Chinese scientist outrages researchers by claiming he gene-edited twins
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The scientific world erupted with outrage and concern Monday after a Chinese scientist claimed he used gene-editing to alter the DNA of a pair of twins who were born recently.
The scientist, He Jiankui of Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, said he used a DNA-editing tool called CRISPR to alter the genes of the twin girls to make them resistant to infection by the AIDS virus HIV. He plans to present more details later this week at a scientific meeting in Hong Kong.
Fertility researchers around the world were quick to denounce both the way He announced his work — with a YouTube video and in an interview with the Associated Press — and the work itself.
Scientists usually present their work in journals, which vet their data and methods and usually also invite other experts in the field to check for errors before it's published.
The idea of permanently altering a baby's DNA so that their own children also carry the change is controversial, if not abhorrent, to much of the world. But some experts also say the furor surrounding the case shows it may be time to legalize such work and create a regulatory framework to ensure it is done safely and ethically.
China’s Southern University said it did not support the experiment. "The research work was carried out outside the school by Associate Professor He Jiankui. He did not report to the school and the department of biology, and the school and the biology department did not know about it," it said in a statement.
The university said it was investigating. Likewise, Rice University in Houston distanced itself from Michael Deem, a bioengineering professor there who said he collaborated with He on the project. “This research raises troubling scientific, legal and ethical questions,” the university said in a statement.
“Rice had no knowledge of this work. To Rice’s knowledge, none of the clinical work was performed in the United States. Regardless of where it was conducted, this work as described in press reports, violates scientific conduct guidelines and is inconsistent with ethical norms of the scientific community and Rice University. We have begun a full investigation of Dr. Deem’s involvement in this research,” it added.
Other experts pointed out that the work was evidently done on healthy human embryos, and not to correct any genetic diseases. They said there is a difference between experimenting to save a life, and experimenting on babies out of scientific curiosity.
“If true, this experiment is monstrous,” said Julian Savulescu, an expert on bioethics at Britain’s Oxford University. “Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer. There are many effective ways to prevent HIV in healthy individuals: for example, protected sex. And there are effective treatments if one does contract it.”
Read more at the seeded content
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
On the surface, this seems like one bad idea by one bad scientist and parents until you begin to think about it. These twin girls new genes will go on for good or for bad to the next generation.
Any thoughts?
I do not think we know enough of the underlying science to start fiddling with the genes of human beings.
Give them time.
They will figure it out.
The abinormal gene will become the dominant of all genes in no time.
I absolutely will give them time. Take all the time needed to fully understand the consequences of our actions.
I tend to agree with you Tig. Once those genes get into G pop, there is no taking it back.
"The bad" for the next generation could give us our first mutant human? (Sarcasm yes, but well. . . . )
I kind of agree, CB.
Our species has been evolving for millennia, these twins will not be the first time our species has "mutated" or evolved. And they'll likely not even be the first man-made gene manipulated/evolved subject, this is likely just the first case made public.
Someday, this will be commonplace. It's not a matter of if but when. Right now our biggest fear is not understanding something completely enough and introducing something horrible into our genetic makeup, possibly of apocalyptic proportions. But as we gain more and more experience and get consistent results we won't be able to stop humans from using this new knowledge to save or extend the lives of themselves or loved ones.
I don't think there's any prospective parent out there who would seriously give thought to the ability to immunize your child from many of the most common diseases and viruses right from birth. And if you could genetically flip a little switch that not only keeps them from being the 1 in 37 boys who are born with autism but gives a slight intelligence boost as well.
There are many in the scientific community who worry about this leading to "designer babies". I guess think of the movie Gattaca ( in case any of you wondered where that movie got its strange name, it's from the 4 chemicals that make up DNA, thymine, adenine, guanine, and cytosine). Only the affluent had children that were not DNA altered and the poor were deemed inferior and of course, were left to the grunt work.
Just food for thought.
LOL, I never saw the movie but it sounds like it was thought about when written and probably written as it may actual unfold.
Funny how many time the "foreseer's" get it so close.
Sometimes the sad part is, it's also unstoppable. that's why it was obvious to begin with.
Like was discovered long ago when something is in motion, unless acted on it will continue in the same path.
He who holds the gold, still makes the rules.
Genetically engineered slave people. yeah I can see mankind doing that.
Sad, but true.
That movie was disturbing.
I'll bet.
That is not the type of mutation I am referring to, DP. That being clarified, I do agree with your points.
The type of mutant people I am considering can be serendipitous creatures borne out of the efforts taking place in well-lit research labs, or in 'dark' buildings under the control of dictatorial leaders seeking a secret weapon or or a new means to getting rid of their strongest enemies. Most of us are familiar with the idea of the "universal soldier."
The "saints" will set their ambitions on abiding within acceptable scientific conventions, the "devilish" will set their sights on engineering efficient "monsters" tailored to suit. All of this is my opinion, of course.
Good movie. I think that was Ernest Borgnine's last movie before he died.
Oops my mistake, not his last film. Sorry.
I loved Ernest Borgnine. He was a great actor.
Sounds like something from an X-Men comic.
Or perhaps like Khan and the Augments from Star Trek.
Indeed. Who wouldn't love Mermaid Man from SpongeBob SquarePants? Lol
Twin girls - sounds familiar.
LOL.. sure does!
The Science is there so it's only been a matter of time till someone used it. They've been doing these things to animals and human cells in a petri dish for quite a while but in most countries it's forbidden to actually bring a mutated human embryo to term. I think most of the Scientists are mad because he used other peoples discoveries and just crossed a line they couldn't and is claiming the discovery for himself. I doubt this is a first, I'm sure Governments have been doing these things in secret since the potential is world changing but they know the public is largely against such things. I believe the Science is worth knowing and should be explored and perfected but it should not be put into practice, unless it's needed to save humanity from a doomsday disease. At this time this Science is far from perfected, when they splice genes they make many unknown changes for every known change they make and it's impossible to figure out what changes were made because they don't even know what they're looking for. It's easier with animals because there are no human rights issues, you change their genetics and study them but you don't allow those genetics to escape into the general population but with a human how can you forbid them from freely breeding with whomever they choose. With this experiment the biggest question remains unanswered, how are the twins, are they healthy, and what is their future. I would think they are going to be studied or at least that's what the Scientists plan on but there will come a day when these children will likely say "F" off I'm sick of being poked and prodded I am not your property I am a Human Being.
Be on the lookout for these two devastating words: "Mad scientists."
Zuksam,
I think you hit the nail on the head. This scientist was way out of line. The way he did it ( with Crisper) is still in its infancy and only being used in labs. It's ok to do this on animal populations and even then, you have to be very careful not to let them out into the general population of any animals.
He really should be kept under a close eye from now on, and those twins really should never bare any children. We don't know for sure what he did to those genes in the long run, and it could have an unforeseen outcome.
The future is here. Ready or not.
This is wrong on sok many levels. These children will spend their lives dealing with whatever side effects his 'tinkering' may have done. There are ways to do these things in a laboratory environment. Seems like he decided to roll the dice on two human beings. I hope that the girls suffer no ill-effects.
Is there a choice remaining to not proceed with this type of research (and any new areas of)? This Chinese scientist for whatever reason stuff his foot in the door! I can wonder if he did this for self or the good of science. In either case, he announced in the way he did because he makes no apology for his actions, in my opinion.
Now we turn to ethics:
There is a discipline within the sciences called Bioethics. I took a class in college and we explored various scenarios and discussed what should and shouldn't be done.
I think....and this might be a stretch....if scientists could use this research for good such as trying to eliminate genetic diseases such as Huntington's Chorea and cystic fibrosis we shouldn't judge too harshly.
My family carries CF and so it would be easy for me to agree. But I am not sure if we are there yet. Take CF, it affects several enzymes in the body. Most people think it is just a lung disease, but it does terrible things to the digestive tract, too. That is a whole lot of gene changes that have to take place.
My daughter works in an ALS lab. It is a work of love, since my uncle died of ALS. But they know their limitations. They are looking for genes that cause trouble in astrocites ( the body's garbage men), and are trying to manipulate them using DNA. But that is far from doing it within the body yet.
I agree we're not there yet, but maybe someday.
I don't want to produce the next Frankenstein's Monster or a race of Super Men.....
In regards to your questions CB,
Hello Perrie!
Thank you for addressing my questions. What I am getting to is more along the lines of how does one prevent or stop a scientist from "going rogue?
When an atheist-scientist (and a higher percentage claim to be so) finds an objective truth in the research lab (where moral "attachments" do not exist) what constrains that scientist beyond his/her own conscience?
Beyond considerations for what we and some committee thinks is a bad idea, a break with the scientific community, broken codes of conduct, and government restrictions (or not), what can stop a scientist (or a team of scientists) from following science wherever it leads? Relatitvely-speaking, It is right in his or her mind.
Science in its natural form has no ethics code.
The moral and ethical values of the atheist scientist and the scientific community in general. What should constrain the scientist? That is, where should the scientist turn to find superior morals and ethics?
Hi CB,
Well, that was not a place I wanted to go, but since you went there, I will reply.
Being an atheist or an agnostic doesn't mean you have no moral compass, just like being someone who thinks they are religious gives them a moral compass. Morality and ethics is an innate quality. You either have it or you don't. There are loads of people with and without faith who are moral and good people and that includes scientists, especially doctors. Do you know what you say when you become a doctor? Do no harm. That is not meant to be taken lightly.
This doctor forgot what his job was to heal and put his ego ahead of doing no harm.
I understand that people have "compasses," my question is strictly related to atheist-scientist because they lean towards moral relativism.
What makes one group of scientists' approach to ethics better than a contrasting group of scientists' approach to ethics?
For example, away from religion, consider the old politics of nuclear weapons science: At the time of its discover, the data was shared with a select grouping of nation-states and not with other nation-states. All those nations receiving the data have done well in that they have not abused nuclear technology or use it for selfish power-plays.
However, today, we have Pakistan, India, and North Korea with nuclear weapons technology, and several more states requesting (scouting) around for in-roads into receiving nuclear weapons grade materials.
When we consider nuclear weapons technology does not care what nation has control of its potential destructive powers and each of the 'irregular' states holding and requesting around for nuclear materials can present reasons for why it is a "good candidate" for such; for these nations their "compasses" may inform them to possess and (ab)use these materials in any manner they see fit.
Is there anything wrong with this?
(This is an Open comment.)
Um, yes, they have.
The Cuban Missile Crisis comes to mind.
We seem pretty keen to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of some theistic nations, and rightly so.
You're asking me? I am not discussing God or religion. This situation is an opportune time to bring up relativism:
It's all relative in the scientific sphere, isn't it? If this specific science objectively works, why is it right to constrain it, per se? That's where I am going with my question.
Yes, you brought up the issue of atheist morality. Of course I am asking you. Who else would I ask?
Did I mention God or religion?
I don't think you can stick those three into the same category. India keeps Pakistan in check. That was no different than when the US kept Russia in check. The problem with Korea is that it doesn't care what the world thinks. We are talking about a rogue government. There is no moral compass.
Tech can be used for good or for bad. It depends on who the players are.
btw, when Oppenheimer saw what his invention caused he said:
That is a man who had a moral compass.
I submit that morality is something that has evolved with society. We continue to evolve our sense of morality. I hope we do not devolve.
Okay, the Russians turned out to be as the phrase goes: "all-hat and no cattle." Still, good call.
Back to the relative nature of science, please.
When we consider nuclear weapons technology does not care what nation has control of its potential destructive powers and each of the 'irregular' states holding and requesting around for nuclear materials can present reasons for why it is a "good candidate" for such; for these nations their "compasses" may inform them to possess and (ab)use these materials in any manner they see fit.
Is there anything wrong with this?
I do not get your point. So your emoticon is wasted on me.
For the record if you keep addressing me like I am some infantile fool I am going to have to take a stance of ignoring you altogether.
India, Pakistan, and North Korea (and maybe soon Saudi Arabia),
When we consider nuclear weapons technology does not care what nation has control of its potential destructive powers and each of the 'irregular' states holding and requesting around for nuclear materials can present reasons for why it is a "good candidate" for such; for these nations their "compasses" may inform them to possess and (ab)use these materials in any manner they see fit.
Is there anything wrong with this?
I love this J. Robert Oppenheimer "moment." In quoting this passage about duty out of the Bhagavad-Gita it impressed upon me that Dr. Oppenheimer was describing the amoral aspect of his work/discovery. It was his duty to bring this kind of destructive power into the world and not for him to judge how others use it. However, later on he did pass judgement. . . .
(Though we can clearly see the totality of the enterprise weighing down on him. Later, Dr. Oppenheimer even contacted President Truman who did not gently consider his requests/concerns regarding the bombs.)
You're the one who brought up atheism, CB.
No, technology doesn't care about the uses to which it's put. But technology is in the hands of humans, who do care, and who do have moral compasses. Even those who are atheists.
I submit that some atheists have better moral compasses than some atheists. For example, some religions allow slavery, and some theists defend this. Most atheists I know find slavery to be immoral.
He probably didn’t put much weight on what Oppenheimer was saying because he thought God was guiding his decision.
Should have read "some atheists have better moral compasses than some theists."
I will then explain it. Read your own words:
@ 2.2.1 you want to know what constrains the scientist - directly implying that constraints are needed . Then @ 2.2.6 you ask why it is right to constrain science - directly questioning if it is right to impose constraints .
Unless you have some other meaning. If so, feel free to be clear.
If you think my comments address you that way then that is a problem strictly of your own making. That is your problem to solve.
CB,
I would have to agree with sandy here. Technology is a thing. It has no mind, no ethics.. or is you so believe a soul. So it cares not who has it. It is up to the humans who invented it, to control it.
Oppenheimer saw that what he created was like letting the Gennie out of the bottle, thus his terrible regret in making it. He had ethics.
Nice find Dean.
Interesting that we were willing to drop more than the 2 atoms bombs we had ( fat man and little boy), till the Japanese were willing to surrender, and felt that this was the will of god. I guess the bombing of Dresden was the will of god, too.
True, some humans do have moral compasses. Some humans are amoral. Relatively-speaking, what is wrong with Dr. He Jianku stance:
Maybe he is using the word, "society" in a loose sense.Why should he be compelled to submit to a committee (of his peers)?
And, since you brought it up, what was the point of mentioning atheism in relation to the existence or nonexistence of a moral compass in members of the scientific community?
The problem with his stance is the inherent risk to being "first". We don't know what problems he may be introducing into these girls' genomes. We don't know that the method used will be 100% safe and effective, without unintentionally introducing severe genetic defects that might be incompatible with life. And there is the issue of informed consent, which obviously these girls were never allowed to exercise. Were their parents adequately informed of the potential risks? Do we even know all of those potential risks? No, we don't.
A committee of his peers is more likely to be aware of the risks of human experimentation than members of society at large. That's why he should be compelled to submit to them.
There are strict guidelines with regard to experimentation involving human subjects. I have serious doubts as to whether those guidelines were met.
I am asking a question in both cases! Why do I have to 'detail' an asking of a question? I am looking for an answer; thus, the question is not the 'thing'!
Furthermore TiG, I will not argue with you about tone. Safe to say, both of us can pull back and come forward better. I will note this, nevertheless. In my experience, when the subject matter addresses atheism or atheistic practices, much of my time is spent getting "you guys" to write about it is let's say, tedious. Consequently, a tonal shift becomes more pronounced. I ask you look into it—at the least. I will too. Still, I will ask questions on/of atheists.
i do not disagree. Oppenheimer was conflicted after fulfilling his scientific duty. Please see my @2.2.12.
Do you have a point then to your questions or are you simply asking random questions? Normally when one asks questions there is an underlying reason. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had an underlying point.
Do you think constraints should be in place or not? If so, what (as you see things) is the proper source of the constraints? Currently the constraints are the personal moral and ethical constraints of the individual and the moral and ethical constraints of the scientific method (the practice of science).
Works for me. But note, you brought atheism into this discussion.
With the advent of the nuclear age, new dilemmas in the art of warfare arose. The war in Europe had concluded in May. The Pacific war would receive full attention from the United States War Department. As late as May 1945, the U.S. was engaged in heavy fighting with the Japanese at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. In these most bloody conflicts, the United States had sustained more than 75,000 casualties. These victories insured the United States was within air striking distance of the Japanese mainland. The bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to initiate United States entrance into the war, just four years before, was still fresh on the minds of many Americans. A feeling of vindication and a desire to end the war strengthened the resolve of the United States to quickly and decisively conclude it. President Harry Truman had many alternatives at his disposal for ending the wa r: invade the Japanese mainland, hold a demonstration of the destructive power of the atomic bomb for Japanese dignitaries, drop an atomic bomb on selected industrial Japanese cities, bomb and blockade the islands, wait for Soviet entry into the war on August 15, or mediate a compromised peace. Operation Olympia, a full scale landing of United States armed forces, was already planned for Kyushu on November 1, 1945 and a bomb and blockade plan had already been instituted over the Japanese mainland for several months.
The Japanese resolve to fight had been seriously hampered in the preceding months. Their losses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa had been staggering. Their navy had ceased to exist as an effective fighting force and the air corps had been decimated. American B-29's made bombing runs over military targets on the Japanese mainland an integral part of their air campaign. Japan's lack of air power hindered their ability to fight. The imprecision of bombing and the use of devastating city bombing in Europe eventually swayed United States Pacific theater military leaders to authorize bombing of Japanese mainland cities. Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe all were decimated by incendiary and other bombs. In all, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in these air strikes meant to deter the resolve of the Japanese people. Yet, Japanese resolve stayed strong and the idea of a bloody "house to house" invasion of the Japanese mainland would produce thousands more American and Allied casualties. The Allies in late July 1945 declared at Potsdam that the Japanese must unconditionally surrender.
While I am in no position to discern the will of God in the matter of the death of so many people (for in war people become its fodder or the 'elastic' stretched between two or more bulls), one could ask:
Were these bomb drops sufficiently the lesser of two or more evils?
Doesn't matter which direction you phrase it, unless your intent is to paint with the widest possible brush. That is foolish, as individuals are all different and have a different set of values regardless of their belief systems.
I haven't said anything in disagreement with that.
Perhaps you should read toward the beginning of the conversation. There is a reason CB brought up the ethics of atheist scientists in particular. This conversation is not occurring in a vacuum.
1. What was the point of mentioning atheism in relation to the existence or nonexistence of a moral compass in members of the scientific community?
Relativism. Free-thinker- ism . Dr. "He" apparently took informed steps to chart his own course, knowing the option was present to follow protocols—"He" broke with them.
&
“We think this is ethical,” said Lin Zhitong, a Harmonicare administrator who heads the ethics panel.
2 . The Chinese scientist, He, said he personally made the goals clear and told participants that embryo gene editing has never been tried before and carries r isks. He said he also would provide insurance coverage for any children conceived through the project and plans medical follow-up until the children are 18 and longer if they agree once they’re adults.
Some staff at some of the other hospitals were kept in the dark about the nature of the research, which He and Deem said was done to keep some participants’ HIV infection from being disclosed .
“We think this is ethical,” said Lin Zhitong, a Harmonicare administrator who heads the ethics panel.
A ny medical staff who handled samples that might contain HIV were aware , He said. An embryologist in He’s lab, Qin Jinzhou, confirmed to the AP that he did sperm washing and injected the gene editing tool in some of the pregnancy attempts.
The study participants are not ethicists, He said, but “are as much authorities on what is correct and what is wrong because it’s their life on the line.”
“I believe this is going to help the families and their children,” He said. If it causes unwanted side effects or harm, “I would feel the same pain as they do and it’s going to be my own responsibility.
Source:
If that is the stance that this Chinese hospital took, then they broke with worldwide accepted practices. They broke the rules. That has to do with being unethical, something that can happen to both the faithful and non-faithful.
Don't bother now. The question is 'over-baked' at this point. I've moved on (I think).
You answered:
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with ignoring (or following) protocols of science.
But, most scientists are atheist, do you agree with this? Technological has no ethics. Thus, it's all relative. What each scientist chooses to do in his/her own mind.
There is no right and wrong to science, just science which works or does not work.
For his part, Dr. "He" conducted himself as a free-thinker in my opinion. Consequently, he broke from the established norm.
Note: Remember the quote that starts the article (above):
Some researchers say it’s time to allow gene editing, with careful regulation.
Some researchers, plural, apparently wish to go in a different direction from the established norm.
BE BACK LATER . . . .
Yes. Most are agnostic atheists. That is why qualifying 'scientist' with 'atheist' is odd unless one is making a religious point.
If you mean technology has no ethics that is true. Technology currently is not advanced enough to have ethics on its own; AI is not currently that advanced. Cars and phones do not have ethics. Bombs do not have ethics. The Mars rovers do not have ethics. However the engineers and scientists behind the technology and the users of the technology have ethics. And they vary.
Same with each person on the planet.
Sure there is. Did you not read my, Sandy and especially Perrie's comments on this?
Yes, he broke from the established practices of modern science. Has nothing to do with religion though.
Yes, that is true. Everyday citizens break the law too. For example, jaywalkers go in a different direction from the established norm. Not sure what point you are making.
Most scientists claim to be atheists (qualifier aside).
I am not making a religious point and, when most scientists I read about on the subject use the term atheist neither are they making a religious point!
It's all relative in the science frame of reference. That is, each man or woman does what is right in his or her eyes. Or scientists band together to form a collective wherein some form of oversight (or persecution of some kind) issues forth.
I am reading stories of individual scientists who find themselves not able to get suitable or desirable work because of being the equivalent of 'black-balled' by a scientific "committee/s."
I agree yet again. Not disputed for a third time. Totally agree that most scientists claim to be agnostic atheists (generally speaking).
So .... here is the point ... there is no need to write 'atheist scientist'. The word 'scientist' is sufficient. That is, unless you are making a point about science and religion.
Well there you go, then the phrase 'atheist scientist' adds nothing other than a little confusion.
Can we put this aside now?
You seem to be proclaiming that in science it is everyone for oneself. No principles, ethics or standard practices. If so, you are quite wrong. If you are not trying to make that point then I cannot even hazard a guess on what point you are making.
Maybe someone else will chime in.
As Dr. "He" has demonstrated there are 'sites' in our world where scientists can and do depart from acceptable practices established by the 'world-wide' scientific community. Perhaps, these scientists have plans to establish a "commission" for themselves or just be mavericks?
The point is Dr. "He" is a free-thinking scientist who has acted critically in your midst and who has ignored the scientific community's authority and its traditions; for which you compare him to lawbreakers and the scientific "collective" plans penalties of some kind. Insteadof making a comparison to someone seeking to advance science, in and of, itself.
Individual scientists are human beings and, as such, they sometimes break the rules. That point has been made several times now.
The most recent comment after many more similar on this theme by me and others:
One expects a minority to break the rules.
Your point escapes me.
Are you trying to claim that critical thinking requires breaking the rules and practices of the scientific method?? Or that to advance science one must break the rules and practices?
Do you find fault with a system which encourages scientists to act responsibly?
Play on words, if you wish. All scientists are not atheists, most are. The distinction has it place and its usages.
How so? Why is it that you won't come right out and say why you felt the need to make that distinction?
The point I am making at this point, is science does not care about man-made constructs of "standard operating procedures" and making determinations of what/who is right or wrong. Dr. "He" has demonstrated how easy it is to side-step such constructs others put in place. Dr. "He" exposes a fact that not all scientists walk in unison (lock-step) under authority. That facade is cracked.
Again, that has what to do with atheism?
@2.2.38.
Scientists should act responsibly. In this case, have you established that Dr. "He" has not acted responsibly have you?
Do you encourage others to be free-thinkers?
I am not the focus of this discussion, Sandy.
And you apparently are ignoring everyone else in this discussion who has noted that your point is dead wrong and explained why.
Who claimed that world scientists walk in lock-step?? Where do you get this stuff?
Dr. Jiankui demonstrated that a human being can break the rules. We already knew that. You already knew that. Why is this noteworthy?
What is the importance of making sure that we know that some scientists are atheists?
Good grief, read my opening posts:
Clear enough?
Depends on how you define 'free-thinker'. Given what I have observed thus far you need to define your term before I would even consider answering.
Atheist scientists are inherently relativists. Trying to lock science under the authority of a committee's or some committees'' set of standards just hit a rough patch and the whole world has a front-row seat to view it.
Moreover, so much for this mantra of scientists as free-thinkers, when the scientific community "power-holders" (For example, the National Academy of Sciences, National Center for Science Education) strive to allow no contrary discussion.
Explain. Can you do that?
You have a verrrrrry strange view of science. Do you not understand that science is a discipline - that the scientific method is a process? Science is all about imposing standards and protocols to take as much subjectivity out of the practice as is humanly possible.
Do you think Dr. Jiankui is the first scientist to go rogue?? Seriously?
And what is this atheist scientist nonsense again? Do you actually think that Christians who are scientists such as Dr. Francis Collins follow divine guidance rather than the scientific method?
Based on that closing comment, it is clear that you know very little about how science works and its history. IMO of course. No contrary discussion???
Your sweeping generalization aside, what about theistic scientists? Is there a difference between the two?
Science is about objective and concrete understanding of things through the scientific method.
That makes no sense.
Even if that were true, what difference does it make?
Such as?
IYO of course.
I am not going to belabor any of this with you. Pretend you do not understand, can't factor, or 'cope.' It does not matter one iota to me. (Smile.)
I'm done with your posturing on this topic.
A wise choice.
. . . .
What a bizarre and nonsensical view of the sciences. The National Academy of Sciences welcomes, in fact funds, research trying to disprove and/or improve current scientific theories. Anyone is welcome to challenge a currently accepted scientific theory, you just have to show your methodology and research so that everyone can test/verify your new hypothesis. That is the exact opposite of your claim of not allowing contrary discussion. What they don't allow is baseless opinion being marketed as scientific fact. Sure, the religious psychopaths masquerading as scientists like Ken Ham are often laughed at, but they're the ones asking to be laughed at by submitting hypothesis with zero evidence, zero logic and zero research (other than that of reading the bible which is apparently the only research these lobotomy cases can manage).
"Trying to lock science under the authority of a committee's or some committees'' set of standards"
The only way science is "locked" under a committee's set of standards are those of scientific method. If you don't follow scientific method you can't achieve consistent, repeatable evidence to support your hypothesis. If you're upset that scientists over a hundred years ago developed standards by which they can measure and test their theories and share them with the scientific world then you're likely not able to support any of your theories with any consistent, repeatable evidence. Instead of getting mad at science, why not go try to prove your fantasies, millions of humans have spent their lives trying to so, then you won't be alone and there's no shame in just doing what you love regardless of how pointless it may be.
I am not discussing religion on this article about Dr. "He," DP!
You clearly did not read DP's post.
A shame too. This is the kind of information that would improve your understanding of science.
Well, you did actually bring up your opinion of "atheist scientists" which is bringing religion into the discussion, but my comment was not focused on that, it was pointing out why the scientific method can be trusted and isn't locking anyone out. If you have a theory, present it, but just be prepared to be mocked if you don't submit it with research and evidence. That isn't "elitists" trying to keep "freethinkers" out of the sciences, it's simple expectation that the one who makes a claim should be able to submit some empirical evidence others can see, touch or test if they expect to be believed by the scientific community.
1. I understand the scientific method, DP. I have access to books detailing the processes, if I need explaining I can update myself. Thank you very much! However this is not about me is it?
Dr. "He" has acted outside the established science tradition, that upsets the scientific community heads greatly (and it probably should). However, the point is there are no established rules which Dr. "He" is compelled to recognize, is there? Thus, he acted on his own and the power-holders choose to label that 'going rogue.' But, is it really?
2. "Atheist scientists" seems to stick out in here for some reason, it is like a 'touchstone' for some of you. I'm surprised.
For me these discussions do not happen in isolation. They are connected. And, it is no big deal.
Time and time again, when it suits your and others narratives some members here proudly quote stats and percentages on the bulgeoning numbers of atheists-scientists existing in the discipline.
But when others here use the words together, it sets off a long-term "whine-fest." Go figure.
Whether he's following the scientific method, I don't know, though it doesn't seem like he's doing "research" so much as taking others research and testing it on human subjects. This has little to do with the scientific community really debating the morality of genetic manipulation and more about fears for his test subjects since so much is still unknown and untested. If these kids end up growing frog legs or have extremely shortened life spans caused by the genetic meddling it will be a major set back for geneticists who've been doing it the right way, within the safety parameters set up by the scientific community. Having some oversight so we don't allow inhumane or illegal experiments being performed on humans or animals is a different kind of "control" and shouldn't be viewed as "power holders" but responsible keepers of the flame who have to protect the institution from being viewed as "mad scientists" which they were for decades by superstitious religious conservatives (some of whom continue the tradition).
I will state there are some good points in there. (Smile.)
You made the same declarative statement and offered no explanation for why he was not dead wrong. You simply reiterated your declaration.
The net information content of your message is equivalent to you not posting at all.
I wonder what the mother's opinion is.
Probably a proud mom.
Like everything else under the Sun it was only a matter of time...
They have been dicing and splicing animal DNA in labs for years.
Oh there I agree JBB. I think this is going to change the way labs do work in the future.
Is it good or bad? It has potential to go both ways
Resistance to AIDS and cancer is a great thing, ability to regrow body parts would be great and some animals can do that
Charger, I am all for finding new ways of treating disease using DNA. That is what targeted therapy is which they are using for cancer with great success. They are growing body parts outside of the body with no fundamental changes to the body's own DNA and the same thing with targeted therapy.
So while I am very for finding new ways to treat with DNA, I am not sure we should be doing code changes in utero yet.
If true this scientist is in some trouble, however having said that this is the way of the future and no matter how much we stomp our feet it's gonna happen. We had better set up rules that allow it to be done in a safe manner, if we try to ban it it'll still happen just not necessarily in a safe manner.
This scientist is in big trouble, but he doesn't care. He wanted to succeed in what he was doing and that was all that mattered to him. That alone should send off bells.
Seems that they do have stuff in place to prevent this at the labs he worked at, though it seems he went rogue, which is a huge problem-how many other scientists are willing to just do this to say 'I did ______________' instead of in a controlled environment with safeguards?
Lol I couldn't possibly guess
Sorry my bad I should have been more specific and stated laws instead of rules, and yes I know laws don't prevent anyone from doing anything but they can make doing something and getting caught less attractive.
The ability to gene edit is already commercially available to any old joe on the street. While I have no problem with this process when tested and done in a safe manner we better have laws in place before corporations figure out how to make a profit in this industry
The most worrisome thing about this to me is that it was not used to prevent a devastating genetic disease (CF, Tay-Sachs, Huntington disease, ALS to name just a tiny few) but to confer resistance to just one admittedly servere viral disease but for which these girls would likely have a very low-risk of getting (unless there's something about AIDS in China that I'm unaware of). This "experiment" could lower the ethical threshold (i.e high-risk/severe disease) that will need to be used as the feasibility of gene alteration in human germ line cells advances.
I couldn't have said it better myself!
The father has HIV
Isn't the mother's HIV status more relevant?
I'll agree that the mother's status would be more relevant, however given the fathers biological contribution to the baby making process his status is not irrelevant.
Now to the matter of "free-thinking" and what it means to some to be a free-thinker. Is Dr. He Jiankui in any danger of suffering a career-ending action?
This doctor, He Jiankui of Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China is at liberty to publicize his work in his own fashion, is he not? The scientific community at-large:
“Rice [University in Houston] had no knowledge of this work. To Rice’s knowledge, none of the clinical work was performed in the United States. Regardless of where it was conducted, this work as described in press reports, violates scientific conduct guidelines and is inconsistent with ethical norms of the scientific community and Rice University. We have begun a full investigation of Dr. Deem’s involvement in this research,” it added
Question:
Is Dr. He Jiankui's work on this project inferior of itself? Or, is he judged by a "committee" somewhere of being wrong because he did not 'follow so-called, "procedures"?
CB, I don't know if you understand how research works. Both of my daughters are in medical research. There is a strict set of rules about how one goes about research, including peer review, testing and retesting, animal research, and each step of the way, it is checked and rechecked by many researchers. This guy just bypassed everything secretly. He is going to go to jail, but the damage might have been done already.
I do understand how research works, Perrie. To be clear, I am playing devil's advocate here. My personal feelings are that this researcher should not have done this, in any shape or fashion generally.
My questions seek to understand who in the scientific community sets itself up as authority figures able to control other outside scientists. Moreover, your seeded article points out that this type of human research is banned in the United States. Thus, illegal. This researcher took his action in China—the research is not illegal there.
The Chinese scientist, He, said he personally made the goals clear and told participants that embryo gene editing has never been tried before and carries r isks. He said he also would provide insurance coverage for any children conceived through the project and plans medical follow-up until the children are 18 and longer if they agree once they’re adults.
Some staff at some of the other hospitals were kept in the dark about the nature of the research, which He and Deem said was done to keep some participants’ HIV infection from being disclosed .
“We think this is ethical,” said Lin Zhitong, a Harmonicare administrator who heads the ethics panel.
A ny medical staff who handled samples that might contain HIV were aware , He said. An embryologist in He’s lab, Qin Jinzhou, confirmed to the AP that he did sperm washing and injected the gene editing tool in some of the pregnancy attempts.
The study participants are not ethicists, He said, but “are as much authorities on what is correct and what is wrong because it’s their life on the line.”
“I believe this is going to help the families and their children,” He said. If it causes unwanted side effects or harm, “I would feel the same pain as they do and it’s going to be my own responsibility.
Source:
This the reason why Dr. "He" executed this in another country.
Some freethinkers can disagree with his activity some can agree, but mostly all, if not all, probably should praise his (free-thinker) furtherance of a scientific endeavor.
Moral and ethical implications aside, gene editing can be quite useful in treating or preventing genetic based diseases or anomalies. Perhaps even as a treatment or pro-active cure for cancer. But I do acknowledge I am simplifying the issue quite a bit, with an optimistic bias.
We don't know what the results will be or how future generations will be affected. These twin girls are nothing more than living experiments now. In addition, I'm curious why they decided to do this on twins. I'm sure there's a reason that will be exposed as soon as one develops a condition and the other one doesn't.
It was irresponsible and only reinforces certain scientific and medical conspiracies and phobias.
They should have followed established protocols.
PS - I don't believe for one moment the the Chinese Government did not have any idea that this was going on. People die in China for not following the rules.
That might be why they are using twins. It would make for a good comparison study.
Here are a couple of reactions to this event by other genetic researchers. Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree or disagree with either one:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/i-feel-obligation-be-balanced-noted-biologist-comes-defense-gene-editing-babies?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-11-28&et_rid=51376792&et_cid=2515903
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/ethics-aside-does-crispr-baby-experiment-make-scientific-sense?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-11-28&et_rid=51376792&et_cid=2515903
Q: Do you think the experiment is unethical?
A: People have said there’s a moratorium on germline editing and I contributed to reports that called for that, but a moratorium is not a permanent ban forever. It’s a checklist of what you have to do. It really seems like he was checking off the published list [see p. 132] by the National Academy of Sciences and added a few things of his own. At some point, we have to say we’ve done hundreds of animal studies and we’ve done quite a few human embryo studies. It may be after the dust settles there’s mosaicism and off targets that affect medical outcomes. It may never be zero. We don’t wait for radiation to be zero before we do [positron emission tomography] scans or x-rays.
Atheist, so far, I have only read the first link article. And, among a really useful interview the above I thought to emphasize first . Well done, sir. Being fair to the truth matters on a site mentioned in a podcast as one of the "least biased." Cheers!
That second article is incredibly on-point! A++
The Chinese government has stopped him from carrying out that process:
This is a good response from the other side of the situation. I can respect this action coming out (or in) of China!