Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies

Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,247
Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/health/gene-editing-babies-china.html

Just saw this on CBC. 
«1

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,344
    Humans fucking with Mother Nature/  What could go wrong?

    :ohstop:
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 19,296
    Yup.


    I also find it odd he refuses to share his data / evidence.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,247
    brianlux said:
    Humans fucking with Mother Nature/  What could go wrong?

    :ohstop:
    He might be in a lot of hot water.  Most other scientists I've seen discussing this call it immoral.  The news report I saw on CBC claimed the twins are still susceptible to HIV and may now have an increased risk of Cancer.  To me, this is very typical behaviour of the Chinese.

    Just like I saw on CBS news a report that it's estimated that China has interned some 2 million Muslims in prisons and re-education camps since 2017.  2 countries that should be told to go fuck themselves, China and Saudi Araba.
  • hedonist said:
    Yup.


    I also find it odd he refuses to share his data / evidence.
    Lol, at first glance I thought she was holding one of those Chilton Manuals. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,240
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,247
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,240
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,344
    A post finds its proper home:

    I think it's weird they call the damn thing a crisper.

    "Hey, Jiankui, let's put 'er in the crisper and see what comes out!"

    "Oh,  shit man, I burned another one!"

    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,247
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 15,453
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
    Isn't this what stem cells were supposed to be able to do also?  Make a stronger and disease free human or am I off base?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,500
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
    Isn't this what stem cells were supposed to be able to do also?  Make a stronger and disease free human or am I off base?
    They still hold much potential in doing so, but we are far from application and there are limits.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 16,136
    brianlux said:
    A post finds its proper home:

    I think it's weird they call the damn thing a crisper.

    "Hey, Jiankui, let's put 'er in the crisper and see what comes out!"

    "Oh,  shit man, I burned another one!"

    I was very confused when I saw this in the other thread. LOL
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 16,136
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.
    and it would be a slippery slope to some asshole creating a master race. 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 15,453
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.
    and it would be a slippery slope to some asshole creating a master race. 
    "The Clone Wars"...
  • AnnafalkAnnafalk SwedenPosts: 3,760
    I wouldn't feel comfortable with the notion that someone had cut in my dna. I don't think he can know if this will go well, he can't see the whole picture. All the different scenarios. 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 15,453
    Annafalk said:
    I wouldn't feel comfortable with the notion that someone had cut in my dna. I don't think he can know if this will go well, he can't see the whole picture. All the different scenarios. 
    All the people donating their DNA to search their ancestry are now on file so if any of your family members have done that it's too late...
  • AnnafalkAnnafalk SwedenPosts: 3,760
    edited November 28
    Annafalk said:
    I wouldn't feel comfortable with the notion that someone had cut in my dna. I don't think he can know if this will go well, he can't see the whole picture. All the different scenarios. 
    All the people donating their DNA to search their ancestry are now on file so if any of your family members have done that it's too late...
    I have thought about that too. No one in my family has tried that ancestry thing. It would be kind of interesting to see where my ancestors came from, but as you say it's kind of scary to think about giving away information like that.
    Post edited by Annafalk on
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,240
    edited November 28
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
    I think that, unless economic disparity and a disparity in access to medical care, it would be terrible if it became a common medical practice. That would simply keep the poor sickly and the rich healthy, both on a more local, and on a global scale. This is exactly why I'm against it. I mean, the people who would really benefit most from this anti-AIDS gene (assuming it doesn't cause other probs with the "patients") would be all the people in Africa who have a terrible time accessing medical care, while 25% of the population has HIV/AIDS. But they obviously aren't going to be the ones who will benefit from this.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,247
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
    I think that, unless economic disparity and a disparity in access to medical care, it would be terrible if it became a common medical practice. That would simply keep the poor sickly and the rich healthy, both on a more local, and on a global scale. This is exactly why I'm against it. I mean, the people who would really benefit most from this anti-AIDS gene (assuming it doesn't cause other probs with the "patients") would be all the people in Africa who have a terrible time accessing medical care, while 25% of the population has HIV/AIDS. But they obviously aren't going to be the ones who will benefit from this.
    The rich, no matter where you live to get better medical care.  You think wealthy Canadians wait on a list for surgery on their knee in 112 months?  I'm will bet the vast majority of wealthy Canadians seek surgery in the US.  If I was wealthy I would seek treatment in the US.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,240
    edited November 28
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
    I think that, unless economic disparity and a disparity in access to medical care, it would be terrible if it became a common medical practice. That would simply keep the poor sickly and the rich healthy, both on a more local, and on a global scale. This is exactly why I'm against it. I mean, the people who would really benefit most from this anti-AIDS gene (assuming it doesn't cause other probs with the "patients") would be all the people in Africa who have a terrible time accessing medical care, while 25% of the population has HIV/AIDS. But they obviously aren't going to be the ones who will benefit from this.
    The rich, no matter where you live to get better medical care.  You think wealthy Canadians wait on a list for surgery on their knee in 112 months?  I'm will bet the vast majority of wealthy Canadians seek surgery in the US.  If I was wealthy I would seek treatment in the US.
    Obviously they do, and you should know by now that I advocate against that disparity on a regular basis. But in any case, do you not see the massive difference between that and being able to buy genetic superiority?
    And BTW, why in the fuck would you go through the trouble of seeking treatment in the US if you were rich, assuming it's not some crazy rare treatment that requires a specialist that doesn't happen to reside in Canada (and that person could be in Sweden or Japan or who knows where, not necessarily the USA). You can do the same thing in Canada. There are tons of private medical centers for the rich in your own country. Why take the money out of your own economy when there is no reason to? You do know that Canadians who don't want to wait for knee surgery and can afford to pay for it don't have to leave Canada to do that, right?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,247
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
    I think that, unless economic disparity and a disparity in access to medical care, it would be terrible if it became a common medical practice. That would simply keep the poor sickly and the rich healthy, both on a more local, and on a global scale. This is exactly why I'm against it. I mean, the people who would really benefit most from this anti-AIDS gene (assuming it doesn't cause other probs with the "patients") would be all the people in Africa who have a terrible time accessing medical care, while 25% of the population has HIV/AIDS. But they obviously aren't going to be the ones who will benefit from this.
    The rich, no matter where you live to get better medical care.  You think wealthy Canadians wait on a list for surgery on their knee in 112 months?  I'm will bet the vast majority of wealthy Canadians seek surgery in the US.  If I was wealthy I would seek treatment in the US.
    Obviously they do, and you should know by now that I advocate against that disparity on a regular basis. But in any case, do you not see the massive difference between that and being able to buy genetic superiority?
    And BTW, why in the fuck would you go through the trouble of seeking treatment in the US if you were rich, assuming it's not some crazy rare treatment that requires a specialist that doesn't happen to reside in Canada (and that person could be in Sweden or Japan or who knows where, not necessarily the USA). You can do the same thing in Canada. There are tons of private medical centers for the rich in your own country. Why take the money out of your own economy when there is no reason to? You do know that Canadians who don't want to wait for knee surgery and can afford to pay for it don't have to leave Canada to do that, right?
    LMFAO.  So rich people in BC can just skip the line.  Well, here in Ontario rich people are not allowed to skip the line.  There might be some private clinics, but certainly none where I live...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,240
    edited November 28
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I wouldn't be against this if I could know such science wouldn't be monetized. But it obviously will, and we'll be looking at a real life Gattica situation for sure.
    In this case, what about the claims he may have left them more vulnerable to Cancer?
    Well any negative claims are bad obviously. I'm talking about not being against it in principle and concept, i.e. assuming it actually works properly. I think using science to eliminate birth defects and disease and stuff is a GREAT concept... but it's not going to work. Humans are too greedy and stupid to deal with it in way that would actually benefit all of humanity.

    Yes, I agree the concept is great.  And maybe someday it will be a common medical practice.  I was curious as to why they were targeting HIV in particular.  May have to read the article again to see if it states why,
    I think that, unless economic disparity and a disparity in access to medical care, it would be terrible if it became a common medical practice. That would simply keep the poor sickly and the rich healthy, both on a more local, and on a global scale. This is exactly why I'm against it. I mean, the people who would really benefit most from this anti-AIDS gene (assuming it doesn't cause other probs with the "patients") would be all the people in Africa who have a terrible time accessing medical care, while 25% of the population has HIV/AIDS. But they obviously aren't going to be the ones who will benefit from this.
    The rich, no matter where you live to get better medical care.  You think wealthy Canadians wait on a list for surgery on their knee in 112 months?  I'm will bet the vast majority of wealthy Canadians seek surgery in the US.  If I was wealthy I would seek treatment in the US.
    Obviously they do, and you should know by now that I advocate against that disparity on a regular basis. But in any case, do you not see the massive difference between that and being able to buy genetic superiority?
    And BTW, why in the fuck would you go through the trouble of seeking treatment in the US if you were rich, assuming it's not some crazy rare treatment that requires a specialist that doesn't happen to reside in Canada (and that person could be in Sweden or Japan or who knows where, not necessarily the USA). You can do the same thing in Canada. There are tons of private medical centers for the rich in your own country. Why take the money out of your own economy when there is no reason to? You do know that Canadians who don't want to wait for knee surgery and can afford to pay for it don't have to leave Canada to do that, right?
    LMFAO.  So rich people in BC can just skip the line.  Well, here in Ontario rich people are not allowed to skip the line.  There might be some private clinics, but certainly none where I live...
    You're incorrect. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not true. You can do it in Toronto. Even if it were true, are you incapable of traveling to other Canadian provinces?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • AnnafalkAnnafalk SwedenPosts: 3,760
    People with the mutation CCR5-delta-32 are already immune against HIV.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,024
    Annafalk said:
    People with the mutation CCR5-delta-32 are already immune against HIV.
    Yes, that’s the gene he says he was manipulating. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • AnnafalkAnnafalk SwedenPosts: 3,760
    edited November 29
    Annafalk said:
    People with the mutation CCR5-delta-32 are already immune against HIV.
    Yes, that’s the gene he says he was manipulating. 
    Was it? I wonder if it will go well, it feels scary somehow.
    Post edited by Annafalk on
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 16,019
    Annafalk said:
    People with the mutation CCR5-delta-32 are already immune against HIV.
    Sign me up for that, i hate condoms lol
  • SmellymanSmellyman AsiaPosts: 3,464
    If they could turn me into Spiderman I'd be down with it.
  • AnnafalkAnnafalk SwedenPosts: 3,760
    my2hands said:
    Annafalk said:
    People with the mutation CCR5-delta-32 are already immune against HIV.
    Sign me up for that, i hate condoms lol
    Immunity against all sicknesses including cancer and all that s**t would be great :)
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,240
    edited November 29
    my2hands said:
    Annafalk said:
    People with the mutation CCR5-delta-32 are already immune against HIV.
    Sign me up for that, i hate condoms lol
    I hear syphilis is making a real comeback on a global scale, and there is now an antibiotic-resistant strain of Gonorrhea going around. Keep the condoms.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.