this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1315 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

13455 readers
3343 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1315
Least extreme biophysics phd (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
197 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 91 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (18 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.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 9 hours ago (14 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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

By all accounts what he did worked. The potential to end HIV is huge. The amount of human suffering that could be reduced by rolling out what he did is very real.

The technology is here. It's better to strictly manage it for the public good than to lock it away.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

By all account what he did worked.

Incorrect.

Two days after Lulu and Nana were born, their DNA were collected from blood samples of their umbilical cord and placenta. Whole genome sequencing confirmed the mutations.[124] However, available sources indicate that Lulu and Nana are carrying incomplete CCR5 mutations. Lulu carries a mutant CCR5 that has a 15-bp in-frame deletion only in one chromosome 3 (heterozygous allele) while the other chromosome 3 is normal; and Nana carries a homozygous mutant gene with a 4-bp deletion and a single base insertion.[125] He therefore failed to achieve the complete 32-bp deletion.[109] Moreover, Lulu has only heterozygous modification which is not known to prevent HIV infection.[120] Because the babies' mutations are different from the typical CCR5Δ32 mutation it is not clear whether or not they are prone to infection.[125] There are also concerns about adverse effect called off-target mutation in CRISPR/Cas9 editing and mosaicism, a condition in which many different cells develop in the same embryo.[124] Off-target mutation may cause health hazards, while mosaicism may create HIV susceptible cells.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Per the wikipedia page it states that it is not clear if it effective because they're not going to intentionally infect the children to test it. But we see the results specifically on the targeted gene. That's a success and demonstrates the technology works.

I'd argue the folly was inserting an artificial gene as opposed to the natural gene that we already know works. Either way the technology showed expression on the correct gene, that is a success.

We'd be having a better discourse on this if his results weren't banned from every journal and not studied.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Read that section I pasted in again.

“Lulu has only heterozygous modification which is not known to prevent HIV infection.”

It’s not the results are “banned from every journal” - it’s that doing ad hoc CRISPR experiments is not going to meet peer review. Doing random things because you want to see what happens is not how science works.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Having a heterozygous deletion is still effecting the right gene. Without knowing both of her parents genetics it's hard to say if it was natural. What he did could produce either a heterozygous or homozygous result on the gene, but only the homozygous presentation is effective at prevention.

So 1 was a full success and the other showed activation on the appropriate gene, but not enough to confer resistance. Although it is possible it does since he used an artificial gene. We know the natural one is not effective in a heterozygous presentation. I still think that was his greatest mistake. He should have just used the naturally effective gene.

You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.

What? Even highly effective treatments with ample research backing will not “always be successful.” (Not just in genetics. Across the board.)

Again, as the excerpt I copied in shows, there are also RISKS with CRISPR. Things like mosaicism, things like half of your cells having the modification and half not.

Do you have any background in biology? Can you explain why a gene that only conveys resistance in a homozygous genotype would be magically effective in a heterozygous because it was artificial?

Can you define the terms “homozygous” and “heterozygous” even?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

This topic is flushing out some concerning people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't say it was magic. Part of the issue is we don't know what modifications he made in making his artificial version. I won't pretend like there aren't a lot of unknowns there. It could alter the effectiveness in numerous ways.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

Yes - exactly. He didn’t know what was going to happen. When you don’t know what is going to happen, you don’t play with lives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

By all accounts what he did worked

What "accounts" are you reading? You need to read more accurate accounts, because what he did didn't work and the experiment wasn't very useful.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)