Craft the Rainbow -
40 Colorful Paper Projects from The House That Lars Built
|
Monday, 30 December 2019
quote [ The Chinese scientist who created the world's first gene edited babies has been jailed for three years for his illegal experiments, state officials have announced. He Jiankui was also fined three million yuan ($430,000) for his work, which he announced at the International Human Genome Editing Summit in Hong Kong in November, 2018. ]
Who does he think he is, General Zod?
|
foobar said @ 5:48pm GMT on 2nd January
I'm hoping we don't actually disagree, but rather just for the most part aren't clear on the facts. That could well be on me.
I'm assuming he told the parents that he was modifying the embryos, and that what he hoped the results would be, but that the ultimate results wouldn't be known beforehand.
You're not doing real science if you insist on a "risk-benefit analysis," especially in a case like this where the risk is effectively null. There is no child in a case like this, unless you're making the anti-choice argument that an embryo has rights. The parents (really, only the mother) has the ultimate and final choice to take whatever risk she wants, even if it's unknown.
foobar said @ 5:49pm GMT on 2nd January
I'm hoping we don't actually disagree, but rather just for the most part aren't clear on the facts. That could well be on me.
I'm assuming he told the parents that he was modifying the embryos, and what he hoped the results would be, but that the ultimate results wouldn't be known beforehand.
You're not doing real science if you insist on a "risk-benefit analysis," especially in a case like this where the risk is effectively null. There is no child in a case like this, unless you're making the anti-choice argument that an embryo has rights. The parents (really, only the mother) has the ultimate and final choice to take whatever risk she wants, even if it's unknown.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
foobar said @ 5:48pm GMT on 2nd January
I'm hoping we don't actually disagree, but rather just for the most part aren't clear on the facts. That could well be on me.
I'm assuming he told the parents that he was modifying the embryos, and what he hoped the results would be, but that the ultimate results wouldn't be known beforehand.
You're not doing real science if you insist on a "risk-benefit analysis," especially in a case like this where the risk is effectively null. There is no child in a case like this, unless you're making the anti-choice argument that an embryo has rights. The parents (really, only the mother) has the ultimate and final choice to take whatever risk she wants, even if it's unknown.
