Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[Q]: If true, it would be a profound leap of science and ethics. A U.S. scientist said he took part in the work in China, but this kind of gene editing is banned in the United States because the DNA changes can pass to future generations and it risks harming other genes. Many mainstream scientists think it's too unsafe to try, and some denounced the Chinese report as human experimentation. The researcher, He Jiankui of Shenzhen, said he altered embryos for seven couples during fertility treatments, with one pregnancy resulting thus far. He said his goal was not to cure or prevent an inherited disease, but to try to bestow a trait that few people naturally have an ability to resist possible future infection with HIV, the AIDS virus. He said the parents involved declined to be identified or interviewed, and he would not say where they live or where the work was done. There is no independent confirmation of He's claim, and it has not been published in a journal, where it would be vetted by other experts. He revealed it Monday in Hong Kong to one of the organizers of an international conference on gene editing that is set to begin Tuesday, and earlier in exclusive interviews with The Associated Press. "I feel a strong responsibility that it's not just to make a first, but also make it an example," He told the AP. "Society will decide what to do next" in terms of allowing or forbidding such science. Some scientists were astounded to hear of the claim and strongly condemned it. It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. "This is far too premature," said Dr. Eric Topol, who heads the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California. "We're dealing with the operating instructions of a human being. It's a big deal." However, one famed geneticist, Harvard University's George Church, defended attempting gene editing for HIV, which he called "a major and growing public health threat." "I think this is justifiable," Church said of that goal. In recent years scientists have discovered a relatively easy way to edit genes, the strands of DNA that govern the body. The tool, called CRISPR-cas9, makes it possible to operate on DNA to supply a needed gene or disable one that's causing problems. It's only recently been tried in adults to treat deadly diseases, and the changes are confined to that person. Editing sperm, eggs or embryos is different the changes can be inherited. In the U.S., it's not allowed except for lab research. China outlaws human cloning but not specifically gene editing. He Jiankui (HEH JEE'-an-qway), who goes by "JK," studied at Rice and Stanford universities in the U.S. before returning to his homeland to open a lab at Southern University of Science and Technology of China in Shenzhen, where he also has two genetics companies. The university said He's work "seriously violated academic ethics and standards" and planned to investigate. A spokesman for He confirmed that he has been on leave from teaching since early this year, but he remains on the faculty and has a lab at the school. The U.S. scientist who worked with him on this project after He returned to China was physics and bioengineering professor Michael Deem, who was his adviser at Rice in Houston. Deem also holds what he called "a small stake" in and is on the scientific advisory boards of He's two companies. The Chinese researcher said he practiced editing mice, monkey and human embryos in the lab for several years and has applied for patents on his methods. He said he chose embryo gene editing for HIV because these infections are a big problem in China. He sought to disable a gene called CCR5 that forms a protein doorway that allows HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, to enter a cell. All of the men in the project had HIV and all of the women did not, but the gene editing was not aimed at preventing the small risk of transmission, He said. The fathers had their infections deeply suppressed by standard HIV medicines and there are simple ways to keep them from infecting offspring that do not involve altering genes. Instead, the appeal was to offer couples affected by HIV a chance to have a child that might be protected from a similar fate. He recruited couples through a Beijing-based AIDS advocacy group called Baihualin. Its leader, known by the pseudonym "Bai Hua," told the AP that it's not uncommon for people with HIV to lose jobs or have trouble getting medical care if their infections are revealed. Here is how He described the work: The gene editing occurred during IVF, or lab dish fertilization. First, sperm was "washed" to separate it from semen, the fluid where HIV can lurk. A single sperm was placed into a single egg to create an embryo. Then the gene editing tool was added. When the embryos were 3 to 5 days old, a few cells were removed and checked for editing. Couples could choose whether to use edited or unedited embryos for pregnancy attempts. In all, 16 of 22 embryos were edited, and 11 embryos were used in six implant attempts before the twin pregnancy was achieved, He said. Tests suggest that one twin had both copies of the intended gene altered and the other twin had just one altered, with no evidence of harm to other genes, He said. People with one copy of the gene can still get HIV, although some very limited research suggests their health might decline more slowly once they do. Several scientists reviewed materials that He provided to the AP and said tests so far are insufficient to say the editing worked or to rule out harm. They also noted evidence that the editing was incomplete and that at least one twin appears to be a patchwork of cells with various changes. "It's almost like not editing at all" if only some of certain cells were altered, because HIV infection can still occur, Church said. Church and Musunuru questioned the decision to allow one of the embryos to be used in a pregnancy attempt, because the Chinese researchers said they knew in advance that both copies of the intended gene had not been altered. "In that child, there really was almost nothing to be gained in terms of protection against HIV and yet you're exposing that child to all the unknown safety risks," Musunuru said. The use of that embryo suggests that the researchers' "main emphasis was on testing editing rather than avoiding this disease," Church said. Even if editing worked perfectly, people without normal CCR5 genes face higher risks of getting certain other viruses, such as West Nile, and of dying from the flu. Since there are many ways to prevent HIV infection and it's very treatable if it occurs, those other medical risks are a concern, Musunuru said. There also are questions about the way He said he proceeded. He gave official notice of his work long after he said he started it on Nov. 8, on a Chinese registry of clinical trials. It's unclear whether participants fully understood the purpose and potential risks and benefits. For example, consent forms called the project an "AIDS vaccine development" program. The Rice scientist, Deem, said he was present in China when potential participants gave their consent and that he "absolutely" thinks they were able to understand the risks. Deem said he worked with He on vaccine research at Rice and considers the gene editing similar to a vaccine. "That might be a layman's way of describing it," he said. Both men are physics experts with no experience running human clinical trials. The Chinese scientist, He, said he personally made the goals clear and told participants that embryo gene editing has never been tried before and carries risks. He said he also would provide insurance coverage for any children conceived through the project and plans medical follow-up until the children are 18 and longer if they agree once they're adults. Further pregnancy attempts are on hold until the safety of this one is analyzed and experts in the field weigh in, but participants were not told in advance that they might not have a chance to try what they signed up for once a "first" was achieved, He acknowledged. Free fertility treatment was part of the deal they were offered. He sought and received approval for his project from Shenzhen Harmonicare Women's and Children's Hospital, which is not one of the four hospitals that He said provided embryos for his research or the pregnancy attempts. Some staff at some of the other hospitals were kept in the dark about the nature of the research, which He and Deem said was done to keep some participants' HIV infection from being disclosed. "We think this is ethical," said Lin Zhitong, a Harmonicare administrator who heads the ethics panel. Any medical staff who handled samples that might contain HIV were aware, He said. An embryologist in He's lab, Qin Jinzhou, confirmed to the AP that he did sperm washing and injected the gene editing tool in some of the pregnancy attempts. The study participants are not ethicists, He said, but "are as much authorities on what is correct and what is wrong because it's their life on the line." "I believe this is going to help the families and their children," He said. If it causes unwanted side effects or harm, "I would feel the same pain as they do and it's going to be my own responsibility." ___ AP science writer Christina Larson, video journalist Emily Wang and researcher Fu Ting contributed to this report from Beijing and Shenzhen, China. ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
[A]: Chinese researcher claims first gene-edited babies.

[Q]: Republicans on the GOP-majority Senate Environment and Public Works Committee mostly had praise for Andrew Wheeler, who has served as the agency's acting head since Scott Pruitt's resignation in July amid ethics scandals. The committee chairman, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., called Wheeler "very well-qualified" to take the job. But Democrats pressed Wheeler about his work as a lobbyist helping an influential coal magnate meet with Trump administration officials before his nomination to the EPA and his moves on deregulation and on what they said was his inattention to the growing dangers of climate change. "You seem to be consistently doing things that undermine the health and safety of this nation," Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., told Wheeler. Markey asked him why he was pulling back on regulations that proponents say protect human health and the environment. "I believe we are moving forward" on protections, Wheeler responded. Wheeler cited changes he had initiated to roll back future mileage standards for cars and autos and to ease Obama-era clampdowns on dirtier-burning coal-fired power plants. He said EPA staff, whom he did not identify, had concluded that those rollbacks would ultimately lead to health gains. Environmental groups and formal assessments from the EPA and other agencies have contested that, saying the changes would increase pollution and increase harm to people and the climate. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said the rollbacks in car mileage standards and toxic mercury emissions under Wheeler were examples of unsafe deregulation and went beyond what industries themselves wanted. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., noted Wheeler had failed to mention climate change in his initial remarks to lawmakers. "Do you agree that climate change is a global crisis?" Sanders asked, shouting at times. "I would not call it the greatest crisis," Wheeler said. "I would call it a huge issue that has to be addressed globally." Wheeler told lawmakers that he had yet to read a massive government climate change report released late last year that emphasized man-made climate change was already underway. Wheeler said he had received one staff briefing so far on the climate change report. The work of the EPA and other government agencies, the report stresses the massive economic toll expected from increasingly severe wildfires, hurricanes and other extreme weather under climate change. Wheeler said the news media had seized upon "worst-case scenarios" of the climate report. "You are a former coal industry lobbyist that is sitting here," Markey responded. "That's the worst-case scenario, what you are proposing here" for easing Obama-era rules meant to clamp down on climate-changing fossil fuel emissions. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa and other Republican lawmakers, by contrast, praised Wheeler for a move to remove federal protections for millions of miles of wetlands and waterways and other proposals. Republican lawmakers said the protections had burdened farmers and others. The grandson of a coal miner, Wheeler worked for the EPA in the 1990s and later as a longtime Republican Senate staffer. Democrats pressed Wheeler about his lobbying before joining the EPA, saying his work for coal companies should disqualify him from leading an agency that regulates coal. Wheeler's lobbying clients included coal magnate Bob Murray, who pushed hard on the Trump administration after the 2016 elections to grant a series of breaks for the sagging domestic coal industry. Wheeler accompanied Murray to a March 2017 meeting to pitch Murray's list of desired rule rollbacks and other breaks for coal to Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Wheeler told senators that his main work for Murray had been on health benefits and pensions. "I did not work on the plan. I do not have a copy of it. I saw it briefly," Wheeler said, referring to Murray's wish list. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., displayed a blown-up version of a photo taken of the meeting with Perry, showing Wheeler at Murray's side. A second photo showed Murray's rollback plan in Wheeler's hands. Murray had sought some of the coal breaks that the EPA under Wheeler has since acted on. That included Wheeler signing a rule easing federal regulation of toxic coal ash, redoing an Obama rule that pushed electricity providers to move away from dirtier-burning coal plants and targeting an Obama rule limiting emissions of toxic mercury from coal plants. A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed an ethics complaint Tuesday with the EPA's Office of the Inspector General alleging that Wheeler's oversight of those and other rollback proposals at EPA may have violated his government ethics pledge to abstain from regulatory decisions affecting his former lobbying client for at least two years. EPA spokesman John Konkus called the accusation "baseless" and "wrong" and said Wheeler works with EPA ethics officials and follows their guidance.
[A]: Democrats hit Trump EPA nominee on coal lobbying, rollbacks.

[Q]: ""Now it has flipped," said Bill Colone, CEO of San Clemente-based Spinal Singularity, which hopes to launch a 'smart' catheter for men with spinal injuries or disease early next year after squeezing in its application under the old European rules. Colone is part of a chorus of industry voices warning that a switch to stricter European rules governing medical devices, due to come into force a year from now, will slow or even halt the release of products in Europe that could transform patients' lives. Defenders of the regulations say they will not significantly complicate the process and are vital to prevent problems like rupturing silicone breast implants and debris from all-metal hip implants damaging tissue and bones. Many patient advocates say the new rules do not go far enough to reform a European system in which a top U.S. official suggested in 2011 patients may be ""guinea pigs"" here The comment drew a sharp response from the European Union, which still firmly rejects that characterization. That transatlantic spat, and the subsequent evolution of medical device certification around the world, are part of a wider global struggle by governments to attract businesses seeking light-touch regulation without scaring off their voters. The new medical devices rules agreed by the European Union in 2017 will tighten control of devices before they come to market, improve transparency and strengthen surveillance by national authorities, a European Commission spokesperson said. The new system changes less than some proposals - which envisaged regulation by a public body, along U.S. lines, replacing the existing practice of certification by profit-making private firms. But players in medical technology - which ranges from surgical implants to scans - say it is too burdensome and is being built too slowly, risking not only hampering innovation but also harming patients by interrupting supplies. "Immediate action is needed now to avoid severe disruption of product supply to patients and hospitals," seven European Associations said in a joint statement last week. All 55,000 devices certified under the old directives have to be re-certified along with other products such as reusable scalpels, nasal saline sprays and dental imaging software. The industry says there are not enough Notified Bodies - the private firms charged with certifying the safety of devices ranging from bandages to pacemakers, and that manufacturers may have to take products off the market or delay new launches. The situation is further complicated by Brexit, with Britain's BSI one of just two notified bodies to have got the go-ahead to certify devices under the new Medical Devices Regulation (MDR). If Britain leaves the EU in October without a deal, certificates issued by British bodies would be invalid. Germany, home to Europe's biggest medtech sector, is pressing the European Commission to smooth the transition, suggesting three solutions to overcome any Brexit-related supply problems in a March 27 letter to the Commission seen by Reuters. These include giving firms 12 more months to sell products in the EU in the case of a disorderly Brexit, as long as they plan how to regain compliance, the letter from German Health Minister Jens Spahn said. Trade groups have suggested delaying implementation of the rules beyond May 2020 or faster designation of notified bodies. The European Commission rejects the need for contingency plans and said it was focusing on a timely implementation of the regulation, which includes requirements for manufacturers to monitor product safety once devices are on the market. More than 20 notified bodies could be accredited by the end of the year, it said. This is around a third of the number of firms currently certified to assess medical products. "That is a massive reduction in capacity when adding a considerable volume of work," said Gary Slack, senior vice president for global medical devices at the notified body BSI. To hedge against any Brexit risk, BSI has set up a subsidiary in Amsterdam and has transferred most of its clients' certificates there, but is still waiting for its Dutch body to be certified under the MDR. For Medtech conglomerates with thousands of devices, the bill to meet the new regulations could stretch into the millions of dollars - especially for those that make riskier devices. Smith and Nephew, which manufacturers hip and knee implants, put its MDR compliance costs at $15-$20 million for 2018 and around $60 million this year. As a result of the regulation, more than 55 percent of those surveyed by Germany industry association ZVEI said they would reduce the number of products on offer. The Commission said many products are eligible for a so-called 'grace period' which means they can be sold under the old rules until May 2024 at the latest if certificates are reissued, something BSI said many firms are rushing to do. But the other certified body, Germany's Tuev-Sued, said many manufacturers had yet to catch on to the regulatory changes. "We are definitely expecting chaotic years," said Bassil Akra, Tuev-Sued's vice president in charge of medtech. The medical technology industry is worth $129 billion and employs 675,000 people in Europe, according to MedTech Europe. Experts agree that many new devices are invaluable to patients, but the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists said in November that faulty ones were linked to 1.7 million injuries and nearly 83,000 deaths over the past decade. A key part of the new regulation is how much access doctors and patients will have to the pan-European Eudamed database, to strengthen surveillance and prevent repeated adverse incidents. A Commission spokesperson said discussions were ongoing with authorities, patient groups and other stakeholders. While medtech giants like Siemens Healthineers and Germany's Fresenius have the regulatory staff to navigate the new rules, most firms are much smaller and will struggle, said MedTech Europe CEO Serge Bernasconi. Spinal Singularity said it had managed to apply under the old system by hiring contractors to help it submit all the paperwork to a notified body by May 27 - two months before it had planned. It is hoping for certification by the end of the year, but is dreading renewing it in four years' time because of what he said were many "incredibly burdensome" new requirements. German surgical instrument maker Asanus said it plans to take around five highly-innovative surgical products off the market and will discontinue several hundred minimally-invasive devices, as well as stop new development in this area. "If the paperwork costs for the product are five times the amount you can achieve in sales, you simply won't do it anymore," said Chief Executive Armin Schorer, who expects many smaller makers of lower risk devices to shut up shop. Bernasconi and Colone said start-ups are now looking to launch their products in other markets, like the United States or China first, denying European patients access to innovations. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal body that approves medical devices, is toughening up its own approval process after faulty medical devices harmed patients there too. But Colone noted that was only for some products. His firm plans to file for U.S. approval this autumn. "Because of the pending new EU MDR, overall the FDA process may even be slightly easier," he said. Kurt Racke, a medical ethics expert at Bonn University, said he did not think Europe's new regulations would make it harder to win approvals than in the United States. "I think Europe has the most lax market for medical devices," he said. "I don't think so much will change there in principle." The European Commission rejects suggestions its rules are not tough enough. "The Commission takes patient safety very seriously," a spokesperson said, "and has led various regulatory reforms to ensure the highest possible quality, safety and reliability of medical devices on the EU market.""
[A]:
Will Europe's clampdown on faulty medical devices hurt patients?.