“In evaluating evidence and witness statements, we found that Quake observed proper scientific protocol,” said a letter from the university to Quake, obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday.
Referring to the Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, by his nickname, JK, the letter said that Stanford’s investigators concluded that Quake did not “directly participate in any way in JK’s research, including in the conception or performance of the work.”
In fact, the letter said, Quake discouraged He from pursuing the project and urged him to follow proper scientific practices after he insisted on going ahead.
Quake was one of three professors whose interactions with He were being reviewed by Stanford, and his association with He was the most extensive. The other two — Matthew Porteus, a genetics researcher, and William Hurlbut, an ethicist — had previously said they strongly discouraged He when he told them of his idea to create genetically engineered babies.
Since He announced the birth of the gene-edited twins in November, the research community has been debating what actions scientists should take if they know about ethically questionable experiments. Global institutions, including the World Health Organization, are working to establish an international reporting and monitoring system.
Quake’s interactions with He were detailed in a recent New York Times article, which included excerpts from emails that Quake showed to a Times reporter.
The emails show that He, 35, who had been a postdoctoral student in Quake’s lab in 2011, kept Quake apprised of major steps, including the implantation of the edited embryos in the woman’s womb and the birth of the twins months later. They show that Quake suggested He obtain ethical approval from Chinese institutions and submit the project’s data for vetting by peer-reviewed journals.
On Tuesday, Quake said: “I’m pleased this inquiry is over and its conclusion is consistent with what I knew to be true: that I had urged Dr. He not to pursue this path and when it became clear he wouldn’t listen to me, to adhere to high scientific and ethical standards in his research.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.