I'll need to check into this, thanks so much for the heads up, maybe I can PM you eventually on this to chat some. I'm pretty close to finishing but did literally everything different (path wise). For example was accepted to UT straight from HS and initially did compsci, then after a few semesters decided to go work in tech field, and after several years off finally went back to UT but have a mortgage/family etc. and still full-time job. Initially plan was med school but have been considering PA now, honestly at one point almost switched to Biochem (but was still planning health field etc). I just really like science in general, and think the health sector is the best atm for jobs. Anyway, currently have roughly 3 or 4 classes left depending how much they work with me.. they added some class for new students that I think I can get out of, not science related but like life skills or something silly (it's a freshman class and I just have 3 upper division Sci classes left to finish). I'm also passed needing anything like that, haha. Anyway with working full-time it'll probably be a semester or two (depending on schedule) before finally finishing! But will be happy to at least have something to show for it (at least to start). Anyway really glad to chat some on this, and I definitely agree with you on your point regarding an evolution class in your other post (for some). I mean they really should touch more on it in early learning here, at least I wish they did.
That **** diet must be the reason Japan, Hongkong and Singapore lead the world in life expectancy, while US life expectancy has dropped 3 consecutive years.
In the case of editing genes for things like disease immunity, stopping hereditary diseases, I don't see how one can be against that IDEA. Now, are the current scientist/doctors capable of editing genes in a 100% controlled an safe manner currently? That's the real question that would determine if this is unethical or not.
They were claimed? Like, a prize? By the way, this is a good near-future fiction book about gene editing.
Chinese researcher behind genetically edited babies is now under investigation and suspended without pay More than 120 Chinese scientists signed a letter condemning the claim by He. “The project completely ignored the principles of biomedical ethics, conducting experiments on humans without proving it’s safe,” said Qiu Zilong, a neuroscience researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (中国科学) in Shanghai who wrote the letter. “We can only describe such behaviour as crazy.” According to the South China Morning Post, the letter was published on social media on late Monday and was signed by scientists at some of China’s leading research universities, such as Peking University and Tsinghua, as well as overseas institutions, including Stanford in the US and Singapore’s Agency for Science, Technology and Research.
After reading more on this topic and digesting the news overnight, there seems to be two controversial issues with the experiment: 1.) Two twin baby girls had their genes edited in the first known instance. 2.) The scientists involved have offered little transparency into their process and it appears they "cut corners" and went forward with the gene editing without conducting research beforehand. Coincidentally (or not), the lead scientist from China is due to speak about human embryo editing at a conference in HK tomorrow and hopefully he will present his research and process then so we can get clarity around the procedure. Based on headlines and reactions from my social circle, it seems most people are getting hung up on the fact that two babies had their genes edited (regardless of the legitimacy of the process and research backing the experiment). People are getting hung up on fears of a Gattaca designer human race and/or how we shouldn't try to play God, which is a shame because public opinion could pressure our government to put the brakes on CRISPR-related research (similar to W. Bush and de-funding stem cell research during his 8 years as president). If in fact, the scientist didn't use any legitimate research to back his experiment, and was not transparent with the patients in terms of the consequences of the procedure, then yes, he was totally acting unethical and reckless as these two twin girls (and their offspring) will now have to live with the rest of their lives with both the positives, and more importantly the negatives of their edited genes. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the next 24 hours after He Jiankui makes his presentation although things are not looking optimistic based on what we know so far (lack of published research, experiment done in a private clinic, etc.).
This is a future ethics issue (and largely just fun discussion for the moment), not the current ethics issue. Is the potential future pay-off, clouding your judgement of standard medical ethics. The primary ethics issues are as the Chinese scientist stated in the article I posted: We should not do experiments on babies without first "proving it's safe." This is no different than FDA guidelines on other treatments. Proving such things are safe should require science-community peer review and acceptance. Asking did He do "legitimate research to back his experiment", well, in terms of first proving safety for peer review...he failed to do that. It seems clear the science community does not think we have proven safety yet in gene editing on humans....so He's Go To Market experiment that jumped passed typical safety experiments and tests is Too Soon, and wildly unethical for any other Treatments or Drugs.
The issue is that there is evidence CRISPR has unintended consequences. Trying to turn this into a religious-moral debate is a straw man. Those people exist, but those people aren't the hang up here. When you can turn me into Singh Noonien Khan by injection without risking a glioblastoma and multiple metabolic diseases, I'm first in line. But to take reckless risks with the lives of children is unconscionable. This is borderline Mengele s**t. You can't give informed consent if you dont have information.
I have no problem with it in principle, but I have a huge problem with the fact that those who execute it will undeniably be above the law (in any country it happens) and the absence of enough regulations to protect the baby from unintended consequences.
Well considering he followed 0 science experiment protocol (like worse protocol than probably a grade school experiment)... I wonder if he went into hiding himself. I'm sure his peers were not too happy.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. We have already done gene editing on other animals. No one has any idea what is going to happen when you do this to humans. The only way you are going to find out is by trying.
Gene editing is awesome/great and there's a time and situation (and also proper protocol), he didn't go through any proper science ethics/channels. The idea of changing/creating a mutation in babies is asinine for blocking aids transmission (yes, it already occurs naturally in some of the population, but it's not a requirement for them to survive). Now if it were a risk vs reward situation and the babies had known genetic defects that they would die without the procedure then this would be different. He basically did it because he can using CRISPR and this could cause setbacks in proper research channels (as this is super new w/ regards to human trials). I'm pro genetic engineering, and it is a fascinating field, and with the degree I'm pursuing I very much have an interest, but what I mean here is there are trials already going, and you prefer to start with trials where there is a high reward vs low risk (ie px will die w/o treatment or px will live a better life curing their blindness etc), here is just one example of an older trial https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769084/ if you want to discuss in more detail on trials/science I can try to source more articles from peer reviews w/ more recent human trials. But what I'm getting at is the gene editing he chose to do was not needed and certainly not worth the risk on unborn babies. I already mentioned this earlier, stating if an adult px had hiv/aids, and the current treatments were not working, then by all means, adding this genetic mutation to halt the virus would be worth it, but you don't start with the unknown/unnecessary in trials at this level. Again, I'm all for this research, but this is basically skipping all the current research happening and not creating an actual benefit for the kids.That's why the science community is condemning him, not because of the GE, but because of the way he went about it and might have messed up these kids future for no benefit on their behalf.
This weenie has obviously never had authentic Dim Sum on the streets of Hong Kong. The food out there is pure magic...
There is 0 chance that this will: 1) Be given enough time to be proven to be safe. They will say it's safe from what they can see, and when it backfires they will say they didn't know. Then they will use marketing to portray resistance as whiny self-victimizing behavior. 2) Not be almost instantly used to produce more durable workers, soldiers and "prettier" children, as soon as they figure it all out. They will offer it for free to a number of high profile influencers (for example, a Kardashian, a Beyonce and Bezos) to make everyone believe that it's part of a "winner mentality". Resistance will be met with enough whataboutism to quell it after that. 3) Be discussed transparently. In reality, this has been going on for a long time. This is not a project to test what's possible, this is a project to announce it is irrevocably going to happen. No one is going to reveal to us the details of such a high value project. Debate is enlightening, but let's not act like anyone has a say in this matter. No one that matters enough cares what everyone thinks about this, whether you're for it or against it. This is going to happen because it aligns wonderfully with the interests of those who have power and/or money. Virtually everyone who represents us receives most of their money from entities who want this. At best, they will not partake in the manufacturing process in your country, but it will be allowed to be imported, like everything else from China that is not feasible to be manufactured in different jurisdictions. So let's just look at the bright side. It will eventually solve a lot of health problems and improve the quality of the gene pool.
Trillionaire pharmaceutical companies want to keep you sick so you can buy that expensive medicine The FDA in the U.S is a complete joke and should not be dependent upon.
