Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-discuss: FX Claim GDNA - Germ-line DNA altered B4 2020

Author: chrisran.bma e-mail
Conversation: Re: fx-discuss: FX Claim GDNA - Germ-line DNA altered B4 2020 ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-discuss ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: Neal Gafter's post
Followed-Up-By: Roland Postle's post, chrisran.bma e-mail's post
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2019 07:57 am

chrisran.bma e-mail
Roland Postle



I agree there is a lack of evidence and made this clear in original email.

However,

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2019/01/u-va-researchers-respond-to-reports-of-first-crispr-modified-babies

includes not only

“I would like to see the actual data, to see if what he is claiming is true,” Dutta said. “Unless you look at the data, it is hard to decide whether or not the claims are accurate.”

but also

"Furthermore, He did not adhere to certain widespread ethical and scientific guidelines. He edited the germline of the twins — meaning that the changes in their genome will be passed onto future generations."

So, I suggest the claim should be kept open until later of 1/1/20 and the ongoing investigation completes and reports or it becomes clear there will be no detailed report made public.

Regards

Chris

crandles (7886) still holding +302

> On 27 November 2018 at 02:44 Neal Gafter <neal@gafter.com> wrote:
>
> There is currently a lack of evidence that the changes extend to the germ line of the individuals, so I (as judge) am not even going to evaluate the other factors.
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:58 AM chrisran.bma e-mail < chrisran.bma@virgin.net mailto:chrisran.bma@virgin.net > wrote:
>
> > >
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46342195
> >
> > Twins born possibly with editted genome. There seem doubts about whether this really did edit genome.
> >
> > "Prof He Jiankui says the twin girls, born a few weeks ago, had their DNA altered as embryos to prevent them from contracting HIV."
> >
> > Also there seems doubts about whether it should have been allowed. Does the judge have any comments on such a situation where it has happened but country has not specifically permitted it / has banned it / is scientific misconduct, but despite lack of permission / ban / misconduct, it has happened? I.e. is the claim about it being permitted or about it actually happening?
> >
> > If it is about it happening not about it being permitted, then this case may need to be followed in order to give correct judgement and seems worth bringing to the judge's attention.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > (crandles 7886)
> >
> > Disclosure: I hold 302 yes
> >
> > >

source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL