• I’d like to get in to genetic engineering. When I came across his story while researching crispr, I sympathized with him. He did the experiment in what to me is a moral way. Just going on memory it was like ‘take 4 embryos, edit two, keep parents in the loop and ask which embryo they want’. Complain all you want, but he did no wrong; it’s the public and system that then wronged him. So yeah, of nearly anyone, he is the one who most gets to say ‘ethics ruining science’. It’s ironic because there are tons and tons of unethical science activities done literally every day. But for those to be ignored and instead ethics police to hit him when he did all his stuff morally and resulted probably in two extrahealthy kids… Yeah I agree with him. I think everything should be done morally, but if he is going to be hit like that under the guise of ‘ethics’ then nah. ‘ethics’ needs to be replaced by morals and decency. Literally horrifically murdering people (war) is legal and accepted while him using science, AND CORRECTLY, to protect people from liferuining diseases got the treatment it did? nah. I hope he continues growing and doing more genetic engineering and this time doesn’t share a single thing with the public. He should never give the people that treated him like that a single piece of data. There are ways to bypass the patent thickets if he isn’t selling what he does, especially if he shares no info about it. I support him.

    prepares for 200 downvotes

  • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Dr He’s dream of baby gladiators cannot be hindered by whiny-don’t-make-the-babies-fight so-called “ethics”!

    Imagine what the world has lost

  • stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    I think a really exceeding important clarification here is he edited the genomes of human embryos, not babies. Babies are already born humans, embryos are a clump of cells that will become a baby in the future. I do not condone gene editing without consent, which is what he did, and yes there is lots of questionable ethics around gene editing but he did NOT experiment on babies. This should be made clear especially in a science based community, memes or not.

    Implying that babies are the same thing as embryos is fundamentally incorrect, in the same way a caterpillar is not a butterfly and a larva is not a fly, the distinction is very important.

    EDIT To add further detail - One of the reasons this is so unethical is that he experimented on human embryos that were later born and became babies. His intent was always to create a gene edited human, but the modifications were done while they were embryos, not live babies.

    • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Seems like splitting hairs, at best, for you to claim the three edited human babies who were born from this experiment aren’t part of the experiment. He fully aimed to study them and they are still being scientifically monitored.

      He also had a bizarre contract he made the parents sign that if they changed their minds they had to reimburse him the financial costs of the experiment.

    • Nangijala@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I have talked to some Americans who claims that sperm + egg = baby and I want to place an egg in front of them and ask them what it is and if they say anything other than a chicken, I will laugh.

      Also, thank you for the distinction. Kind of insane to call embryos babies. It is shit like this that makes me feel like my brain is shrinking when I talk to some people online.

      • Strawberry
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        They became babies when they were born with experimental modified genomes without their consent

    • CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I understand what you’re saying, but his experiment allowed the embryos to come to term and be born as human babies. Scientists have worked with human embryos before and avoided similar outcry by not allowing them to develop further (scientific outcry, not religious). Calling his work an experiment on human embryos ignores the fact that he always intended for his work to impact the real lives of real humans who would be born.

      • AltheaHunter
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Real humans who would be born and could potentially have children, passing whatever genetic edits they have (intended and off-target) into the gene pool.

      • stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        I totally agree, I do believe what he did was unethical and criminal.

        I also believe the clarification on if the experimenting was done on live human babies or if it was done on human embryos is exceeding important. Implying that this was done on live human babies is basically misinformation. Just look at the rest of this thread and how people are talking about this, everyone is discussing this as if its was living, breathing, crying babies that were experimented on, not a clump of cells before they have any type of living functionality.

        If anything what you said should be included, he experimented on embryos with the intent of them being born and becoming babies. But it most definitely should not be “he carried out medical experiments on babies”, because that is patently untrue.

        • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I disagree and think you are getting too caught up in semantics in this case. Can I put cats and mice in separate rooms, with the intention that the cats can find a way into the other room, and claim I am only doing an experiment on the cats, even once they get through and start killing the mice?

          What if I had a woman take some kind of drug during the first 3 weeks of pregnancy, with the explicit purpose of seeing what it does to the baby when it’s born. Can I say, no, no, I was experimenting on a woman and a zygote/blastocyst, not a baby!

          You don’t get to just remove yourself from the result. If he did something that made the baby be born in a way that’s different to how it would have been born, in my mind that is a direct experiment on the baby, just via indirect means.

          You can say the title isn’t specific enough for your liking, but by my standards it isn’t wrong or misinformation. He conducted an experiment that directly affected the lives of babies. That IS an experiment on the baby, regardless of the method used to perform the experiment.

          • stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Its is semantics, but also this is science and semantics are important. If we want to get really in to semantics we should say the experiments were done on humans, as the embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, pre-teen, teenager, and adult are all phases of the human life cycle and this experiment was done to produce genetically modified humans. Even CRISPR experiments refer to the organism model when experimenting, not the life cycle phase, unless it is specifically part of the experiment IE: in vitro vs In vivo

            Saying the medical experiments were done on babies specifically is for the shock value, and it works, look at the reactions it gets. This should be a hotly debated topic, people should be concerned about the ethics of gene editing and how it is regulated. This experiment was not ethical in anyway and it was criminal, but using hyperbole to inflate the shock value for engagement is also not the way to communicate how unethical and criminal this is.

      • arrow74@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        By all accounts what he did worked. The potential to end HIV is huge. The amount of human suffering that could be reduced by rolling out what he did is very real.

        The technology is here. It’s better to strictly manage it for the public good than to lock it away.

  • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I think the only thing that deserves clarification is if he broke ethics to do biomedical research. It sure seems he did. There’s ethics approval in any study for a good reason.

  • DrownedRats@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    15 hours ago

    “Speed limits are holding me back from getting from a to B in as little time as possible” yeah, and they reduce the likelihood of injuring/killing a people in the process.

  • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Is nobody concerned that illegal experiments on babies only gets you 3 years?

    Maybe they were Uyghurs so it was classified as “property damage” in Chinese law.

    • Jhex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The devil is in the details…

      You are likely thinking (as I am) that he implanted robotic arms on babies but he may have just rubbed sage oil on them for all we know

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I’ve blocked that instance, but if they need more material to ban me I have it.

        • SuperNovaStar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Nazis, by definition, do not oppose dictatorships. Not sure where you got that idea, but it certainly wasn’t a level-headed assessment of history.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            18 hours ago

            The guy you’re responding to is a liberal doing a piss poor parody of a ML.

            You can’t do a good parody if you get angry before the punchline, or don’t understand the thing you’re parodying in the first place.

        • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I wrote that on my phone’s touch keyboard, and I didn’t want to use \. to escape the dot character to avoid autohotlinking.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      20 hours ago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair

      Laws were changed after this incident:

      In 2020, the National People’s Congress of China passed Civil Code and an amendment to Criminal Law that prohibit human gene editing and cloning with no exceptions

      So, in case you actually meant that weird ignorant remark you made about Uyghurs, the answer is no and no.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Lemmitors downvoting you because actually learning about the case conflicts with their “cHiNa BaD” circlejerk.

      • drislands@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Thanks for the information – good to know. I assume that like American law, he couldn’t be punished for something that wasn’t illegal when he did it?

        Regarding the Uyghur comment the other guy made, definitely a bit tasteless but I don’t think it’s that ignorant given the genocide China perpetrated against them.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Depends how successful the experiment is (and probably on what the goal is as well).

      If he’d been testing the effects of grass vs grain feed on human fat marbling, I’d imagine the sentence would have been a little more severe

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Dang, you can really just pull shit straight out of your ass and people will believe it.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Yes, .ml users do indeed tend to be more concerned with fact-checking and saying things that are actually true as compared to flat.world, thank you for pointing that out.

          • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            Supposed to mean “machine-learning” Mali, but the developers of Lemmy (whose instance it is) are using it to mean “Marxism-Leninism”, which is a misnomer invented by Stalin. While ml has some non-tankie leftists, that instance is infamous because of them.

            • 3x7x37@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Supposed to mean “machine-learning”

              No, it officially stands for Mali. Why do you think it stands for machine leaning?

              • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                Great question! The truth is that the CCP and Russian Federation are basically spiritual successors of Marx himself. Here’s a list of bullet points explaining…

            • camr_on@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              19 hours ago

              It’s actually the TLD for Mali, not explicitly related to machine learning, or leftism. That’s mainly what it’s used for though, outside of Mali.

          • NIB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Marxism leninism, it’s a political ideology, subset of communism. Basically the communists that love USSR, China, Cuba, etc. They love running propaganda about how these authoritarian governments did nothing wrong and how all criticism of them is just negative propaganda by the West.

    • nope@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      And in what context medical experiments should be allowed on babies ?

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        A lot of contexts? Like the development depending on formula vs mother’s milk? Experimenting doesn’t need to mean vivisection or injecting unregulated drugs, but if you need to do the experiments illegally, I’m not sure it was something “safe”

  • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Wasn’t he the guy who was trying to find a way for HIV-positive couples to have HIV-negative babies?

  • (⬤ᴥ⬤)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    22 hours ago

    wait he’s not a fucking parody account?? i thought he was like. larping as an umbrella corp researcher

  • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    161
    ·
    1 day ago

    If a person’s criticism is of “ethics” in general, that individual should not be allowed in a position of authority or trust. If you have a specific constraint for which you can make a case that it goes too far and hinders responsible science and growth (and would have repeatable, reliable results), then state the specific point clearly and the arguments in your favor.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 day ago

      And we already have a safety valve for when conventional ethics is standing in the way of vital research: the researchers test on themselves.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine

      If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?

      It’s not terribly common because most useful research is perfectly ethical, but we have a good number of cases of researchers deciding that there’s no way for someone to ethically volunteer for what they need to do, so they do it to themselves. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they make very valuable discoveries. Sometimes both.

      So the next time someone wantz to strap someone to a rocket engine and fire it into a wall, all they have to do is go first and be part of the testing pool.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        20 hours ago

        If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?

        You can’t really do the kind of experiments being done genetically modifying growing infants on yourself, I imagine. Not that that should be an excuse, of course.

        • Nursery2787@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You can work your way through all the different animal models, showing that you have a clear understanding of every single bio mechanism. Then start off with a small change to a human baby THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BENEFIT showing that nothing bad happens. Like we figured out this specific sequence leads to deformed hands, we have plenty of control babies with the deformed hands.

          By this guys own logic, he didn’t even get usable fucking data. Crispr changes DNA, yeah no shit we all knew that. He gave them a slight boost to HIV. How the fuck are we supposed to find out without exposing them. A high likelihood that they would have grown up never worrying about HIV in the first place.

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            14 hours ago

            The babies were born to HIV infected fathers, so the part about “never worrying about HIV in the first place” isn’t quite accurate.

            But honestly, that makes it even more infuriating. There probably would have been patients that would have CONSENTED to this if given the opportunity. He probably could have done things the right way - worked with animal studies, gone through the ethics process.

            Instead, he decided to move fast and break things, without regard for others autonomy or consent.

  • Hikuro-93@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Ironic thing, we already tried this approach multiple times before, specially on war times. And each time humanity concluded that some knowledge has too high a price and we’re better off not finding out some things.

    Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, especially with a heavy blood cost, isn’t the way to progress as a species.

    And I should know, as a person greatly defined by curiosity about everything and more limited emotional capacity than other people due to mental limitations.

    • drosophila
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      20 hours ago

      If you’re talking about unit 731 and the nazis then there was very little, if anything, scientifically valuable there.

      They had terrible research methodology that rendered what data they gathered mostly useless, and even if it wasn’t, most of the information could have been surmised by other methods. Some of the things they did served no conceivable practical or scientific purpose whatsoever.

      It was pretty much just sadism with a thin veneer of justification to buy them the small amount of legitimacy they needed to operate within their fascist governments.

      • guldukat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        18 hours ago

        From what I read, a tiny bit of radiation and frostbite research was useful. Huge cost, of course, but minimally useful.

      • Hikuro-93@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Exactly. Society should never conflate knowledge driven by curiosity and knowledge as an excuse for sadism.

        There’s a difference between experimenting by following rules, and then observing the results vs giving in to base forbidden desires just to see what happens or trying to bend reality to confirm one’s bias - I mean, just look at how people tried to justify until decades ago a black person’s ‘inferiority’ and their discrimination by coming up with all sorts of anatomical observations. That’s the danger.

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Also the motivation of such research is usually not purely scientific, if at all, so the data gathered is often useless.