this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1513 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

13646 readers
2224 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 99 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 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 6 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 25 points 6 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 16 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 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 17 points 6 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)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 155 points 6 days ago (10 children)

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

[–] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 17 points 6 days ago (6 children)

I thought this guy was the one doing the human throttling

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

not necessarily throttle, but divert into more ethical directions.

the nazi twin 'experiments' for example, were monstrous but produced like no useful data.

atrocities do not necessarily mean better science. sometimes you're just being an edgelord.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 69 points 6 days ago (24 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 38 points 6 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 17 points 6 days ago

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

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Oh shit someone tell the ~~fascist scum~~ liberal toads that its actually blue on blue, this guy was working for a honky kong universty!!!

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago (13 children)

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

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 6 days ago

Hong kongs a dictatorship? You know, the place this doctor was working?

Well observed, its been an apartheid state since its inception as a colony to the UK.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago (1 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

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (8 children)

He used CRISPR to make babies immune to HIV.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

No, he inserted a gene that is associated with resistance to HIV, but is also associated with increased risk of some cancers. He did this without informed consent, he did this without running it by an ethics board, he did this without knowing whether it would work or not.

Let’s stop pretending that he’s a good guy that just magically made HIV immune babies.

Edit: it also didn’t work. The babies have genes both with and without the mutation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 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 5 days ago

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

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 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)
[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 7 points 5 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)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Nah, I'm pretty sure that's the dude that used crispr on some babies years ago in an attempt to make them immune to HIV or something.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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 5 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)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Djinn_Indigo@lemm.ee 13 points 6 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)
[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago (9 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 (9 replies)
[–] Itzdan@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

I’m just here for the comments

[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.today 15 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Mengele vibes right there.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 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)
load more comments