He's work was worse than a crime, it was a mistake! The CRISPR baby thing was mostly notable for how scientifically and medically pointless it was. The baby's mom wasn't HIV positive so little to no risk of transmission so the CCR5 knockout was pointless, and he didn't even achieve homozygous CCR5 knockout for one of the embryos. And it wasn't like anyone doubted it could be done, people already made CRISPR-edited mouse embryos routinely, it's just that it was stupid to do. Had he picked a sensible edit like, I don't know, a mutant transthyretin gene knockout then there would at least be an interesting conversation.
Meanwhile while I'm not sure the above is broadly understood, it's nevertheless true that he's broadly considered a big joke on the Internet not some sign of anything sinister.
I don’t think you are taking him seriously enough. The argument that gene editing might cause inequality is … not good. Imagine if we had applied that thinking to penicillin.
I want to be clear that I don't want to come across as anti-tech, but I genuinely need more evidence and credibility from him to take him seriously. His public persona feels very much like a caricature as this entire article describes. I need more than a caricature.
Married then had a lab in Texas. Guess he’s ready to hack his own baby?
He's work was worse than a crime, it was a mistake! The CRISPR baby thing was mostly notable for how scientifically and medically pointless it was. The baby's mom wasn't HIV positive so little to no risk of transmission so the CCR5 knockout was pointless, and he didn't even achieve homozygous CCR5 knockout for one of the embryos. And it wasn't like anyone doubted it could be done, people already made CRISPR-edited mouse embryos routinely, it's just that it was stupid to do. Had he picked a sensible edit like, I don't know, a mutant transthyretin gene knockout then there would at least be an interesting conversation.
Meanwhile while I'm not sure the above is broadly understood, it's nevertheless true that he's broadly considered a big joke on the Internet not some sign of anything sinister.
I don’t think you are taking him seriously enough. The argument that gene editing might cause inequality is … not good. Imagine if we had applied that thinking to penicillin.
I want to be clear that I don't want to come across as anti-tech, but I genuinely need more evidence and credibility from him to take him seriously. His public persona feels very much like a caricature as this entire article describes. I need more than a caricature.
Mad like a fox?