"In January, a preliminary investigation found that He deliberately sidestepped regulations, dodged oversight, and used fake ethical review documents, according to Chinese media. (No official report was ever publicly released.) But as the scandal unfolded over the past 3 months, many Chinese ethicists and researchers noted that the most relevant regulations date back to 2003 and need updating in light of CRISPR’s emergence and other research advances.
The new rules cover experiments that involve gene editing, the transfer of genes or attempts to regulate gene expression, the use of stem cells, and other “high-risk” technologies in humans or in human organs or embryos that would be implanted in a person. All would require approval by a yet-to-be-specified agency under the State Council, the country’s highest administrative authority."
If they needed new rules, that may or may not suggest the issue is unclear
Anyway, this question you ask seems to lead to a question I asked back on 26/11/18
"I.e. is the claim about it being permitted or about it actually happening?"
To attempt an answer to my own question, I would point out the claim's first sentence says
YES coupons will pay IF$1 if there is a documented or otherwise verifiable case of intentional human germ-line genetic manipulation before 1/1/2020.
I don't see a requirement for it to be legal elsewhere in the claim
I also note the judge statement says
"In order to be judged true, a human individual has to exist whose germ-line cells contain a genetic modification, and there has to be some reasonable evidence that the individual can biologically (and legally) have progeny that inherit that modification."
These seem to be implying that if an individual exists then it has been allowed to happen. I do concede it may be possible to read the third paragraph providing background to the issue makes it seem as if the question is about whether the event is 'ethically allowed to happen'. Does existence such individuals mean it has been allowed to happen, even though there perhaps were rules against it they perhaps weren't strong enough to prevent it? Anyway it appears to me that the third paragraph is just background info about the issue and doesn't seem to add any requirements to the claim whether that is for the procedure to have to be legal or anything else.
(7886 crandles still holding +302)
> On 03 March 2019 at 22:00 Neal Gafter <email@example.com> wrote:
> Do we believe this work was legally permitted when and where it occurred?