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.
Seems like splitting hairs, at best, for you to claim the three edited human babies who were born from this experiment aren’t part of the experiment. He fully aimed to study them and they are still being scientifically monitored.
He also had a bizarre contract he made the parents sign that if they changed their minds they had to reimburse him the financial costs of the experiment.
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.
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.
Per the wikipedia page it states that it is not clear if it effective because they’re not going to intentionally infect the children to test it. But we see the results specifically on the targeted gene. That’s a success and demonstrates the technology works.
I’d argue the folly was inserting an artificial gene as opposed to the natural gene that we already know works. Either way the technology showed expression on the correct gene, that is a success.
We’d be having a better discourse on this if his results weren’t banned from every journal and not studied.
“Lulu has only heterozygous modification which is not known to prevent HIV infection.”
It’s not the results are “banned from every journal” - it’s that doing ad hoc CRISPR experiments is not going to meet peer review. Doing random things because you want to see what happens is not how science works.
Having a heterozygous deletion is still effecting the right gene. Without knowing both of her parents genetics it’s hard to say if it was natural. What he did could produce either a heterozygous or homozygous result on the gene, but only the homozygous presentation is effective at prevention.
So 1 was a full success and the other showed activation on the appropriate gene, but not enough to confer resistance. Although it is possible it does since he used an artificial gene. We know the natural one is not effective in a heterozygous presentation. I still think that was his greatest mistake. He should have just used the naturally effective gene.
You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.
You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.
What? Even highly effective treatments with ample research backing will not “always be successful.” (Not just in genetics. Across the board.)
Again, as the excerpt I copied in shows, there are also RISKS with CRISPR. Things like mosaicism, things like half of your cells having the modification and half not.
Do you have any background in biology? Can you explain why a gene that only conveys resistance in a homozygous genotype would be magically effective in a heterozygous because it was artificial?
Can you define the terms “homozygous” and “heterozygous” even?
I didn’t say it was magic. Part of the issue is we don’t know what modifications he made in making his artificial version. I won’t pretend like there aren’t a lot of unknowns there. It could alter the effectiveness in numerous ways.
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.
Seems like splitting hairs, at best, for you to claim the three edited human babies who were born from this experiment aren’t part of the experiment. He fully aimed to study them and they are still being scientifically monitored.
He also had a bizarre contract he made the parents sign that if they changed their minds they had to reimburse him the financial costs of the experiment.
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.
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.
Incorrect.
Per the wikipedia page it states that it is not clear if it effective because they’re not going to intentionally infect the children to test it. But we see the results specifically on the targeted gene. That’s a success and demonstrates the technology works.
I’d argue the folly was inserting an artificial gene as opposed to the natural gene that we already know works. Either way the technology showed expression on the correct gene, that is a success.
We’d be having a better discourse on this if his results weren’t banned from every journal and not studied.
Read that section I pasted in again.
“Lulu has only heterozygous modification which is not known to prevent HIV infection.”
It’s not the results are “banned from every journal” - it’s that doing ad hoc CRISPR experiments is not going to meet peer review. Doing random things because you want to see what happens is not how science works.
Having a heterozygous deletion is still effecting the right gene. Without knowing both of her parents genetics it’s hard to say if it was natural. What he did could produce either a heterozygous or homozygous result on the gene, but only the homozygous presentation is effective at prevention.
So 1 was a full success and the other showed activation on the appropriate gene, but not enough to confer resistance. Although it is possible it does since he used an artificial gene. We know the natural one is not effective in a heterozygous presentation. I still think that was his greatest mistake. He should have just used the naturally effective gene.
You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.
What? Even highly effective treatments with ample research backing will not “always be successful.” (Not just in genetics. Across the board.)
Again, as the excerpt I copied in shows, there are also RISKS with CRISPR. Things like mosaicism, things like half of your cells having the modification and half not.
Do you have any background in biology? Can you explain why a gene that only conveys resistance in a homozygous genotype would be magically effective in a heterozygous because it was artificial?
Can you define the terms “homozygous” and “heterozygous” even?
I didn’t say it was magic. Part of the issue is we don’t know what modifications he made in making his artificial version. I won’t pretend like there aren’t a lot of unknowns there. It could alter the effectiveness in numerous ways.