May 26, 2025
Decepticon twitter on the verge of new man made horrors beyond comprehension
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from China
seen from Bulgaria
seen from Russia
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Albania
Decepticon twitter on the verge of new man made horrors beyond comprehension
been obsessing over Jurassic media lately...
if I ever think my life cannot get more shit I can always make it more shit by applying for internship at he jiankui’s lab
He Jiankui, who shocked the world by asserting he had genetically edited twin girls, faced growing criticism from other researchers as he spoke at a scientific conference in Hong Kong.
He Jiankui’s manuscript shows how he ignored ethical and scientific norms in creating the gene-edited twins Lulu and Nana.
The gene edits given to Chinese twins last year meant to immunise them against HIV may have failed in its purpose and created unintended mutations, sc...
The gene edits given to Chinese twins last year meant to immunise them against HIV may have failed in its purpose and created unintended mutations, scientists said on Tuesday after the original research was made public for the first time.
Excerpts from the manuscript were released by the MIT Technology Review for the purpose of showing how Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui ignored ethical and scientific norms in creating the twins Lula and Nana, whose birth in late 2018 sent shockwaves through the scientific world.
He made expansive claims of a medical breakthrough that could "control the HIV epidemic," but it was not clear whether it had even been successful in its intended purpose -- immunising the babies against the virus -- because the team did not in fact reproduce the gene mutation that confers this resistance.
A small percentage of people are born with immunity because of a mutation in a gene called CCR5 and it was this gene that He had claimed he had targeted using a powerful editing tool known as CRISPR which has revolutionised the field since bursting on the scene in 2012.
Fyodor Urnov, a genome-editing scientist at the University of California, Berkeley told the MIT Technology Review: "The claim they have reproduced the prevalent CCR5 variant is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual data and can only be described by one term: a deliberate falsehood.
"The study shows that the research team instead failed to reproduce the prevalent CCR5 variant."
While the team targeted the right gene, they did not replicate the "Delta 32" variation required, instead creating novel edits whose effects aren't clear.
Moreover, CRISPR remains an imperfect tool because it can lead to unwanted or "off-target" edits, making its use in humans hugely controversial.
Here, the researchers claimed they had searched for such effects in the early-stage embryos and found just one -- but this glossed over the fact that it would be impossible to carry out a comprehensive search without inspecting each of the embryo's cells and thus destroying it.
Further ethical concerns included that the parents of the babies might have wanted to take part for the wrong reasons.
The father was HIV positive, which carries a significant social stigma in China and makes it almost impossible to have access to fertility treatment, even though a well-established technique known as "sperm washing" prevents the infection from being passed on to unborn children.
Their lack of access to any kind of fertility treatment may have motivated them to take part in the experiment despite the huge risks to their children, Jeanne O'Brien, a reproductive endocrinologist at Shady Grove Fertility told the MIT Technology Review.
He attempted to shop his manuscript around to prestigious journals including Nature and JAMA, but it remains unpublished. (AFP)
The alleged creation of the world's first gene-edited infants was full of technical errors and ethical blunders. Here are the 15 most damning details.
Before last week, few people had heard the name He Jiankui. But on November 25, the young Chinese researcher became the center of a global firestorm when it emerged that he had allegedly made the first crispr-edited babies, twin girls named Lulu and Nana. Antonio Regalado broke the story for MIT Technology Review, and He himself described the experiment at an international gene-editing summit in Hong Kong. After his talk, He revealed that another early pregnancy is under way.
It is still unclear if He did what he claims to have done. Nonetheless, the reaction was swift and negative. The crispr pioneer Jennifer Doudna says she was “horrified,” NIH Director Francis Collins said the experiment was “profoundly disturbing,” and even Julian Savulescu, an ethicist who has described gene-editing research as “a moral necessity,” described He’s work as “monstrous.”
Such a strong reaction is understandable, given the many puzzling and worrying details about the experiment. Even without any speculation about designer babies and Gattaca-like futures that may or may not come to pass, the details about what has already transpired are galling enough. If you wanted to create the worst possible scenario for introducing the first gene-edited babies into the world, it is difficult to imagine how you could improve on this 15-part farce.
Summary:
He didn’t address an unmet medical need.
The actual editing wasn’t executed well.
It’s not clear what those new mutations will do.
There were problems with informed consent.
He operated under a cloak of secrecy …
… but organized a slick PR campaign.
A few people knew about He’s intentions but failed to stop him.
He acted in contravention of global consensus.
He acted in contravention of his own stated ethical views.
He sought ethical advice and ignored it.
There is no way to tell whether He’s work did any good.
He has doubled down.
Scientific academies have prevaricated.
A leading geneticist came to He’s defense.
This could easily happen again.
Details at article.
And, so far, they’re just fine. America needs a sober debate about the pros and cons of Crispr instead of a paranoid ban on the technology.