else,” says Yu, who has sequenced the genomes of humans, rice, silkworms, and date palms. “What was happening in the room was not my business, and that’s my personality: If it’s not my business, I pay very little attention.”

Some people who know He and have spoken to Science contend it is time for a more open discussion of how the biophysicist formed his circle of confidants and how the larger circle of trust—the one between the scientific community and the public—broke down. Bioethicist William Hurlbut at Stanford University [emphasis mine] in Palo Alto, California, who knew He wanted to conduct the embryo-editing experiment and tried to dissuade him, says that He was “thrown under the bus” by many people who once supported him. “Everyone ran for the exits, in both the U.S. and China. I think everybody would do better if they would just openly admit what they knew and what they did, and then collectively say, ‘Well, people weren’t clear what to do. We should all admit this is an unfamiliar terrain.’”

Steve Lombardi, a former CEO of Helicos, reacted far more charitably. Lombardi, who runs a consulting business in Bridgewater, Connecticut, says Quake introduced him to He to help find investors for Direct Genomics. “He’s your classic, incredibly bright, naïve entrepreneur—I run into them all the time,” Lombardi says. “He had the right instincts for what to do in China and just didn’t know how to do it. So I put him in front of as many people as I could.” Lombardi says He told him about his embryo-editing ambitions in August 2017, asking whether Lombardi could find investors for a new company that focused on “genetic medical tourism” and was based in China or, because of a potentially friendlier regulatory climate, Thailand. “I kept saying to him, ‘You know, you’ve got to deal with the ethics of this and be really sure that you know what you’re doing.’”

In April 2018, He asked Ferrell to handle his media full time. Ferrell was a good fit—he had an undergraduate degree in neuroscience, had spent a year in Beijing studying Chinese, and had helped another company using a pre-CRISPR genome editor. Now that a woman in the trial was pregnant, Ferrell says, He’s “understanding of the gravity of what he had done increased.” Ferrell had misgivings about the experiment, but he quit HDMZ and that August moved to Shenzhen. With the pregnancy already underway, Ferrell reasoned, “It was going to be the biggest science story of that week or longer, no matter what I did.”

MIT Technology Review had broken a story early that morning China time, saying human embryos were being edited and implanted, after reporter Antonio Regalado discovered descriptions of the project that He had posted online, without Ferrell’s knowledge, in an official Chinese clinical trial registry. Now, He gave AP the green light to post a detailed account, which revealed that twin girls—whom He, to protect their identifies, named Lulu and Nana—had been born. Ferrell and He also posted five unfinished YouTube videos explaining and justifying the unprecedented experiment.

“He was fearful that he’d be unable to communicate to the press and the onslaught in a way that would be in any way manageable for him,” Ferrell says. One video tried to forestall eugenics accusations, with He rejecting goals such as enhancing intelligence, changing skin color, and increasing sports performance as “not love.” Still, the group knew it had lost control of the news. [emphasis mine]

… On 7 March 2017, 5 weeks after the California gathering, He submitted a medical ethics approval application to the Shenzhen HarMoniCare Women and Children’s Hospital that outlined the planned CCR5 edit of human embryos. The babies, it claimed, would be resistant to HIV as well as to smallpox and cholera. (The natural CCR5 mutation may have been selected for because it helps carriers survive smallpox and plague, some studies suggest—but they don’t mention cholera.) “This is going to be a great science and medicine achievement ever since the IVF technology which was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2010, and will also bring hope to numerous genetic disease patients,” the application says. Seven people on the ethics committee, chaired by Lin Zhitong—a one-time Direct Genomics director and a HarMoniCare administrator—signed the application, indicating they approved it.

[…] John Zhang, […] [emphasis mine] earned his medical degree in China and a Ph.D. in reproductive biology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Zhang had made international headlines himself in September 2016, when New Scientist revealed that he had created the world’s first “three-parent baby” by using mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg to revitalize the egg of a woman with infertility and then inseminating the resulting egg. “This technology holds great hope for ladies with advanced maternal age to have their own children with their own eggs,” Zhang explains in the center’s promotional video, which alternates between Chinese and English. It does not mention that Zhang did the IVF experiment in Mexico because it is not now allowed in the United States. [emphasis mine]

When Science contacted Zhang, the physician initially said he barely knew He: [emphases mine] “I know him just like many people know him, in an academic meeting.”

After his talk [November 2018 at Hong Kong meeting], He immediately drove back to Shenzhen, and his circle of trust began to disintegrate. He has not spoken publicly since. “I don’t think he can recover himself through PR,” says Ferrell, who no longer works for He but recently started to do part-time work for He’s wife. “He has to do other service to the world.”

Calls for a moratorium on human germline editing have increased, although at the end of the Hong Kong summit, the organizing committee declined in its consensus to call for a ban. China has stiffened its regulations on work with human embryos, and Chinese bioethicists in a Nature editorial about the incident urged the country to confront “the eugenic thinking that has persisted among a small proportion of Chinese scholars.”

Church, who has many CRISPR collaborations in China, finds it inconceivable that He’s work surprised the Chinese government. China has “the best surveillance system in the world,” he says. “I conclude that they were totally aware of what he was doing at every step of the way, especially because he wasn’t particularly secretive about it.”

Benjamin Hurlbut, William’s son and a historian of biomedicine at Arizona State University in Tempe, says leaders in the scientific community should take a hard look at their actions, too. [emphases mine] He thinks the 2017 NASEM report helped give rise to He by following a well-established approach to guiding science: appointing an elite group to decide how scientists should be regulated. Benjamin Hurlbut, whose book Experiments in Democracy explores the governance of embryo research and bioethics, questions why small, scientist-led groups—à la the totemic Asilomar conference held in 1975 to discuss the future of recombinant DNA research—are seen as the best way to shape thinking about new technologies. Hurlbut has called for a “global observatory for gene editing” to convene meetings with diverse perspectives.

The prevailing notion that the scientific community simply “failed to see the rogue among the responsible,” Hurlbut says, is a convenient narrative for those scientific leaders and inhibits their ability to learn from such failures. [emphases mine] “It puts them on the right side of history,” he says. They failed to paint a bright enough red line, Hurlbut contends. “They are not on the right side of history because they contributed to this.”

If you have the time, I strongly recommend reading Cohen’s piece in its entirety. You’ll find links to the reports and more articles with in-depth reporting on this topic.

A little kindness and no regrets

William Hurlbut was interviewed in an As it happens (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’ CBC) radio programme segment on December 30, 2020. This is an excerpt from the story transcript written by Sheena Goodyear (Note: A link has been removed),

Dr. William Hurlbut, a physician and professor of neural-biology at Stanford University, says he tried to warn He to slow down before it was too late. Here is part of his conversation with As It Happens guest host Helen Mann.

What was your reaction to the news that Dr. He had been sentenced to three years in prison?

My first reaction was one of sadness because I know Dr. He — who we call J.K., that’s his nickname.

I spent quite a few hours talking with him, and I’m just sad that this worked out this way. It didn’t work out well for him or for his country or for the world, in some sense.

Except the one good thing is it’s alerted us, it’s awakened the world, to the seriousness of the issues that are coming down toward us with biotechnology, especially in genetics.

How does he feel about [how] not just the Chinese government, but the world generally, responded to his experiment?

He was surprised, personally. But I had actually warned him that he was proceeding too fast, and I didn’t know he had implanted embryos.

We had several conversations before this was disclosed, and I warned him to go more slowly and to keep in conversation with the rest of the international scientific community, and more broadly the international perspectives on social and ethical matters.

He was doing that to some extent, but not deeply enough and not transparently enough.

It sounds like you were very thoughtful in the conversations you had with him and the advice you gave him. And I guess you operated with what you had. But do you have any regrets yourself?

I don’t have any regrets about the way I conducted myself. I regret that this happened this way for J.K., who is a very bright person, and a very nice person, a humble person.

He grew up in a poor urban farming village. He told me that at one point he wanted to ask out a certain girl that he thought was really pretty … but he was embarrassed to do so because her family owned the restaurant. And so you see how humble his origins were.

By the way, he did end up asking her out and he ended up marrying her, which is a happy story, except now they’re separated for years of crucial time, and they have little children. 

I know this is a bigger story than just J.K. and his family. But there’s a personal story to it too.

What happens He Jiankui? … Is his research career over?

It’s hard to imagine that a nation like China would not give him some some useful role in their society. A very intelligent and very well-educated young man. 

But on the other hand, he will be forever a sign of a very crucial and difficult moment for the human species. He’s not going outlive that.

It’s going to be interesting. I hope I get a chance to have good conversations with him again and hear his internal ruminations and perspectives on it all.

This (“I don’t have any regrets about the way I conducted myself”) is where Hurlbut lost me. I think he could have suggested that he’d reviewed and rethought everything and feels that he and others could have done better and maybe they need to rethink how scientists are trained and how we talk about science, genetics, and emerging technology. Interestingly, it’s his son who comes up with something closer to what I’m suggesting (this excerpt was quoted earlier in this posting from a December 30, 2019 article, by Carolyn Y. Johnson for the Washington Post),

“The fact that the individual at the center of the story has been punished for his role in it should not distract us from examining what supporting roles were played by others, particularly in the international scientific community and also the environment that shaped and encouraged him to push the limits,” said Benjamin Hurlbut [emphasis mine], associate professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University.

The man who CRISPRs himself approves

Josiah Zayner publicly injected himself with CRISPR in a demonstration (see my January 25, 2018 posting for details about Zayner, his demonstration, and his plans). As you might expect, his take on the He affair is quite individual. From a January 2, 2020 article for STAT, Zayner presents the case for Dr. He’s work (Note: Links have been removed),

When I saw the news that He Jiankui and colleagues had been sentenced to three years in prison for the first human embryo gene editing and implantation experiments, all I could think was, “How will we look back at what they had done in 100 years?”

When the scientist described his research and revealed the births of gene edited twin girls at the [Second] International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong in late November 2018, I stayed up into the early hours of the morning in Oakland, Calif., watching it. Afterward, I couldn’t sleep for a few days and couldn’t stop thinking about his achievement.

This was the first time a viable human embryo was edited and allowed to live past 14 days, much less the first time such an embryo was implanted and the baby brought to term.

The majority of scientists were outraged at the ethics of what had taken place, despite having very little information on what had actually occurred.

To me, no matter how abhorrent one views [sic] the research, it represents a substantial step forward in human embryo editing. Now there is a clear path forward that anyone can follow when before it had been only a dream.

As long as the children He Jiankui engineered haven’t been harmed by the experiment, he is just a scientist who forged some documents to convince medical doctors to implant gene-edited embryos. The 4-minute mile of human genetic engineering has been broken. It will happen again.

The academic establishment and federal funding regulations have made it easy to control the number of heretical scientists. We rarely if ever hear of individuals pushing the ethical and legal boundaries of science.

The rise of the biohacker is changing that.

A biohacker is a scientist who exists outside academia or an institution. By this definition, He Jiankui is a biohacker. I’m also part of this community, and helped build an organization to support it.

Such individuals have much more freedom than “traditional” scientists because scientific regulation in the U.S. is very much institutionally enforced by the universities, research organizations, or grant-giving agencies. But if you are your own institution and don’t require federal grants, who can police you? If you don’t tell anyone what you are doing, there is no way to stop you — especially since there is no government agency actively trying to stop people from editing embryos.

… When a human embryo being edited and implanted is no longer interesting enough for a news story, will we still view He Jiankui as a villain?

I don’t think we will. But even if we do, He Jiankui will be remembered and talked about more than any scientist of our day. Although that may seriously aggravate many scientists and bioethicists, I think he deserves that honor.

Josiah Zayner is CEO of The ODIN, a company that teaches people how to do genetic engineering in their homes.

You can find The ODIN here.

Final comments

There can’t be any question that this was inevitable. One needs only to take a brief stroll through the history of science to know that scientists are going to push boundaries or, as in this case, press past an ill-defined grey zone.

The only scientists who are being publicly punished for hubris are Dr. He Jiankui and his two colleagues in China. Dr. Michael Deem is still working for Rice University as far as I can determine. Here’s how the Wikipedia entry for the He Jiankui Affair describes the investigation (Note: Links have been removed),

Michael W. Deem, an American bioengineering professor at Rice University and He’s doctoral advisor, was involved in the research, and was present when people involved in He’s study gave consent.[24] He was the only non-Chinese out of 10 authors listed in the manuscript submitted to Nature.[30] Deem came under investigation by Rice University after news of the work was made public.[58] As of 31 December 2019, the university had not released a decision.[59] [emphasis mine]

Meanwhile the scientists at Stanford are cleared. While there are comments about the Chinese government not being transparent, it seems to me that US universities are just as opaque.

What seems missing from all this discussion and opprobrium is that the CRISPR technology itself is problematic. My September 20, 2019 post features research into off-target results from CRISPR gene-editing and, prior, there was this July 17, 2018 posting (The CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats]-CAS9 gene-editing technique may cause new genetic damage kerfuffle).

I’d like to see more discussion and, in line with Benjamin Hurlbut’s thinking, I’d like to see more than a small group of experts talking to each other as part of the process especially here in Canada and in light of efforts to remove our ban on germline-editing (see my April 26, 2019 posting for more about those efforts).