Claims

Prediction · Biosecurity

“No announcement of genetically engineered human baby or credible plan for such: 90%”

Scott Alexander, blogger · 6 January 2017 · Predictions For 2017 (Slate Star Codex)

No announcement of a genetically engineered human baby or credible plan for one will occur in 2017.

Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.

The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

This is judged on the outcome, not on the 90% figure. TRUE if no public announcement was made between 1 Jan and 31 Dec 2017 of (a) a genetically engineered human baby (an engineered embryo carried to birth or to an ongoing pregnancy) or (b) a credible plan to produce one, meaning a named researcher, clinic or institution publicly stating a concrete intention to implant gene-edited embryos to establish a pregnancy. Laboratory editing of embryos that were never meant for implantation (for example research on non-viable or discarded embryos) does not count as a baby or as a plan. MOSTLY TRUE if the only candidate in 2017 is a borderline case: a vague or speculative statement of intent with no named team, method or timeline. MOSTLY FALSE if a statement of intent was made in 2017 that some credible observers treated as a real plan but most did not. FALSE if, during 2017, such a baby or a concrete, credible plan to implant gene-edited embryos was publicly announced. Announcements made after 31 Dec 2017 do not count either way.

Evidence

1. CRISPR used to edit genes of human embryos for first time in U.S. | Science News Science News · 2 August 2017

   “Mitalipov and colleagues explicitly conducted the experiments to improve the safety and efficiency of gene editing for eventual clinical trials, which would involve implanting edited embryos into women’s uteruses to establish pregnancy.”

2. CRISPR used to edit genes of human embryos for first time in U.S. | Science News Science News · 2 August 2017

   ““This paper is not announcing the dawn of the designer baby era,” says R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison.”

3. U.S. scientists edit genome of human embryo, but cast doubt on possibility of 'designer babies' STAT · 2 August 2017

   “The researchers had no intention of implanting the altered embryos in a uterus.”

4. U.S. scientists edit genome of human embryo, but cast doubt on possibility of 'designer babies' STAT · 2 August 2017

   “But not soon, and probably not in the United States. Federal law prohibits regulators from even considering a request to launch a clinical trial in which embryos would be genetically altered and implanted in a uterus.”

Reasoning

The only 2017 candidate in the evidence is the Mitalipov embryo-editing study. It was done to improve safety for "eventual clinical trials" involving implantation (E1), but the researchers had no intention of implanting these embryos (E3). Observers said it did not announce designer babies (E2) and that implantation would come "not soon" because US federal law blocks such trials (E4). That makes it at most a vague, borderline statement of intent with no timeline. The evidence does not include a comprehensive review of the whole of 2017.

Cite this claim

Scott Alexander, “No announcement of a genetically engineered human baby or credible plan for one will occur in 2017.” (said 6 January 2017). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_cd6d02f69417, method 0.1.0+8bea457b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_cd6d02f69417