Professor Lejeune died in 1994.
Jerome Lejeune
Professor de Genetique Fondamentale a
I'Université René Descartes (Paris)
Member of the Royal Society of Medicine
(London)
Jerome Lejeune MD PhD, is currently Professor of fundamental Genetics at the Faculté de Médécine Necker-Enfants Malades, Chief of the Department of Cytogenetics at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades and Director of the Institut de Progenése, Paris.
He is a member of various Academies of Sciences (Boston, London, Rome, Stockholm) and has received many awards for his work on human chromosomal diseases (Kennedy Award 1962; William Allan Memorial Award 1969).
After the description of trisomy 21 (the cause of Down's syndrome), the first chromosomal disease discovered in man (1958 and 1959), and the first example of a translocation (1960), he described many chromosomal diseases (i.e., the Cri du Chat Syndrome due to a deletion of the short arm of chromosome 5 in 1963 and various partial trisomies or monosomies like trisomy 9p, 8q, 8q-, 4p, etc.) in collaboration with workers in the Institut de Progenèse (Dr B. Dutrillaux, J. Lafourcade, and M.-O. Rethore).
With H. Jerome he started metabolic studies in trisomy 21 which showed metabolic abnormalities in the kynurnine pathway (1960). In 1979, with P.M. Sinet and H. Jerome, he described an excess of activity of superoxide dismutase A in trisomic 21 children. It was the first demonstration of an increase of enzyme, related to gene dosage effect.
More recently the same authors described a correlation between the glutathione peroxidase activity level and the IQ of Down's syndrome children.
After publishing a new model on the possible role of the one carbon cycle in the cause of mental retardation, especially in trisomy 21, he is currently working on clinical studies and metabolic trials. His work as a specialized consultant in the Hôpital des Enfants Malades, for Down's syndrome, is extremely active (nearly 3,000 individual records).
Besides his work on trisomy 21, he has made contributions to mathematical genetics, radiation genetics, chromosomal evolution of species and molecular biology.
The feasibility of extracorporeal fecundation (also called in vitro fertilization) has experimentally confirmed our basic knowledge of the fundamentals of human reproduction. Besides this scientific achievement, the new techniques have opened possibilities which deserve careful investigation.
The fact that the baby will develop inside the womb for the next nine months is irrelevant at this point as in vitro fertilization has amply demonstrated.
At the end of the journey the fertilized egg, already dividing
feverishly, and organizing itself in a minuscule embryo of 12
millimetres in diameter, accommodates itself inside the uterine mucosa
(nidation) around 6 to 7 days after fertilization. There, firmly
implanting itself, it will continue its growth, thanks to its placenta,
until birth.
It is because normal fertilization occurs in a tube, with ovum and
sperm floating freely inside the liquid, that test tube babies are
possible. Indeed, in vitro fertilization uses a tube of glass instead
of a tube of living tissue, but the process is, in other respects,
identical.
Initially, artificial fertilization outside the maternal body was
suggested to circumvent some cases of feminine sterility. It sometimes
happens that fallopian tubes are blocked, most often as a sequel of
sexually transmissible disease. In such cases, the spermatozoa cannot
reach the egg nor the egg reach the uterus. To circumvent this
blockage, the ripe egg is removed from the ovary by laparoscopy and put
into a vessel containing an appropriate medium. The addition of sperm
will lead to fertilization.
The early embryo will be delicately transferred a few days later,
through the cervix of the uterus, so that it can continue its
development in the womb.
All this explains why Dr Edwards and Dr Steptoe could witness in vitro
the very beginning of the exceedingly young Louise Brown, whom they
replaced a few days later in the womb of her mother, Mrs Brown. Thanks
to the fundamentals of life already known, they were totally assured
that this berry-looking being could not be a tumor nor an animal.
With hundreds of cases already described in various countries of the world we now have living witnesses for the first time in our own species: the early human embryo develops by its own virtue and it has incredible viability.
Even in ordinary conditions, with a rather simple culture medium (the
fluid of the fallopian tube), the early human embryo can continue its
growth and development for days, maybe a week, and manage its own
organisation; after one week, implantation is a necessity but the
viability of the early human being is such that even the uterine mucosa
is not a pre-requisite.
Up to two months, an embryo implanted inside the fallopian tube is
fully efficient. In these extra-uterine pregnancies the tiny human
being, smaller than a thumb, is perfectly developed, the only danger
being that its continuous growth would rupture dramatically the walls
of the tube, which cannot extend as a uterus would do. Even in extreme
cases of extragenital pregnancies, when the foetus anchors itself in
the abdominal cavity , directly on the peritoneum, the growth can be
astonishingly normal for many months.
Protected by his life-capsule (the zona pellucida first and, later, the
amniotic sac he constructs around himself) the early human being is
just as viable and autonomous as an astronaut on the moon, refuelling
with vital fluids as required from the mothership.
A purely artificial fluid supplier has not yet been invented. But if it were ever possible, complete development outside the womb would ensue. Such "ectogenesis" would be the ultimate proof that an embryo belongs to himself. If the bottle (or test tube) could argue: "This baby is my property", nobody would believe the bottle.
Frozen sperm can thus be kept for years. If thawed carefully they fully
recover their potential as intrepid navigators. Sperm banks are a
common tool of industrial breeding.
The same is true for early embryos. Some mouse embryos, deep frozen and thawed have managed, after implantation, to develop into perfectly normal mice. No such experiment has yet been reported in our own species; proposals are numerous although their ethical and scientific legitimacy is at least questionable.
Identical twins have thus been produced, in cattle and in sheep. Some
have proposed to do the same in man. Their rationale is not "a
production line" but the possibility of checking the genetic make-up of
one of the twins. The scenario goes as follows: one twin is deep
frozen, until further transfer, at the proper time, into a recipient
uterus. The other twin is allowed to grow for a time and then examined
for chromosomal constitution, normality of growth, and its various
chemical properties. If this twin, the sacrificed twin, is declared OK,
the spared twin will then be transferred. If not, the spared one will
not be spared any longer. Supposedly this procedure would give full
insurance for successful childbearing even for an at risk mother (for
chromosomal or genetic disease).
Simple arithmetic (see addendum I) is not so promising or hopeful. A success rate of little more than a few per cent can hardly be expected. On average the egg donor would need to be tapped some twenty times for each successful pregnancy: an extremely heavy burden, not to mention the 20 to 40 embryos who would not survive the whole experiment!
For example, a widow could accommodate an embryo fathered long before
by her deceased partner. A candidate, affected by an inheritable
disease could receive an egg from a healthy donor. Or, a uterine
foster-mother could be hired if the true mother could not carry the
pregnancy for medical reasons. The possibility of surrogate mothers
could enable some women even to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy.
Surrogate pregnancy is a difficult issue. Should the foster mother be
forced to give back the baby nine months later? Would she be denied the
right to refuse termination of pregnancy if abortion were legal in her
country? These questions are for lawyers. For the biologist, no matter
what the alleged pretext, such practices would break the only assured
link between generations. Up to now whatever the uncertainties of
paternity, motherhood was an absolute certainty at delivery!
To be sure, the technique works in cattle. But what is good for calves may not be good enough for children and mothers.
The cells of two different embryos can be mixed together; they thus
result in a "compound" animal (called a chimera). Such experiments have
been carried out with mice. To the best of our knowledge, no compound
mouse has vet been obtained from more than three cell lines mixed
together.(2) This fact recalls that during the first cleavages of the
fertilized egg there is an odd stage of three primordial cells. It may
be that this three-cell stage has something to do with the
individuation process.
It must be remembered that normally the zona pellucida prevents these
admixtures: in a sense this bag ensures our early private life. It is
an open possibility that normally the human embryo emerges from its
zona pellucida only when its biological individuality is so strongly
established that a chimeric accident is no longer to be feared.
But even if mixing must be restricted to two or three cell-lines, what
about an "artistic" embryo, an "athletic" embryo and a "scientific"
one, fused together?
Would not that create a kind of superman?
Or, if DNA manipulation comes in: what about embryos receiving special
sequences, producing exceptional endowments?
These fictional experiments are not worthy of discussion. These nursery
tales for grown-tips should be totally rejected: to devise a man wiser
than we are, we should be already wiser than we can be.
As for the proposals of manipulating embryos in order to produce spare parts for repairing children or adults, they are so far-fetched that no critical analysis can be made. Conceivably grafts of stem cells could be of theoretical interest; but they are already catered for from voluntary donors (bone marrow graft for example). In any case which tissues are going to develop into particular organs are not yet detectable in the pre-implanted embryo.
But the sex of the baby still matters.
The preference for a "King" means a son for a first child and often for
the second. The same applies to the man in the street; and even for
suffragettes and, now, the feminists. All opinion polls show the same
results: if free choice were given, a formidable excess of males would
result!
Thank God no sieve is available to select preferentially the male sperm
(carriers of the Y chromosome). Thus pre-determining the sex of the
embryo is at present completely out of reach.
If an acceptable technique were someday to be available, the State could not remain indifferent before such a predictable disaster: a woman-deprived population! In order not to infringe upon free choice and not to favour anyone, enormous computers would process the demands, producing optimal decisions. As demonstrated by Grouchy(3) the best algorithm is not too cumbersome to calculate: toss a coin as before!
Let us return to technicalities. If the early embryo is really not
experimental material to be split, mixed, manipulated or anything else,
what is so interesting about this excursion of a few days into the
outside world?
Dr Craft and his colleagues(4) have already shown that the fertilized
ovum can be implanted right away in the womb. Could we not get even
closer to the actual physiological process? Possibly the egg could be
placed in the uterus during the actual laparoscopy, the sperm being
already supplied by normal intercourse?
Why not study more closely the fluid of the fallopian tube? Would it not be the best medium for early development?
Research workers would be wise to explore such new avenues instead of
following automatically the long detour of in vitro fertilization.
Among the genetic scourges afflicting humanity, mental retardation is
the most inhuman. It deprives the afflicted of one of the most precious
aspects of our heritage: the full power of thought.
Some ten per cent of the mentally retarded show a peculiar fragility of
the X chromosome. Numerous examinations have shown that this fragility
can be healed if the cells are cultivated in a medium containing
various chemicals(5); a simple vitamin, folic acid and its derivatives,
is especially efficient. If it is added to the regimen of these
patients their X chromosome gap seems to disappear as well. Moreover,
preliminary clinical trials show that their mental status can be
partially ameliorated.(6)
Actual cure of the disease has not yet been discovered, but it is the
first time that a chromosomal disease and its deleterious consequences
have been successfully attacked -- and, this, without resorting at all
to "science fiction" devices.
Another terrible disease resulting from imperfect closure of the neural
tube in embryonic life, seems also to be amenable to vitamin therapy.
As demonstrated by Smithells et al(7) and confirmed by Laurence et
al(8) vitamin therapy, including folic acid, given at the appropriate
time to the mother at risk, diminishes drastically the frequency of
spina bifida. Here again no experiment on the embryo was required.
A third advance has been made in genetically transmitted anaemias.
During life in utero and after, haemoglobin is produced by an array of
different genes working in succession: the first during the embryonic
stage; the second in the foetus; and the third in the whole adult life.
If this last gene is mutated, an abnormal haemoglobin is made (as in
thalassemias or in sickle-cell anaemia).
It has been discovered that the silent genes can be reactivated by a special chemical (azacytidine). Ley et al(9) took advantage of this property with the result that patients suffering from abnormal adult-type haemoglobin started to produce again their normal foetal-type. This type of rejuvenation could be of great significance for therapy, without involving any manipulation of embryos or the foetus.
Motherhood, a total obscenity: such an inversion of values is a supreme danger, Aldous Huxley warned us.
But another writer, one of the greatest poets, had already seen much
further, more than a century and a half ago. In Faust (Part I), Goethe
told of the tragic abandonment of the beloved, seduced and pregnant.
But in Faust (Part II) the vision goes even deeper. After his pact with
Mephistopheles, Faust returns to his old laboratory with his diabolic
companion. They watch the successor of Faust producing an homunculus
inside an alchemic vessel! The tiny creature escapes and floats in the
air around the head of Doctor Faust who loses his mind but not his
imagination, guided as he is by this strange in vitro baby.
After an impossible love affair with the ghost of Helen of Troy, Faust
finally accomplishes his goal. He builds an empire, a fully technical
society, with the magical help of Mephisto. At the very end he gives
his last orders: to silence the little church bell, the only one still
ringing in his whole empire, and to destroy the cabin in which Philemon
and Baucis remain, the paragons of human love.
And, when silence comes, when Mephisto returns after having burned the elderly lovers in their cabin, then, implacably, sorrow invades the heart of Faust.
Poets are above science; they see further and feel far more than
technicians could ever grasp. In such important matters it could be
profitable for scientists and legislators to re-read some of the great
masters.
But maybe they could rely just as well on other writers, far more
accessible to them -- indeed, living among them. I mean newspapermen.
They also do not practise science but witness it from outside, and
their judgment is not to be taken lightly. They know that in vitro
fertilization fascinates their readers and one journalist understood
why. Trying to convey all the significance of what was going on he
coined the term: "test tube baby". Sure enough scientists objected
(they preferred to overlook it) but the journalist knew better.
Indeed, if there is a growing repugnance against any exploitation of the early human embryo, if people are beginning to feel that experimenters must have total respect for these marvellous human beings, it is for a scientific reason: a newsman discovered in a stroke of intuitive genius -- test tube babies are babies.
Tentative estimation of the success-rate of the whole process: implantation of a defrosted embryo after artificial twinning and genetic check-up of Its sacrificed co-twin.
This process implies five independent steps. The total likelihood is thus the product of the individual probabilities of success for each event.
Although the rate of five per cent is disputable,
mainly because steps 2 and 4 are as yet unknown, it can hardly be
argued that it is a deliberate under-estimation. It is likely that the
chances of success of the full procedure would be considerably lower