China halts work by team on gene-edited babies

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

HONG KONG (AP) — China’s government ordered a halt Thursday to work by a medical team that claimed to have helped make the world’s first gene-edited babies, as a group of leading scientists declared that it’s still too soon to try to make permanent changes to DNA that can be inherited by future generations.

Chinese Vice Minister of Science and Technology Xu Nanping told state broadcaster CCTV that his ministry is strongly opposed to the efforts that reportedly produced twin girls born earlier this month. Xu called the team’s actions illegal and unacceptable and said an investigation had been ordered, but made no mention of specific actions taken.

Researcher He Jiankui claims to have altered the DNA of the twins to try to make them resistant to infection with the AIDS virus. Mainstream scientists have condemned the experiment, and universities and government groups are investigating.

He’s experiment “crossed the line of morality and ethics adhered to by the academic community and was shocking and unacceptable,” Xu said.

-snip-

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE
an hour ago



Read more: https://apnews.com/0be63430c5914f09a124b968c844d994

[47of74]

1. Good, we don't need one of these....

[Honeycombe8]

2. I find it hard to believe they didn't have the go-ahead from the govt, to begin with.

The scientists were on tv explaining the goal, what they were doing, etc. China's govt is not a democracy. They must have had govt permission to do this in the first place.

But now, with the scientist and medical communities, and other countries, shocked and against this practice, the Chinese govt says the practice is "shocking and unacceptable."

I just wonder if they'll continue doing it, but not advertise it again.

I see the good that can come from this practice, but so many things can go wrong. Is it moral to "create" a human being that is born with severe defects because of human interference? How long until this science is used to create a master race? That's what Germany would have done in the mid-19th Century, for sure. Or is this a reasonable thing and the future of the human race?

[Farmer-Rick]

3. I know I should be outraged but I'm not at all.

I know the slippery slope and all that but if we have the technology, it will be used, by someone. It is inevitable, it will be used. Banning it ensures that those who do eventually use it are criminals. So, what we need to do is put rules and regulations in place now to control it, keep it away from corporations, criminals and despots, and to prevent monster humans.

Banning and prohibitions never seem to work.

And there is the possibility of a lot of good coming out of this if we prevent the corporation, criminals and despots from controlling it like they control GMO plants.

[The Mouth]

4. I, for one, would be one of the first

to have a kid to specs, if it were possible.

Let me spec the kid with cancer resistance, unbreakable bones, two meters tall and an IQ of 170 and I might actually want to reproduce.

[Hortensis]

7. The concern isn't that we might become much healthier,

of course. We will be eliminating many tragic genetic defects and strengthening health factors, beyond doubt. Eventually.

[LanternWaste]

5. So... not ban it, but ban it from bad people?

How the hell does that work in a practical and methodical manner?

You initially state "Banning and prohibitions never seem to work" but then go on to argue banning it from particular demographics, yes?

If bans inherently do not work (as you suggest, though lacking any evidence to support it) how could then it be banned from the bogeymen you list?

[Farmer-Rick]

6. First we ban many things from bad people.

We don't allow corporations to murder people (for the most part) allow CEOs to sexually harass or use drugs to get more from their workers. We don't let criminals practice medicine, we restrict the movement of convicted criminals and prevent them from voting in many states. The whole idea behind background checks is to determine if someone is reliable or bad (to be simplistic) and to prevent the so called bad person from having access to power or state secrets.

Yes, you can't keep every bad person from access to power and secrets...like Trump...but laws, regulations and good policies did keep the capitalist criminals in check for a very long time. (Up until the uber rich conned many people into believing unrestricted capitalism was actually a good thing.)

Yeah, keeping despots from using science for criminal and immoral means is very difficult, look at Hitler. But with treaties, agreements and international organizations, humankind can get some control over it...it is not perfect but it's better than wringing your hands and banning something that will get out anyway.

And there is so much benefit that can come from this that I think people should take the risk much like they took the risk for GMOs...only without corporate control.