this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1494 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

13504 readers
1216 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Itzdan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I’m just here for the comments

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (10 children)

To all the commenters saying this guy was a saint for doing what he did, would you say the same thing had the outcome been disastrous? Babies born without HIV, but with constant excruciating pain or mental deficiency?

He took an extraordinarily reckless and permanently life-altering, for good or bad, risk with children's lives.

edit: spelling

[–] Tuxman@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago

The good old adage: "you don’t have a gambling addiction as long as you keep winning"

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A lot of geneticist are DEEPLY against trying these things. This guy's lucky so far in that his actions haven't caused serious problems, we really don't know how adjusting genetics can backfire, but according to the professionals the risks are very very high.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

He also did actual time for it and everyone involved was banned from practicing medicine in China, even despite the fact they are the core of CRISPR technology at the moment, they still care enough about ethics to not support this.

Seems like a case of one rogue team of people deciding what they where doing was for the moral good and then the state checking them.

We can still see the initial intentions as being morally good, and the outcome of it being gray but punished; its a balanced perspective; a lot of people here seem to have the impression it was approved by the CPC when it wasnt.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 100 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

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.

[–] CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 2 days ago (14 children)

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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 2 days 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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (13 children)

Just so you all know what his horrible crime was...

"Formally presenting the story at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) three days later, he said that the twins were born from genetically modified embryos that were made resistant to M-tropic strains of HIV.[48] His team recruited 8 couples consisting each of HIV-positive father and HIV-negative mother through Beijing-based HIV volunteer group called Baihualin China League. During in vitro fertilization, the sperms were cleansed of HIV. Using CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing, they introduced a natural mutation CCR5-Δ32 in gene called CCR5, which would confer resistance to M-tropic HIV infection."

So imagine a couple where one has HIV but they really want to have a baby. He basically made it so their children were hiv free and then immunized them (edited for accuracy). In all my Crispr research, this is the story that most caused me to feel the science system had wronged a good person. Literally Lulu and Nana can grow up healthy now. Science community smashed him, but to the real people he helped he is basically a saint. I love now seeing him again and seeing he still has his ideals. Again, fuck all those science boards and councils that attacked him. Think of the actual real couple that just wants a kid without their liferuining disease. Also I love how he isnt some rightwing nutjob nor greedy capitalist. See his statement about this tech should be free for all people and he will never privately help billionaires etc etc.

anyway, ideals. i recognized them when i first came across him; i recognize them now. I know enough about him that I will savagely defend this guy. He isn't making plagues or whatever. He is helping real people.

[–] Hans@feddit.dk 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is pretty much all incorrect. CRISPR didn't have anything to do with Lulu and Nana not being born with HIV, we have known how HIV-infected men can safely become fathers for years now. The standard practice of "sperm washing" and IVF ensured that, CRISPR was completely unnecessary.^1^ The reason the parents accepted He's plan is because in China, HIV positive fathers are not allowed to do IVF regularly.^2^ Chinese often go abroad to get IVF done, but presumably, these parents couldn't afforded it. Not to talk about how He completely disregarded informed consent, giving them 23 complex pages, barely mentioning that they were doing gene editing, representing the whole thing as a "HIV vaccine"^3^

^1^: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-blog/2017/june/how-hiv-positive-men-safely-become-fathers

^2^: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/04/1048829/he-jiankui-prison-free-crispr-babies/

^3^: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6490874/#pbio.3000223.ref008

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

and those arent even the most aggressive articles. Anyway, for people reading, there are many contradictory parts of He's case depending where you look.

thanks i agree i had the 'kids would have been born with hiv otherwise with no alternative' part wrong. good correction. I have edited my comment accordingly. He removed the Hiv with one procedure and immunized with the other.

heres a much less biased telling of events. No it doesnt 100% support He being a saint. it isnt that biased nontrustable trash tho "As the couples listened and flipped through the forms, occasionally asking questions, two witnesses—one American, the other Chinese—observed. Another lab member shot video, which Science has seen, of part of the 50-minute meeting. He had recruited those couples because the husbands were living with HIV infections kept under control by antiviral drugs. The IVF procedure would use a reliable process called sperm washing to remove the virus before insemination, so father-to-child transmission was not a concern. Rather, He sought couples who had endured HIV-related stigma and discrimination and wanted to spare their children that fate by dramatically reducing their risk of ever becoming infected.

He, who for much of his brief career had specialized in sequencing DNA, offered a potential solution: CRISPR, the genome-editing tool that was revolutionizing biology, could alter a gene in IVF embryos to cripple production of an immune cell surface protein, CCR5, that HIV uses to establish an infection. "This technique may be able to produce an IVF baby naturally immunized against AIDS," one consent form read."

funny how things can look so different according to what side u are on. tho im not even going for pro He articles, just neutral or interviews. As far as your hostile ones where they weaponize anything they can... (reminds me of politics) the part I find sillyest is when they complain how He only successfully did the full mutation to one girl so the other may not be immunized. Like it's bad he did it but also bad he didnt do it enough. lol. its exactly like politics.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 151 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Ethics are supposed to throttle human activity. That's their fucking job. That guy is a goddamn sociopath.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Djinn_Indigo@lemm.ee 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think gene theraly is a miracle technology that should absolutely be explored more. The thing is, we're already at a point where we can do it in adults. So doing it on embyros, which can't consent, is simply an uncessasary moral hazard.

That said, I think the doctor here sort of has a point, which is that medical research is sometimes so concerned with doing no harm that it allows harm to happen without trying to treat it.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Newborns need medical treatments all the time and can't consent. I agree that the inability to consent should encourage non-intervention -- for instance, we shouldn't "correct" intersex infants' genitals -- but there is a limit to this.

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 175 points 3 days ago (16 children)

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.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This argument applies just as well to libertarians who oppose "regulation." There are some truly insane libertarians who want all regulation gone, but a lot of people who say they are opposed to "regulation" really mean that they want to add more barriers to adding regulation, and repeal some known-to-be-problematic regulations. I'm sure that when this person says "ethics" is holding back scientific progress, he means the latter. To assert he just means getting rid of "ethics" entirely is absurd. There is only so much detail you can put in a tweet.

I mean, he was imprisoned for genetic experimentation on babies without informing the parents or basically anyone else. So... I don't think he means that in a specific way. He wants to do whatever he feels like without oversight.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

my type of guy. And he still does his research to help people even with the public treating him like it does.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 69 points 2 days ago (61 children)

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.

load more comments (61 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›