4 ms·

> Science is a global cooperative effort, rather than a national competition. Haha... that's not at all the case; academics are petty people with fragile egos

> Science is a global cooperative effort, rather than a national competition. Haha... that's not at all the case; academics are petty people with fragile egos who are often under the thumb of lab directors with even worse egos and often come into that role with an ax to grind. Racism, be it veiled or otherwise, is also no stranger to the realms of Science. Much less the dregs called the peer-reviewed system. Consider the plight of Dr. He Jiankui who many researchers in the West lauded in private, but scorned in public when the 'evil Chinese Scientist' revealed his results to the Public because grant money and political standing were at risk. Collaborations are limited in so far as their personal utility for more grants or prestige, lets not elevate researchers and their horrible practices to places they do not belong. I think you would find the process entirely sad and depressing, as most of us did in our undergrad, when you see it for what it really is.

luc4sdreyer 6y ago
>who many researchers in the West lauded in private I've only heard universal condemnation from scientists, where can I learn more about this private support for him? Or am I going to take your word for it?
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > Or am I going to take your word for it? Not necessary, but I'm just going to assume you aren't a biologist nor do you follow the Bio-hacker culture, right? Start with Josiah Zayner's talks from the time of that event. I think it was in the conference ahead of the trailer release of 'Code of the Wild' that stands out. But he's on record talking about it as well, I think Dr. Church also touched on it as well. The Bio Hack the Planet conference talks might also have more details, as I recall him talking about the events leading up to Dr. Doudna's misplaced/misunderstood role in CRISPR that eventually got her a Nobel Prize and it segued into that discussion, too. Back on PC Edit: This piece [0] is also worth a read, here is an excerpt from Science: > Yet opposition was not unanimous. A few months before He met the couples, a committee convened by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) concluded in a well-publicized report that human trials of germline editing "might be permitted" if strict criteria were met. The group of scientists, lawyers, bioethicists, and patient advocates spelled out a regulatory framework but cautioned that "these criteria are necessarily vague" because various societies, caregivers, and patients would view them differently. The committee notably did not call for an international ban, arguing instead for governmental regulation as each country deemed appropriate and "voluntary self-regulation pursuant to professional guidelines." >> That circle included leading scientists—among them a Nobel laureate—in China and the United States, business executives, an entrepreneur connected to venture capitalists, authors of the NASEM report, a controversial U.S. IVF specialist who discussed opening a gene-editing clinic with He, and at least one Chinese politician. "He had an awful lot of company to be called a ‘rogue,’" says geneticist George Church, a CRISPR pioneer at Harvard University who was not in the circle of trust and is one of the few scientists to defend at least some aspects of He's experiment. The questionable stance, and reluctance comes when academic researchers know that their grants and good standing with a chosen University (and the prestige and clout they garner) comes under threat. Maybe its because I've seen this kind of thing play out in real time when I was in School and then entered the Industry that I'm not all surprised by it... but it's also a sense of remorse mixed with dread and despair as a person who was on track to be a lab Clinical Lab Scientist but what disgusted at what 'really happens' internally that shaped my view(s) and made me leave the Industry entirely. 0: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/untold-story-circle-trust-behind-world-s-first-gene-edited-babies https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/untold-story-circle-...
  - luc4sdreyer 6y ago
    Thanks for the link

luc4sdreyer 6y ago

>who many researchers in the West lauded in private I've only heard universal condemnation from scientists, where can I learn more about this private support for him? Or am I going to take your word for it?

Melting_Harps 6y ago
> Or am I going to take your word for it? Not necessary, but I'm just going to assume you aren't a biologist nor do you follow the Bio-hacker culture, right? Start with Josiah Zayner's talks from the time of that event. I think it was in the conference ahead of the trailer release of 'Code of the Wild' that stands out. But he's on record talking about it as well, I think Dr. Church also touched on it as well. The Bio Hack the Planet conference talks might also have more details, as I recall him talking about the events leading up to Dr. Doudna's misplaced/misunderstood role in CRISPR that eventually got her a Nobel Prize and it segued into that discussion, too. Back on PC Edit: This piece [0] is also worth a read, here is an excerpt from Science: > Yet opposition was not unanimous. A few months before He met the couples, a committee convened by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) concluded in a well-publicized report that human trials of germline editing "might be permitted" if strict criteria were met. The group of scientists, lawyers, bioethicists, and patient advocates spelled out a regulatory framework but cautioned that "these criteria are necessarily vague" because various societies, caregivers, and patients would view them differently. The committee notably did not call for an international ban, arguing instead for governmental regulation as each country deemed appropriate and "voluntary self-regulation pursuant to professional guidelines." >> That circle included leading scientists—among them a Nobel laureate—in China and the United States, business executives, an entrepreneur connected to venture capitalists, authors of the NASEM report, a controversial U.S. IVF specialist who discussed opening a gene-editing clinic with He, and at least one Chinese politician. "He had an awful lot of company to be called a ‘rogue,’" says geneticist George Church, a CRISPR pioneer at Harvard University who was not in the circle of trust and is one of the few scientists to defend at least some aspects of He's experiment. The questionable stance, and reluctance comes when academic researchers know that their grants and good standing with a chosen University (and the prestige and clout they garner) comes under threat. Maybe its because I've seen this kind of thing play out in real time when I was in School and then entered the Industry that I'm not all surprised by it... but it's also a sense of remorse mixed with dread and despair as a person who was on track to be a lab Clinical Lab Scientist but what disgusted at what 'really happens' internally that shaped my view(s) and made me leave the Industry entirely. 0: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/untold-story-circle-trust-behind-world-s-first-gene-edited-babies https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/untold-story-circle-...
- luc4sdreyer 6y ago
  Thanks for the link