Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

Natasha Loder

Extraordinary that this death happened. This isn't like the baby KJ gene editing which was on the liver (far easer and less risky to edit than the brain), and using lipid nanoparticles (not billions virus particles). www.science.org/content/arti...

Exclusive: Death of girl in Chinese gene-editing trial was never made publicParents want accountability after study went disastrously wrong, Science and Retraction Watch investigation revealswww.science.org
Обсуждение

1 прямых ответов · 5 сообщений

Natasha Loder

Baby KJ had a life threatening condition. Mei, on the other hand, had was diagnosed with global developmental delay with some behaviours like autism. It was never going to kill her. But she was given the first brain directed gene editing treatment, using a viral vector.

Ответ для Natasha Loder
Natasha Loder

It harks back to the scandal of He Jiankui who did the first human gene editing in two embryos to create a mutation that might confer resistance to HIV -- which neither child might ever encounter. Again a question of disproportionate risks.

Ответ для Natasha Loder
tylerstorms

That's serious. I thought the problem with the AIDS preventing editing was that it went past the germ line.

Ответ для tylerstorms
Natasha Loder

well yes, but also it is about relative risk. If he had picked something the twins were going to die horribly from and had potentially saved them although people would have still been horrified, there would have been an ethical argument for doing it.

Ответ для Natasha Loder
tylerstorms

Thanks, as always, for the illumination.