this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1515 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

13563 readers
2932 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
[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 106 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (10 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 50 points 3 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 24 points 3 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 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 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@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (3 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 (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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 15 points 2 days ago

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

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 7 points 3 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)
[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 155 points 4 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 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 12 points 3 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 9 points 3 days ago (10 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 (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 178 points 4 days ago (10 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 76 points 4 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)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 101 points 4 days ago (34 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.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 51 points 4 days ago (14 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.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 26 points 4 days ago

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

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (12 children)

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

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)
[–] Itzdan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

I’m just here for the comments

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hot take.: He is right though.

[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I am sure you have examples of situations where lower ethical standards led to much faster progress in research.

[–] Vreyan31@reddthat.com 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, research on prisoners and concentration camp victims did produce new valuable medical information.

Most of the field of gynecology is based on experiments done on women slaves, where the "doctors" decided their victims conveniently didn't have nerve endings.

Ethics throttles research.

But I am aghast at the thought that we should permit unethical research in the pursuit of, at the end of the day, greed.

And I say this as a professional scientist.

I can't believe this conversation is even necessary.

[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

What really pisses me off is how many people consider ethics optional, especially when it suits them. Ethics are not optional. They are not meant to be.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Djinn_Indigo@lemm.ee 13 points 3 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 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)
[–] hikuro93@lemmy.ca 76 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (9 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 (9 replies)
[–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 4 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)
[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 24 points 4 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)
[–] RizzoTheSmall@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Unit 731 is the truly horrible source of a lot of modern medical knowledge

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.today 20 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Mengele vibes right there.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments