7 ms·

Good thing RFK pushed out the official overseeing this financing and the current administration is actively defunding the organizations that produced this. Bet

Good thing RFK pushed out the official overseeing this financing and the current administration is actively defunding the organizations that produced this. Better to have more disabled or dead babies instead of science. /s

LewisVerstappen 1y ago
[flagged]
- fnordpiglet 1y ago
  RFK runs HHS which oversees multiple grant, research, and review organizations in the federal government. This includes the NIH, which has been gutted of experts that don’t share the political ideology of the political arm of the executive and / or aren’t willing to say untruths in service of their political agenda. The news is replete with stories of experts being purged leaving entire areas of research unstaffed; from various cancers to HIV to genetic engineering. Of course the same is true in other areas, such as NOAA, EPA, FEMA, etc that will cause more acute harm. The research harms will play out over decades.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Genuine question: is this research not being pursued in China?
- sigzero 1y ago
  Yes, other countries are pursuing this.
- mylons 1y ago
  it is.
- kccqzy 1y ago
  A Chinese scientist claimed that he did CRISPR on twins back in 2018. https://www.science.org/content/article/crispr-bombshell-chinese-researcher-claims-have-created-gene-edited-twins https://www.science.org/content/article/crispr-bombshell-chi... He was jailed for illegal medical practices but it seemed like he established a proper lab after serving the sentence and hopefully he is focused on less objectionable practices. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1178695152/china-scientist-he-jiankui-crispr-baby-gene-editing https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1178695152/china-scientist-he...
pacoWebConsult 1y ago
From a purely utilitarian perspective, funding research like this is not an effective use of dollars at the margin. How many people could we save if an equivalent amount was put into reducing obesity, smoking, and drinking? How many people could we save if we stopped spending money we don't have to do things that the government isn't competent at allocating anyways? That's not to say the research itself is not impressive nor important, but think critically about the fact that this money doesn't exist in a vacuum.
- rco8786 1y ago
  Given the admin’s propensity for cutting spending on research like this and other domestic interests while ratcheting up military spending I think that poster’s point stands.
- casey2 1y ago
  Somewhere between 0 and -100,000,000
- tchalla 1y ago
  I’m glad we don’t only think from a utilitarian perspective then.
  - psychoslave 1y ago
    It's not even that. Utilitarian premises still let a very broad set of perspective. A long term perspective on large humanity won't lead to same conclusion as what will be the most joy inducing experiences in the next 24h for the 1% wealthiest people in the world right now.
- benlivengood 1y ago
  All those wasted dollars and time put into the discovery of the germ theory of disease instead of growing and distributing food to the invalids.
- wat10000 1y ago
  How do you know it's not effective? The cost per life saved is extremely high now, but this stuff gets better over time. How much did penicillin cost to produce originally?
dylan604 1y ago
The current administration doesn't care about kids. They only want you to not terminate a new kid from being born. That they care lots about. What happens after birth is not their concern. Also, I think when they say they want more babies, they want a specific subset of babies to increase.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > The current administration doesn't care about kids. Of course they do. But untold amounts spent on very few kids could be spent elsewhere on many more. Federal budgets are a zero-sum game. > Also, I think when they say they want more babies, they want a specific subset of babies to increase. I've seen quite a few conservative commentators celebrate that the massively disproportionate levels of African-American abortion have been reduced, resulting in more African-American people being born, and zero bemoaning it. So maybe you're right.

LewisVerstappen 1y ago

[flagged]

fnordpiglet 1y ago
RFK runs HHS which oversees multiple grant, research, and review organizations in the federal government. This includes the NIH, which has been gutted of experts that don’t share the political ideology of the political arm of the executive and / or aren’t willing to say untruths in service of their political agenda. The news is replete with stories of experts being purged leaving entire areas of research unstaffed; from various cancers to HIV to genetic engineering. Of course the same is true in other areas, such as NOAA, EPA, FEMA, etc that will cause more acute harm. The research harms will play out over decades.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

Genuine question: is this research not being pursued in China?

sigzero 1y ago
Yes, other countries are pursuing this.
mylons 1y ago
it is.
kccqzy 1y ago
A Chinese scientist claimed that he did CRISPR on twins back in 2018. https://www.science.org/content/article/crispr-bombshell-chinese-researcher-claims-have-created-gene-edited-twins https://www.science.org/content/article/crispr-bombshell-chi... He was jailed for illegal medical practices but it seemed like he established a proper lab after serving the sentence and hopefully he is focused on less objectionable practices. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1178695152/china-scientist-he-jiankui-crispr-baby-gene-editing https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1178695152/china-scientist-he...

pacoWebConsult 1y ago

From a purely utilitarian perspective, funding research like this is not an effective use of dollars at the margin. How many people could we save if an equivalent amount was put into reducing obesity, smoking, and drinking? How many people could we save if we stopped spending money we don't have to do things that the government isn't competent at allocating anyways? That's not to say the research itself is not impressive nor important, but think critically about the fact that this money doesn't exist in a vacuum.

rco8786 1y ago
Given the admin’s propensity for cutting spending on research like this and other domestic interests while ratcheting up military spending I think that poster’s point stands.
casey2 1y ago
Somewhere between 0 and -100,000,000
tchalla 1y ago
I’m glad we don’t only think from a utilitarian perspective then.
- psychoslave 1y ago
  It's not even that. Utilitarian premises still let a very broad set of perspective. A long term perspective on large humanity won't lead to same conclusion as what will be the most joy inducing experiences in the next 24h for the 1% wealthiest people in the world right now.
benlivengood 1y ago
All those wasted dollars and time put into the discovery of the germ theory of disease instead of growing and distributing food to the invalids.
wat10000 1y ago
How do you know it's not effective? The cost per life saved is extremely high now, but this stuff gets better over time. How much did penicillin cost to produce originally?

dylan604 1y ago

The current administration doesn't care about kids. They only want you to not terminate a new kid from being born. That they care lots about. What happens after birth is not their concern. Also, I think when they say they want more babies, they want a specific subset of babies to increase.

philipallstar 1y ago
> The current administration doesn't care about kids. Of course they do. But untold amounts spent on very few kids could be spent elsewhere on many more. Federal budgets are a zero-sum game. > Also, I think when they say they want more babies, they want a specific subset of babies to increase. I've seen quite a few conservative commentators celebrate that the massively disproportionate levels of African-American abortion have been reduced, resulting in more African-American people being born, and zero bemoaning it. So maybe you're right.