63BloombergBusinessweek November 18, 2019
twotwingirls,LuluandNana,tomakethemmoreresistant
toHIV.Evenmorealarmingly,he’ddonesoviagermlineedit-
ing,a techniqueenablingthetraittobepassedontofuture
generations,withunpredictableeffects.
ThereactionamongWesternscientistswaspredict-
ablyfurious,andit soonbecameapparentthatmany
Chinesescientistswerejustasangry.Thecountry’s
maingeneticsandcellbiologybodiesissuedswift
denunciations, and
122 researcherssigneda jointstatementthatcalledHe’sproj-
ect“madness,”complainingit had“delivereda blowtothe
reputationanddevelopmentofChinesebiologicalresearch.”
BGIwasamongtheorganizationsthatcondemnedHe’s
work,whichhadnoconnectiontothecompany.
TheepisodeneverthelessillustratedhowfarChinahas
togobeforeWesterndoctorsandregulatorswillbecom-
fortablegivingevenitsmostsophisticatedcorporationsa
centralroleinpatientcare.Nocountryhasa solidsense
ofhowtoregulategenomics,butinChina,“it’sthewild,
wild,wildWest,”saysRobertGreen,a geneticistatHarvard
MedicalSchoolwhoresearchesconsumergenetictesting.
Eventhekindofstraightforwarddiagnosticsthatunderpin
muchofBGI’scurrentbusinesspresentthornyquestions.
Chinahasnoequivalenttothe 2008 GeneticInformation
NondiscriminationAct,theU.S.lawthatbarsinsurersand
employersfromusingDNAtomakecoverageorhiringdeci-
sions.Andthescientificpressis fullofexamplesofeyebrow-
raising research conducted at Chinese institutions, such as
using CRISPR to breed ultramuscular beagles and giving
macaques extra copies of a human gene that may promote
intelligence. (No Planet of the Apes-style uprising has yet
been reported, but it’s early days.)
Green points out, too, that sequencing genomic data is
onething;drawing inferences about individuals from the
resultsopensup another host of potential ethical issues.
Companiesmight, for example, promote unproven claims
aboutcustomers’ genetic makeup so they can sell them
productsortreatments. “We’re struggling with these issues
intheU.S.,andwe haven’t claimed to have got it right, but
yougetthefeeling that in China many of the companies are
justblowingpast,” Green says.
China’sleaders appear concerned that their country
notberegarded as a genetic free-for-all. Although
thegovernmentwasinitiallyslowtoreacttothe
LuluandNanarevelation,it camedownhard
oncethedepthofinternational fury was clear,
shutting down He’s lab and declaring that
it wouldn’t tolerate similar experiments.
(Ominously, he hasn’t been seen in pub-
lic since.) Earlier this year the National
Health Commission published draft reg-
ulations that would require researchers
to receive central government approval
to edit embryos or any cells that will be
implanted in humans, with fines and crim-
inal charges threatened for those who break
the rules. Articles on gene editing in the heav-
ilycontrolled media also frequently warn of its
dangers, sometimes with reference to dystopian
moviessuch as Resident Evil. With a vast architec-
tureofsurveillance and few checks on government
power,Harvard’s Church says, “I don’t think the guard-
railsarelessinChina, I think they’re more.”
BGI’spubliccommitments on editing are fairly anodyne;
in the wake of the He controversy, it issued a proposal call-
ing for researchers to “strictly obey the laws, regulations
and policies governing life science” and “strengthen ethi-
cal awareness.” Wang insists the company has no interest
in experimentation that could bring it comparable oppro-
brium. “We can do pigs, we can do dogs, we can do mon-
keys,” he says of BGI’s gene-editing efforts. “There’s no
reason for us to do humans.” He adds: “Do you want to use
that technology to be the first one and make yourself the
common enemy of society? We’re not that dumb.”
The genomics revolution Wang says is at hand will raise
a seriesofdifficultquestionsaboutethics,privacy,regula-
tion,andwheretheboundariesofscienceshouldfall.Butin
histelling,allthatwillreallymatteris outcomes—whatever
the moral complexities, we’ll be healthier with genomics
than without it. And Wang intends for his outcomes to be
excellent. In the meeting room where he receives visitors,
he keeps a little Lucite block, encasing a 3D image of him-
self as a young man. Etched into the surface, right above
the Chinese characters for his name, is a pair of numbers
that capture his aspirations: “1954–2074.” <BW>A
meeting
room at
the CNGB