He Jiankui’s Controversial Return: Gene-Editing Babies and the Future of Bioethics

Imagine being at the center of one of the most controversial scientific breakthroughs of the decade, facing prison time, and then deciding to push forward with the same experiments once again. This is the reality for He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who shocked the world when he announced the creation of the first gene-edited babies in 2018. Now, after serving nearly three years in prison, he’s back—with plans to edit genes again, this time with an ambitious goal to end Alzheimer’s disease.

This journey is not just about cutting-edge science; it pits deep ethical questions against rapid technological advancements. If you’ve followed gene-editing debates or wonder about the real-world challenges behind CRISPR technology and human genomes, understanding He Jiankui’s story is essential.

Who Is He Jiankui and Why Was He Imprisoned?

He Jiankui gained global notoriety in late 2018 when he claimed to have created the world’s first gene-edited babies, twin girls whose DNA was altered to confer resistance against HIV. Using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, which allows for precise editing of DNA, he altered the CCR5 gene—a receptor involved in HIV infection pathways.

The move was widely condemned for ethical breaches, lack of transparency, and unproven safety. He Jiankui violated China’s regulations by conducting experiments on embryos destined for pregnancy without adequate oversight. Consequently, he was sentenced to three years in prison for illegal medical practices, marking a watershed moment in the conversation about human gene editing.

What Is CRISPR and How Does Gene Editing Work?

To grasp the gravity of He Jiankui’s work, it’s important to understand the core technology: CRISPR-Cas9. Think of CRISPR as molecular scissors guided by a GPS-like system to find specific sequences in the DNA and cut them out or modify them. Scientists can target faulty genes or introduce new traits by editing the genetic code inside cells.

Despite its potential, gene editing in humans is fraught with unknowns. Mistakes can occur, like off-target edits or unintended mutations, which may have life-long consequences. This makes the difference between groundbreaking treatments and ethical violations a razor-thin line.

Why Is He Jiankui Planning to Edit Genes Again?

After his release, He Jiankui announced plans to tackle Alzheimer’s disease through gene editing. Alzheimer’s is a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder with no cure, and gene therapy presents a hopeful frontier. He believes his technology could prevent or even reverse the disease, which affects millions worldwide.

However, He Jiankui has been outspoken in his skepticism toward Silicon Valley’s approach to biotechnology, calling it a “Nazi eugenic experiment.” This harsh critique points to his belief that some gene-editing efforts prioritize enhancement and market-driven goals rather than genuine therapies for serious conditions.

How Does Silicon Valley’s Approach Contrast With He Jiankui’s Vision?

Many biotech startups focus on editing human embryos or adult cells to optimize traits such as intelligence, longevity, or physical appearance—concepts often criticized as modern eugenics. He Jiankui’s criticism suggests these efforts risk repeating tragic history where selective breeding was enforced for ideological reasons.

By contrast, He advocates targeting medical conditions like Alzheimer’s, which is primarily a health-driven, patient-centered use case. Yet, his own methodology raises concerns given his previous ethical violations and lack of regulatory compliance.

Common Mistakes in Gene Editing Projects

• Neglecting Safety Protocols: Many researchers underestimate off-target effects, which are unintended changes in the genome. These can cause harmful mutations.
• Ignoring Ethical Standards: Skipping proper approvals and informed consent damages public trust and breaks laws.
• Lack of Transparency: Failing to share research openly limits peer review and critical evaluation.
• Overpromising Results: Presenting early-stage research as cures invites backlash and slows genuine progress.

When Should You Consider Gene Editing for Medical Conditions?

If you’re exploring gene-editing technologies for therapeutic purposes, timing matters. Gene editing should be confined to rigorous clinical trials once preclinical data show safety and efficacy. Ethical approval bodies and regulatory agencies must oversee development.

Because gene editing can permanently alter human genetics, it is essential not to rush applications. Targeted diseases with clear genetic causes, like some rare inherited disorders, are currently better candidates than complex disorders like Alzheimer’s. Even then, precautions are paramount.

What Are Hybrid Solutions Combining Different Approaches?

In tackling diseases such as Alzheimer’s, combining gene editing with other treatment modes—drugs, lifestyle changes, and supportive care—may offer practical advantages. Hybrid solutions recognize the limitations of any single therapy and prepare for unforeseen complications by layering treatments.

This multi-pronged approach helps you hedge risks and extend therapeutic reach while ongoing research refines gene-editing tools.

What Lessons Can You Learn From He Jiankui’s Experience?

He Jiankui’s story is a testament to scientific ambition, but also caution. It highlights the importance of balancing innovation with responsibility. When handling powerful tools like gene editing, remember these critical points:

• Strictly adhere to safety and ethical guidelines.
• Engage regulators and ethics boards early.
• Maintain transparency with the scientific community and the public.
• Focus on genuine medical needs rather than enhancements.

Concrete Next Step: How Can You Evaluate Gene-Editing Plans Responsibly?

If you’re involved in or curious about gene-editing projects, take 20-30 minutes today to run a quick ethical and technical assessment checklist for any proposal or research you encounter:

1. Confirm regulatory approval: Does the plan have documented ethical board and government clearances?
2. Assess transparency: Are methods and results openly published or shared?
3. Evaluate safety measures: What protocols exist to detect off-target effects and prevent harm?
4. Define objectives: Is the research focused on treating serious medical conditions rather than enhancement?
5. Plan for follow-up: Are there provisions for long-term monitoring of subjects?

Taking this simple step helps navigate the complex landscape of gene editing with discernment and responsibility.