3 ms·
You got your cause and effect backwards. The rules were only added after he did it, because he did it.
by ggggtez 8y ago
You got your cause and effect backwards. The rules were only added after he did it, because he did it.
- est 8y agothe rules were they before he did it, but not enforced (as usual). he triggered it.
- gwern 8y agoNo. They were announcing crackdowns and punishments well before He Jiankui announced anything. This article, for example, is from several weeks before, and records punishments initiated well before that: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07222-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07222-2
- dekhn 8y agothere isn't anything crispr specific, those are all about illegal data sharing of genetic information.
- gwern 8y agoWhy do you think that makes any difference?
- dekhn 8y agoBecause sharing like that is done routinely, is generally accepted, and has not created a massive uproar like the CRISPR scandal did. I'm not making a moral judgement, just pointing out that this citation doesn't support the above-posted arguments since it's in a different-enough domain. If you had posted official CRISPR rules (like the Asilomar Conference Guidelines) created by the community with some authority, that would have been better. To my knowledge, the CRISPR community didn't publish such things, just agreed, informally, to some unofficial guidelines. So it's not super-suprising to me that somebody skirted those unofficial guidelines.
- gwern 8y ago> Because sharing like that is done routinely, is generally accepted, and has not created a massive uproar It obviously is not accepted (that's the whole point of that link!), and genetic and health information sharing routinely creates controversies, ranging from insufficient diversity to worries about AI (see DeepMind & NHS). So your premises are just wrong.