You must log in or register to comment.
If a person’s criticism is of “ethics” in general, that individual should not be allowed in a position of authority or trust. If you have a specific constraint for which you can make a case that it goes too far and hinders responsible science and growth (and would have repeatable, reliable results), then state the specific point clearly and the arguments in your favor.
So if we put these extra pair of legs on babies then they can stand in more extreme angles making them better at construction at a time when there is a housing shortage
I am convinced, I vote to allow it.
I am in agreement, but a point of contention: only ONE extra pair of legs? Or is this negotiable?
Spiderbaby, spiderbaby, does whatever a spider can, spiderbaby, spiderbaby, it’s mother refused to nurse it!
Splice with spider genes? I’ll allow that, too.
On a completely unrelated note I just bought a new Porche and condo.
Biblically accurate infant.
For acceptance in the US we will also add more hands so the baby can hold an AR 15 while doing construction work.
And we already have a safety valve for when conventional ethics is standing in the way of vital research: the researchers test on themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine
If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?
It’s not terribly common because most useful research is perfectly ethical, but we have a good number of cases of researchers deciding that there’s no way for someone to ethically volunteer for what they need to do, so they do it to themselves. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they make very valuable discoveries. Sometimes both.
So the next time someone wantz to strap someone to a rocket engine and fire it into a wall, all they have to do is go first and be part of the testing pool.
If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?
You can’t really do the kind of experiments being done genetically modifying growing infants on yourself, I imagine. Not that that should be an excuse, of course.
You can work your way through all the different animal models, showing that you have a clear understanding of every single bio mechanism. Then start off with a small change to a human baby THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BENEFIT showing that nothing bad happens. Like we figured out this specific sequence leads to deformed hands, we have plenty of control babies with the deformed hands.
By this guys own logic, he didn’t even get usable fucking data. Crispr changes DNA, yeah no shit we all knew that. He gave them a slight boost to HIV. How the fuck are we supposed to find out without exposing them. A high likelihood that they would have grown up never worrying about HIV in the first place.
How exactly are you going to attempt to self genetically modify embryos?
Real scientists find a way…
This argument applies just as well to libertarians who oppose “regulation.” There are some truly insane libertarians who want all regulation gone, but a lot of people who say they are opposed to “regulation” really mean that they want to add more barriers to adding regulation, and repeal some known-to-be-problematic regulations. I’m sure that when this person says “ethics” is holding back scientific progress, he means the latter. To assert he just means getting rid of “ethics” entirely is absurd. There is only so much detail you can put in a tweet.
I mean, he was imprisoned for genetic experimentation on babies without informing the parents or basically anyone else. So… I don’t think he means that in a specific way. He wants to do whatever he feels like without oversight.
Ethics are supposed to throttle human activity. That’s their fucking job. That guy is a goddamn sociopath.
I thought this guy was the one doing the human throttling
No he used crispr to give babies HIV resistance.
People on the side of classical ethics say the outcome was unknown so manipulating the embryo was wrong (ie maybe it makes them more likely to have a birth defect or something else wrong with them). Others might say “an embryo isn’t a person” or “the risk was low and the gain was high” but unfortunately he also didn’t tell anyone so.
There’s also the fake “ethics” where people claim humans have more inherent value than chimps or mice, which of course we do not. Unfortunately this false platform is where a lot of the arguments are based: humans special, so we can’t manipulate their genome before birth. Once they are born of course these kids would get HIV and die, or be sent to work in a suicide (apple) factory, or help murder Uyghurs…but god forbid you experiment on people that’s bad.
I’m on the side of he shouldn’t have done things the way he did, but there are hiv-resistant babies and we know how to make them now and it’s easy.
He did things in a completely non reproducible way, which is not science or research. If any of the victims have better outcomes that is pure chance.
Where is there a document that describes that part?
It looks like the mutation wasn’t perfect but I don’t see anything that indicates it wouldn’t be reproducible.
not necessarily throttle, but divert into more ethical directions.
the nazi twin ‘experiments’ for example, were monstrous but produced like no useful data.
atrocities do not necessarily mean better science. sometimes you’re just being an edgelord.
I honestly think that is the most important point to make. It is a fundamental truth and force the person to talk specifics. Why is it bad there?
I think a really exceeding important clarification here is he edited the genomes of human embryos, not babies. Babies are already born humans, embryos are a clump of cells that will become a baby in the future. I do not condone gene editing without consent, which is what he did, and yes there is lots of questionable ethics around gene editing but he did NOT experiment on babies. This should be made clear especially in a science based community, memes or not.
Implying that babies are the same thing as embryos is fundamentally incorrect, in the same way a caterpillar is not a butterfly and a larva is not a fly, the distinction is very important.
EDIT To add further detail - One of the reasons this is so unethical is that he experimented on human embryos that were later born and became babies. His intent was always to create a gene edited human, but the modifications were done while they were embryos, not live babies.
I understand what you’re saying, but his experiment allowed the embryos to come to term and be born as human babies. Scientists have worked with human embryos before and avoided similar outcry by not allowing them to develop further (scientific outcry, not religious). Calling his work an experiment on human embryos ignores the fact that he always intended for his work to impact the real lives of real humans who would be born.
Real humans who would be born and could potentially have children, passing whatever genetic edits they have (intended and off-target) into the gene pool.
I totally agree, I do believe what he did was unethical and criminal.
I also believe the clarification on if the experimenting was done on live human babies or if it was done on human embryos is exceeding important. Implying that this was done on live human babies is basically misinformation. Just look at the rest of this thread and how people are talking about this, everyone is discussing this as if its was living, breathing, crying babies that were experimented on, not a clump of cells before they have any type of living functionality.
If anything what you said should be included, he experimented on embryos with the intent of them being born and becoming babies. But it most definitely should not be “he carried out medical experiments on babies”, because that is patently untrue.
I disagree and think you are getting too caught up in semantics in this case. Can I put cats and mice in separate rooms, with the intention that the cats can find a way into the other room, and claim I am only doing an experiment on the cats, even once they get through and start killing the mice?
What if I had a woman take some kind of drug during the first 3 weeks of pregnancy, with the explicit purpose of seeing what it does to the baby when it’s born. Can I say, no, no, I was experimenting on a woman and a zygote/blastocyst, not a baby!
You don’t get to just remove yourself from the result. If he did something that made the baby be born in a way that’s different to how it would have been born, in my mind that is a direct experiment on the baby, just via indirect means.
You can say the title isn’t specific enough for your liking, but by my standards it isn’t wrong or misinformation. He conducted an experiment that directly affected the lives of babies. That IS an experiment on the baby, regardless of the method used to perform the experiment.
Its is semantics, but also this is science and semantics are important. If we want to get really in to semantics we should say the experiments were done on humans, as the embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, pre-teen, teenager, and adult are all phases of the human life cycle and this experiment was done to produce genetically modified humans. Even CRISPR experiments refer to the organism model when experimenting, not the life cycle phase, unless it is specifically part of the experiment IE: in vitro vs In vivo
Saying the medical experiments were done on babies specifically is for the shock value, and it works, look at the reactions it gets. This should be a hotly debated topic, people should be concerned about the ethics of gene editing and how it is regulated. This experiment was not ethical in anyway and it was criminal, but using hyperbole to inflate the shock value for engagement is also not the way to communicate how unethical and criminal this is.
By all accounts what he did worked. The potential to end HIV is huge. The amount of human suffering that could be reduced by rolling out what he did is very real.
The technology is here. It’s better to strictly manage it for the public good than to lock it away.
I have talked to some Americans who claims that sperm + egg = baby and I want to place an egg in front of them and ask them what it is and if they say anything other than a chicken, I will laugh.
Also, thank you for the distinction. Kind of insane to call embryos babies. It is shit like this that makes me feel like my brain is shrinking when I talk to some people online.
They became babies when they were born with experimental modified genomes without their consent
Fair enough.
Babies are conceived without their consent.
In case of a C-section, they are born without their consent (implying that they would rather grow up inside the womb :P (look, idk what babies think when they don’t come out, but we sure aren’t asking them whether they’d rather stay in there))
I would rather be asking if Dr. He had the parent’s consent before modding the foetus.
Obviously the notable, unusual, unethical thing here is the non-consentual gene editing, not the mere occurence of birth
I am trying sooo hard to come up with a point without bringing up the chemical-transification of children, without their parent’s approval, which has been following them being mislead by pro-trans (as in “go become trans because all your problems are your gender”) evangelists.
My apologies, I didn’t realize I was speaking with a lunatic.
Just with someone who remembers how easy it was to be mislead by adults, as a child.
Ironic thing, we already tried this approach multiple times before, specially on war times. And each time humanity concluded that some knowledge has too high a price and we’re better off not finding out some things.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, especially with a heavy blood cost, isn’t the way to progress as a species.
And I should know, as a person greatly defined by curiosity about everything and more limited emotional capacity than other people due to mental limitations.
If you’re talking about unit 731 and the nazis then there was very little, if anything, scientifically valuable there.
They had terrible research methodology that rendered what data they gathered mostly useless, and even if it wasn’t, most of the information could have been surmised by other methods. Some of the things they did served no conceivable practical or scientific purpose whatsoever.
It was pretty much just sadism with a thin veneer of justification to buy them the small amount of legitimacy they needed to operate within their fascist governments.
Exactly. Society should never conflate knowledge driven by curiosity and knowledge as an excuse for sadism.
There’s a difference between experimenting by following rules, and then observing the results vs giving in to base forbidden desires just to see what happens or trying to bend reality to confirm one’s bias - I mean, just look at how people tried to justify until decades ago a black person’s ‘inferiority’ and their discrimination by coming up with all sorts of anatomical observations. That’s the danger.
You can critique him all you want but how in the world did you come to the conclusion that his and goals were knowledge for knowledge’s sake?
I have problems with the doctors’ way of doing so, but their act was to allow an informed consenting(? it’s complicated) couple with an HIV-positive parent to have a child resistant to HIV. It was problematic, yes, but very different to the war crime experiments, much of which was simply about morbid curiosity and torture.
Yeah, comparing this to like the experiments of Mengele or Unit 731 definitely would be bordering on Holocaust denial/downplaying by comparing something like this, problematic issues withstanding, with those horrific abuses of humanity.
Is nobody concerned that illegal experiments on babies only gets you 3 years?
Maybe they were Uyghurs so it was classified as “property damage” in Chinese law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair
Laws were changed after this incident:
In 2020, the National People’s Congress of China passed Civil Code and an amendment to Criminal Law that prohibit human gene editing and cloning with no exceptions
So, in case you actually meant that weird ignorant remark you made about Uyghurs, the answer is no and no.
Lemmitors downvoting you because actually learning about the case conflicts with their “cHiNa BaD” circlejerk.
Oh shit someone tell the
fascist scumliberal toads that its actually blue on blue, this guy was working for a honky kong universty!!!It was a joke… You don’t get to jail for experimenting with slaves in China.
Dang, you can really just pull shit straight out of your ass and people will believe it.
Depends how successful the experiment is (and probably on what the goal is as well).
If he’d been testing the effects of grass vs grain feed on human fat marbling, I’d imagine the sentence would have been a little more severe
“Illegal experiments on babies” is a user-provided note, and is not really an accurate label. For one thing, no experiments were done on babies.
Another thing – unlike “murder,” there is a gradient of what constitutes an “illegal experiment.” The phrase “illegal experiments on babies” sounds terrible, but if you imagine a volume dial on this crime, one could lower it until one finds the minimum violation possible which could technically be described as an “illegal experiment” – for instance, flicking a baby with your index finger to check its reflexes. So it should not be of any surprise that there are such things as “illegal experiments” which are so mild as to warrant just 3 years in prison.
The report confirmed that He had recruited eight couples to participate in his experiment, resulting in two pregnancies, one of which gave birth to the gene- edited twin girls in November 2018. The babies are now under medical supervision. The report further said He had made forged ethical review papers in order to enlist volunteers for the procedure, and had raised his Own funds deliberately evading oversight, and organized a team that included some overseas members to carry out the illegal project.
I guess it’s right that there was no experiment in babies, the babies were the experiments themselves.
It would have taken much less time to read about the topic than to make that nonsense response.
What do you mean? What did I get wrong?
And in what context medical experiments should be allowed on babies ?
Yet we still have default circumcisions in the US, no?
A lot of contexts? Like the development depending on formula vs mother’s milk? Experimenting doesn’t need to mean vivisection or injecting unregulated drugs, but if you need to do the experiments illegally, I’m not sure it was something “safe”
Not babies, embyros
And China executed a shitload of people for political dissent…
wait he’s not a fucking parody account?? i thought he was like. larping as an umbrella corp researcher
Ethics mean we don’t know what the average human male erect penis size is.
No, really. The ethics of the studies say that a researcher can’t be in the presence of a sexually aroused erect penis. Having the testee measure their own penis is prone to error. There are ways to induce an erection with an injection, so they use that.
Is the size of an induced erection the same as a sexually aroused erection? Probably in the same ballpark, but we don’t really know.
Source: Dr Nicole Prause, neurologist specializing in sexuality, on Holly Randall’s podcast.
a researcher can’t be in the presence of a sexually aroused erect penis
Is this some puritan rule? Plenty don’t care to flap their erect penis in the faces of some researchers if they asked nicely. What got ethics to do with it when there is consent?
It’s not a strict rule, sex science is a thing that can be done with ethical review same as other medical research. the commenter im not sure is giving an accurate picture of this topic.
Not all erections are sexual-- can’t they just measure the non sexy ones?
if only we had some sort of medication specifically designed to cause an erection
might impact the data, then we’d only know given those constraints
deleted by creator
So wait
Who is telling the truth. My ex said it was too big. The bell curves I’ve found have said “uh what lmfao no way are you that big” but every self reported study says I’m small
How the fuck am I going to ever find a toilet that is comfortable to use in my own home
Switch from a siphonic toilet bowl to a wash down bowl. You’ll get more skid marks, but less dips, splashes and clogging.
aren’t there literally studies about the size that only accepted measurements by medical professionals?
Yes, and they have the problems outlined above.
Not that I support it in any way of course, but he’s not wrong. There’s probably a lot of medical knowledge to be gained by seeing how the babies he experimented on develop in the future. It’s just that the ends don’t justify the means.
Eh, usually less than you would expect. We’re really good at math and are quite capable of making synthetic experiments where we find people who either require the procedure, or where it’s been done incidentally and then inferring the results as though deliberate.
We can also develop a framework for showing benefit from the intervention, perform the intervention ethically, and then compare that to people who didn’t get the intervention after the fact. With proper math you can construct the same confidence as a proper study without denying treatment or intentionally inflicting harm.
It’s how we have evidence that tooth brushing is good for you. It would be unethical to do a study where we believe we’re intentionally inflicting permeant dental damage to people by telling them not to brush for an extended period, but we can find people who don’t and look at them.
The current context is modifying babies to make them HIV resistant. How would you model something similar without performing the experiment?
He inserted a naturally occuring genetic variation.
Off the top of my head and not an expert: screen a very large number of people for having that variation, and monitor those that do for HIV infection. That phase will take a while.
Identify a collection of people interested in in vitro fertilization, ideally with some coming from your previous sample group. Since the process produces more embryos than can be used, perform your procedure on a random selection of discards. Inspection and sequencing of the modified segment should be indistinguishable from unmodified embryos bearing then variation naturally.
Now that you have confidence that the variation provides protection, and that you can make the change, identify people where the intervention offers a better chance than not having it, even though it’s experimental. This would likely be HIV positive women desiring IVF who would not be able to tolerate standard HIV treatment during the pregnancy. Engineering the embryo to be resistant therefore becomes the best available way to prevent infection.
You can then look back and compare infection rates with children born to untreated parents and parents who underwent treatment.You also do a better job ensuring the parents know about the risks and what they entail. Informed consent and all that.
If this is really hard to do because you can’t find people that fit the criteria, maybe your research isn’t actually that critical. If HIV medication is essentially universally tolerated in pregnancy and is nearly 100% effective at preventing transmission to the infant without long-term side effects, then it might just be the case that while gene editing would work, it doesn’t provide enough of an advantage to be worth exploring for that disease.
Medical research is still medicine. You’re still obligated to do what’s best for the patient, even if it’s difficult or you’re curious about what would happen.
Protogen has entered the chat
That’s actually pretty the whole premise of The Vital Abyss short story. Cortazar explains how he signed up with Protogen and how glad he was to get the nerve staple that removed all empathy from him. Ot, and all the other short stories are worth reading if you liked The Expanse
Made the Eros comparison just a few comments above!
They were dead anyways (thanks to Protogen releasing the protomolecule), the real tragedy would be to let their deaths be in vain…
owo
not that protogen unfortunately
uwu
👁️👄👁️
“You’re not that guy”
…
“I am that guy 💥”
Just so you all know what his horrible crime was…
“Formally presenting the story at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) three days later, he said that the twins were born from genetically modified embryos that were made resistant to M-tropic strains of HIV.[48] His team recruited 8 couples consisting each of HIV-positive father and HIV-negative mother through Beijing-based HIV volunteer group called Baihualin China League. During in vitro fertilization, the sperms were cleansed of HIV. Using CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing, they introduced a natural mutation CCR5-Δ32 in gene called CCR5, which would confer resistance to M-tropic HIV infection.”
So imagine a couple where one has HIV but they really want to have a baby. He basically made it so their children were hiv free and then immunized them (edited for accuracy). In all my Crispr research, this is the story that most caused me to feel the science system had wronged a good person. Literally Lulu and Nana can grow up healthy now. Science community smashed him, but to the real people he helped he is basically a saint. I love now seeing him again and seeing he still has his ideals. Again, fuck all those science boards and councils that attacked him. Think of the actual real couple that just wants a kid without their liferuining disease. Also I love how he isnt some rightwing nutjob nor greedy capitalist. See his statement about this tech should be free for all people and he will never privately help billionaires etc etc.
anyway, ideals. i recognized them when i first came across him; i recognize them now. I know enough about him that I will savagely defend this guy. He isn’t making plagues or whatever. He is helping real people.
This is pretty much all incorrect. CRISPR didn’t have anything to do with Lulu and Nana not being born with HIV, we have known how HIV-infected men can safely become fathers for years now. The standard practice of “sperm washing” and IVF ensured that, CRISPR was completely unnecessary.1 The reason the parents accepted He’s plan is because in China, HIV positive fathers are not allowed to do IVF regularly.2 Chinese often go abroad to get IVF done, but presumably, these parents couldn’t afforded it. Not to talk about how He completely disregarded informed consent, giving them 23 complex pages, barely mentioning that they were doing gene editing, representing the whole thing as a "HIV vaccine"3
1: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-blog/2017/june/how-hiv-positive-men-safely-become-fathers
2: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/04/1048829/he-jiankui-prison-free-crispr-babies/
3: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6490874/#pbio.3000223.ref008
and those arent even the most aggressive articles. Anyway, for people reading, there are many contradictory parts of He’s case depending where you look.
thanks i agree i had the ‘kids would have been born with hiv otherwise with no alternative’ part wrong. good correction. I have edited my comment accordingly. He removed the Hiv with one procedure and immunized with the other.
heres a much less biased telling of events. No it doesnt 100% support He being a saint. it isnt that biased nontrustable trash tho "As the couples listened and flipped through the forms, occasionally asking questions, two witnesses—one American, the other Chinese—observed. Another lab member shot video, which Science has seen, of part of the 50-minute meeting. He had recruited those couples because the husbands were living with HIV infections kept under control by antiviral drugs. The IVF procedure would use a reliable process called sperm washing to remove the virus before insemination, so father-to-child transmission was not a concern. Rather, He sought couples who had endured HIV-related stigma and discrimination and wanted to spare their children that fate by dramatically reducing their risk of ever becoming infected.
He, who for much of his brief career had specialized in sequencing DNA, offered a potential solution: CRISPR, the genome-editing tool that was revolutionizing biology, could alter a gene in IVF embryos to cripple production of an immune cell surface protein, CCR5, that HIV uses to establish an infection. “This technique may be able to produce an IVF baby naturally immunized against AIDS,” one consent form read."
funny how things can look so different according to what side u are on. tho im not even going for pro He articles, just neutral or interviews. As far as your hostile ones where they weaponize anything they can… (reminds me of politics) the part I find sillyest is when they complain how He only successfully did the full mutation to one girl so the other may not be immunized. Like it’s bad he did it but also bad he didnt do it enough. lol. its exactly like politics.
Also i havent researched the validity of the ivf not allowed in china stuff, but I don’t consider it a bad thing He giving the parents an avenue to a hivfree child when they otherwise are assumed ‘too poor’ to be able to do it. In fact that totally matches his statements about cures should not be paywalled; and i agree with him. Good thing for the families he was doing this experiment. Now they can have an hiv free child where they couldn’t before.
On one hand, crispr isn’t safe. And life is not something people have a right to create - that tremendous imposition should be met with a responsibility
On the other hand, life is treated as cheap almost everywhere. If we’re going to force people to justify their right to exist, why not take a chance on their genetics to improve the species?
I mean, this was risky science, but not reckless. At some point we need to start fixing our genome, or we’re just going to poison ourselves to extinction
And life is not something people have a right to create
Yes they do?
Having children is literally the one thing most of us are equipped to do, and those who cant can adopt; the children of the future are our responsibility to raise. You seem to have a pretty self centered and unrealistic idea around child rearing; people raise children through invasions, unless you want to stop people from fucking somehow you’re never going to stop reproduction.
Most of us are equipped for rape and murder, but we don’t have a right to it.
Thats why we have laws against rape and murder but not against having kids, because that would be eugenics.
“because that would be eugenics” is not an explanation. You’re just asserting that eugenics is bad, which is begging the question – this is a post about the ethics of eugenics. You can’t just come in and say “eugenics is bad because it’s eugenics.”
Anyway, I don’t think anyone is calling China’s former One Child Policy eugenics.
Thats because the one child policy was coerced by the IVF in order for China to survive during a period of economic isolation, more so the one child policy only applied to han Chinese, and many still choose to have children, it wasn’t a ban on having extra children, they where just heavily disincentivized and given access too birth control.
Literally banning who can have sex would be eugenics yes
I don’t really see a strong difference ultimately between “heavily disincentivizing” and banning. Heavy disincentivization basically means the rule only applies to poor people. If it’s eugenics, it’s probably still eugenics even when limited to the poor, since most eugenicists would broadly consider wealthy people to likely have good genes.
Anyway, there are times when we should attempt to lower birth rates as a society. In my country it’s not needed, since the birth rate is so low.
and imagine if we had 5 more hands; we could make 5 more points.
#thefuture
Still wouldn’t help people with two braincells
To all the commenters saying this guy was a saint for doing what he did, would you say the same thing had the outcome been disastrous? Babies born without HIV, but with constant excruciating pain or mental deficiency?
He took an extraordinarily reckless and permanently life-altering, for good or bad, risk with children’s lives.
edit: spelling
The good old adage: “you don’t have a gambling addiction as long as you keep winning”
He also did actual time for it and everyone involved was banned from practicing medicine in China, even despite the fact they are the core of CRISPR technology at the moment, they still care enough about ethics to not support this.
Seems like a case of one rogue team of people deciding what they where doing was for the moral good and then the state checking them.
We can still see the initial intentions as being morally good, and the outcome of it being gray but punished; its a balanced perspective; a lot of people here seem to have the impression it was approved by the CPC when it wasnt.
We can still see the initial intentions as being morally good
Ah, yes… the pavement of the road to Hell.
Good thing the CPC put a roadblock on that path and diverted us back into the morally grey middle road then.
This is a universal criticism of doing anything which is intended to be morally good.
This is the moral dilemma.
The whole Grimdank universe of just randomly testing things on people to make humans genetically more superior will absolutely improve life for future humans. No question. On paper anyways.
This is very hypothetical. You could make the same argument about any experimental medical intervention in a child’s life. If I had the choice of being born with HIV or an experimental procedure with some (how much?) chance of risk, I’d chose the procedure. I think the criticism of this form of treatment is highly coloured because it sounds like “playing god.”
You could make the same argument about any experimental medical intervention in a child’s life
Yup, and there’s even ethics review boards convened solely to analyze that argument with the particulars of a case and rule whether the treatment is okay to go ahead. This guy played god without approval from this review process and deserved the time served.
Okay, I do relate to this argument. It’s the ethics review board’s decision and not his to make. Fair enough. In this case, I am disappointed by the ethic review board’s decision, which is why I sympathize with the doctor.
would he, as the God curing the hiv, be more or less moral than the God giving the hiv?
The power to enact change is not a 100% bad thing. It only looks that way because of rampant corruption. There are good people in the world too. It is the good people who should be powerful. Keep in mind he is not developing something for a monsanto patent thicket; he is curing diseases without it being tied to nor profiting big pharma
I think he does it ironically tbh, his posts are all over the place, from making fun of Europe for regulating everything to then saying that gene editing should be regulated by international laws to then saying ethics are holding back humanity, then just saying he loves austin texas, then stating that he will not develop bio weapons lmao.
Stanford cup and CPC flag, he does have a sense of humour tbh.
Wasn’t he the guy who was trying to find a way for HIV-positive couples to have HIV-negative babies?
Antiretroviral therapy for pregnant women already is a safe and effective way to avoid HIV transmission to the baby. It’s part of standard treatment guidelines https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1701216324003748
So the guy has genetically engineered babies as a potentially risky and certainlycontroversial solution for a problem that already has a safe and non-controversia solution.
I think gene theraly is a miracle technology that should absolutely be explored more. The thing is, we’re already at a point where we can do it in adults. So doing it on embyros, which can’t consent, is simply an uncessasary moral hazard.
That said, I think the doctor here sort of has a point, which is that medical research is sometimes so concerned with doing no harm that it allows harm to happen without trying to treat it.
Newborns need medical treatments all the time and can’t consent. I agree that the inability to consent should encourage non-intervention – for instance, we shouldn’t “correct” intersex infants’ genitals – but there is a limit to this.
that is also where i place the importance: on the kids and parents. Not the science community nor science councils. Probably why i dont work at a university lab
