this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1137 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

13430 readers
3200 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 16 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 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.

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.

[–] CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 minutes ago (1 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 1 points 6 minutes 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.

[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.today 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Mengele vibes right there.

[–] unused_user_name@lemm.ee 11 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the nazis did make a lot of scientific progress…

/s, just in case

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

The nazis were ethical compared to what was happening at Unit 731...

doesn't get enough attention, true, but both are so far over the moral event horizon, anyone who tolerates either one living should be shot.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 hour ago

We don't need to compare the two, they both considered atrocities horrific beyond comprehension.

[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 14 points 5 hours ago (1 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.

yeah, but, consider: I really want to get to point B. like, so badly. and I'm pretty sure I'm a good driver.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I think he does it ironically tbh, his posts are all over the place, from making fun of Europe for regulating everything to then saying that gene editing should be regulated by international laws to then saying ethics are holding back humanity, then just saying he loves austin texas, then stating that he will not develop bio weapons lmao.

Stanford cup and CPC flag, he does have a sense of humour tbh.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Wasn't he the guy who was trying to find a way for HIV-positive couples to have HIV-negative babies?

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 5 points 1 hour ago

Antiretroviral therapy for pregnant women already is a safe and effective way to avoid HIV transmission to the baby. It's part of standard treatment guidelines https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1701216324003748

So the guy has genetically engineered babies as a potentially risky and certainlycontroversial solution for a problem that already has a safe and non-controversia solution.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 125 points 10 hours ago (9 children)

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

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour 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.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 5 hours ago

I honestly think that is the most important point to make. It is a fundamental truth and force the person to talk specifics. Why is it bad there?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 62 points 11 hours ago (39 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.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours 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 17 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (7 children)

He used CRISPR to make babies immune to HIV.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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 (5 replies)
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 hours ago

Depends how successful the experiment is (and probably on what the goal is as well).

If he'd been testing the effects of grass vs grain feed on human fat marbling, I'd imagine the sentence would have been a little more severe

load more comments (37 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›