7 ms·

I thought that this was to be immune from one of the parent's infection. (I haven't read this article though so maybe my info is outdated).

• vibrio 8y ago
  Even if true that the mother was HIV positive, this situation wouldn't justify He's actions for a few reasons. i)They are implanting an embryo in an HIV+ mother, there are other alternatives; ii) For 20 or so years AZT has been used effectively to prevent material transmission of HIV at birth
  • dwighttk 8y ago
    According to #1 in the article it was the father who was HIV+ anyway: "Although Nana and Lulu’s father is HIV-positive, neither of the infants actually had HIV."
• jcranmer 8y ago
  That was He's justification for the editing. The general consensus from the rest of the community is a) AIDS is no longer an automatic death sentence, and b) there is already effective protocols in place to guard against HIV transmission in this scenario. Well, on top of that, there's c) he appears to have gone around telling people that he was working on an HIV vaccine instead of admitting that he's attempting to CRISPR humans, and d) he seems to have done a pretty bad job of the CRISPR edits themselves. (How bad? We can't even be sure that his CRISPR edit didn't do something like accidentally delete an entire chromosome)
  • dhimes 8y ago
    Yikes!
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I thought that this was to be immune from one of the parent's infection. Why would a child need immunity from the father's HIV infection that hadn't infected the mother?