• 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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

      • Also i havent researched the validity of the ivf not allowed in china stuff, but I don’t consider it a bad thing He giving the parents an avenue to a hivfree child when they otherwise are assumed ‘too poor’ to be able to do it. In fact that totally matches his statements about cures should not be paywalled; and i agree with him. Good thing for the families he was doing this experiment. Now they can have an hiv free child where they couldn’t before.

      • 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.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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

      • ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        And life is not something people have a right to create

        Yes they do?

        Having children is literally the one thing most of us are equipped to do, and those who cant can adopt; the children of the future are our responsibility to raise. You seem to have a pretty self centered and unrealistic idea around child rearing; people raise children through invasions, unless you want to stop people from fucking somehow you’re never going to stop reproduction.

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Most of us are equipped for rape and murder, but we don’t have a right to it.

            • jsomae@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              19 minutes ago

              “because that would be eugenics” is not an explanation. You’re just asserting that eugenics is bad, which is begging the question – this is a post about the ethics of eugenics. You can’t just come in and say “eugenics is bad because it’s eugenics.”

              Anyway, I don’t think anyone is calling China’s former One Child Policy eugenics.

    • beejboytyson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      But this is what’s wrong with the world. They’d rather make a life, genetically modify it, which by the way will serve the rich, then adopt? OK I guess…