3 ms·

It's really all of the above. For a technology as monumental as human germline editing, the scientific consensus is that we are not yet ready to perform these

It's really all of the above. For a technology as monumental as human germline editing, the scientific consensus is that we are not yet ready to perform these experiments. There is a widely-supported moratorium on the type of research Dr. He has done, from the ethical implications of the work to the not yet fully understood risks of off-target edits when performing CRISPR modfifications. And even so, what Dr. He did can only be described as bad science. He conducted a study with woefully misinformed participants, and it would appear that there are significant technical shortcomings in his procedure as well. For instance, Dr. He proceeded to implant modified embryos even after confirming that the attempted knockout of the CCR5 gene was unsuccessful. In summary, Dr. He's research flew in wanton violation of worldwide standards for ethics and safe scientific practice, while failing to accomplish anything of note.

thatoneuser 8y ago
I’m getting mixed information from these comments. You say he failed to accomplish anything of note. Others have said that his work did leave the subjects immune to some HIV. You say the participants were ill informed, other comments (and his own claims) state that there was a high degree of understanding and communication with reasonably intelligent backgrounds. What’s going on here? This seems like a recurring phenomenon with unethical science - people shut it down wholesale while refusing to entertain the positives. I mean don’t get me wrong - this seems unethical on several levels, but if the work shows actual successful avoidance of HIV in the patients then that’s something we have tested and done that we hadn’t before. If the subjects really have that immunity, then saying he’s “failed to accomplish anything of note” is a pretty unethical claim itself.

thatoneuser 8y ago

I’m getting mixed information from these comments. You say he failed to accomplish anything of note. Others have said that his work did leave the subjects immune to some HIV. You say the participants were ill informed, other comments (and his own claims) state that there was a high degree of understanding and communication with reasonably intelligent backgrounds. What’s going on here? This seems like a recurring phenomenon with unethical science - people shut it down wholesale while refusing to entertain the positives. I mean don’t get me wrong - this seems unethical on several levels, but if the work shows actual successful avoidance of HIV in the patients then that’s something we have tested and done that we hadn’t before. If the subjects really have that immunity, then saying he’s “failed to accomplish anything of note” is a pretty unethical claim itself.