Responding to the Comeback of He Jiankui, ‘The CRISPR Baby Scientist’: Lessons from Criminal Justice Theory
By Matthew Chun
He Jiankui — a high-profile Chinese scientist convicted for conducting unethical gene-editing experiments — has been released from prison and is currently fundraising for his new gene therapy endeavor. As the scientific community grapples with how to respond, theories of criminal justice can provide important perspectives to better inform the conversation surrounding Dr. He’s return to research.
A Scientist Spurned
In November 2018, He Jiankui shocked the world with the revelation that his team had used a gene-editing tool called CRISPR to create the world’s first gene-edited babies — a set of twins named Nana and Lulu. In his experiment, Dr. He — since monikered “The CRISPR Baby Scientist” — attempted to remove a gene called CCR5 from the twins in the hopes that this modification would increase their resistance to HIV.
However, while many details of the story remain shrouded in mystery, it quickly became evident that the experiment was highly unethical. As an article in The Atlantic points out, the risks of the experiment did not outweigh the potential benefits, the gene editing was poorly executed, the participants’ consent was questionable, and the experiment was kept hidden from Dr. He’s institution. Moreover, Dr. He undertook the experiment not only in contravention of global consensus, but also “his own stated ethical views.”
The scientific community was not alone in its admonition of Dr. He’s activities. In 2019, a Chinese court found that Dr. He and his collaborators had “forged ethical review documents and misled doctors into unknowingly implanting gene-edited embryos into two women” in deliberate violation of national regulations on biomedical research and medical ethics. As a result, Dr. He was sentenced to three years in prison and was fined three million Chinese yuan ($429,000).
He Jiankui’s Controversial Comeback
Fast forward to the present. Since being released from prison in April 2022, Dr. He has been staging a comeback. Shifting his attention from human embryo editing to less controversial gene therapies, Dr. He has expressed his intention to tackle rare diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and in November 2022, Dr. He announced that he had opened a new lab in Beijing dedicated to this purpose. In February 2023, Dr. He spoke about his research plans at an event hosted by the University of Kent, and most recently, he announced that he had received a Hong Kong visa and might work there one day. Within hours of Dr. He’s announcement, Hong Kong officials revoked his visa due to suspicions that “false statements” had been made, and stated that a criminal investigation would be conducted.
With respect to his past CRISPR baby experiment, Dr. He has acknowledged that he moved “too quickly,” but has otherwise remained largely silent about his actions. After canceling a March speaking engagement at the University of Oxford and declining to attend the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing in London, Dr. He posted on Twitter, “I feel that I am not ready to talk about my experience in past 3 years.”
While many scientists have an “open mind” toward Dr. He and his latest projects, others are more skeptical of giving him a second chance, fearing that he might return to unethical kinds of work. In fact, academics cannot even agree on whether Dr. He should be allowed to attend and speak at scientific events outside of China. While some see the value in encouraging open and respectful dialogue with Dr. He, others are wary of “giving him a platform.” What, then, should be done?
Theories of Criminal Justice and How They Can Inform the Scientific Community’s Response to Dr. He
A starting point for the scientific community’s debate would be to recognize any potential actions against Dr. He for what they are: extrajudicial measures that put the enforcement of justice in the hands of private actors. Dr. He has already paid the legal consequences of his mistakes. The question is whether further action is warranted.
For those who believe a three-year prison sentence and a fine were not enough to administer justice, careful consideration should be given toward what justice would truly entail. Only then can further actions taken by the scientific community be appropriately tailored to achieve its goals. Borrowing from theories of criminal justice, the scientific community can think of its potential actions within the framework of retributive approaches, restorative approaches, and transformative approaches.
Retributive Justice
Under a retributive approach to justice, the primary concern of the scientific community should be whether Dr. He has received his “just deserts,” facing consequences that are proportional to the harm he has done. Such an approach could entail banning Dr. He from participation in future conferences and withholding funding for research projects if it is determined that he has not yet been appropriately punished for his unethical work. However, under a retributive view of justice, Dr. He’s punishment must also come to an end if it ever becomes outsized to his wrongdoing.
Restorative Justice
Under a restorative approach to justice, the focus of the scientific community should be on repairing the harms to people and relationships caused by Dr. He’s actions. Thus, rather than simply shunning Dr. He, restorative justice might entail encouraging Dr. He to more openly acknowledge the wrongfulness of his experiment and engage in productive conversations with the scientific community to rebuild trust. Restorative justice might also entail creating an expectation for Dr. He to stay involved in the health monitoring and support of Nana and Lulu. Under this view, Dr. He’s relationship with other scientists would ideally be repaired to the point that he could eventually regain his standing as a respected researcher in the community.
Transformative Justice
Finally, under a transformative approach to justice, the focus of the scientific community would recognize and address the unhealthy dynamics and social systems that led to Dr. He’s experiment in the first place. Ideally, this would include involving Dr. He himself in this transformative work. For example, such an approach might entail grappling with the perverse incentives for fame in academia and the overwhelming pressure to be the first to conduct headline-capturing experiments. Transformative justice might also involve Dr. He in changing the culture of silence that prevented interventions from any of the multiple scientists who knew about his CRISPR baby plans.
Conclusion
While there are certainly no easy answers, the above theories of criminal justice provide a shared vocabulary and structured view of the problem that can improve the scientific community’s ongoing conversation about Dr. He’s return to research. By thinking carefully about what justice should entail, the scientific community will be better able to tailor their response to Dr. He — whatever that may be — in a productive and consistent manner.
