this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1470 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

13520 readers
2278 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 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 93 points 3 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 47 points 2 days ago (12 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 23 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.

[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] JacksonLamb 16 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)
[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 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 13 points 2 days ago

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

[–] Snowclone 6 points 2 days 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)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Itzdan 6 points 2 days ago

I’m just here for the comments

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 142 points 3 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)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 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 2 days 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 2 days 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)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

On one hand, crispr isn't safe. And life is not something people have a right to create - that tremendous imposition should be met with a responsibility

On the other hand, life is treated as cheap almost everywhere. If we're going to force people to justify their right to exist, why not take a chance on their genetics to improve the species?

I mean, this was risky science, but not reckless. At some point we need to start fixing our genome, or we're just going to poison ourselves to extinction

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 169 points 3 days ago (7 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.

[–] neatobuilds@lemmy.today 75 points 3 days ago (7 children)

So if we put these extra pair of legs on babies then they can stand in more extreme angles making them better at construction at a time when there is a housing shortage

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Djinn_Indigo@lemm.ee 12 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 2 days 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.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 79 points 3 days ago (22 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.

[–] ZILtoid1991 38 points 3 days ago (12 children)

Be careful, you might get banned from lemmy dot ml for hatespeech against dictatorships.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 28 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Jhex 20 points 3 days ago (10 children)

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

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] hikuro93@lemmy.ca 71 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 8 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)
[–] DrownedRats 23 points 3 days ago (7 children)

"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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

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

you have my upvote

and my axe

[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.today 16 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Mengele vibes right there.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments