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

Meltdown99

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. 

brianlux

Humans fucking with Mother Nature/  What could go wrong?

hedonist

Yup.


I also find it odd he refuses to share his data / evidence.

Meltdown99

brianlux said:

Humans fucking with Mother Nature/  What could go wrong?

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.

LongestRoad

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_Soul

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.

Meltdown99

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_Soul

Meltdown99 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.

brianlux

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!"

Meltdown99

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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_groove

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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?

rgambs

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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.

HughFreakingDillon

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

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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_groove

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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"...

Annafalk

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_groove

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...

Annafalk

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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.

Meltdown99

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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?