Slashdot Mirror


China, Unhampered by Rules, Races Ahead in Gene-Editing Trials (wsj.com)

U.S. scientists helped devise the Crispr biotechnology tool. First to test it in humans are Chinese doctors (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative link). WSJ reports: In a hospital west of Shanghai, Wu Shixiu since March has been trying to treat cancer patients using a promising new gene-editing tool. U.S. scientists helped devise the tool, known as Crispr-Cas9, which has captured global attention since a 2012 report said it can be used to edit DNA. Doctors haven't been allowed to use it in human trials in America. That isn't the case for Dr. Wu and others in China. In a quirk of the globalized technology arena, Dr. Wu can forge ahead with the tool because he faces few regulatory hurdles to testing it on humans. [...] There is little doubt China was first out of the block testing Crispr on humans. Nine trials in China are listed in a U.S. National Library of Medicine database. The Wall Street Journal found at least two other hospital trials, including one beginning in 2015 -- a year earlier than previously reported. Journal reporting found at least 86 Chinese patients have had their genes edited.

159 comments

  1. China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But communist countries care about the people first!
    That's what socialism is all about, right?
    We REGULATE because we care about the harm evil corporations will do to people.

    1. Re:China China China by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We REGULATE because we care about the harm evil corporations will do to people.

      And fuck you if you're on your death bed, you're NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. It's for your own good!

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, tell yourself that when everybody without Han ancestry drops dead

    3. Re:China China China by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And fuck you if you're on your death bed, you're NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. It's for your own good!

      It's not just for your own good. We don't really know what these gene altering technologies will do-- either on a technical scientific level, or on a sociological level. Lots of technologies seem harmless enough at the outset, and people ask, "What could possibly go wrong?" Part of the problem is, the things that go wrong are often not things we even suspected might go wrong.

    4. Re:China China China by gfxguy · · Score: 0

      I might become a mutant and kill Trump? Seriously... if I'm dying and want to try experimental treatment, I should be able to. Period.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're willing to spend the rest of your life in isolation, and the experimenting company is willing to foot the bill for that, then I say it's fine. Otherwise, your decision doesn't only affect you. If you, for instance, receive a gene modification intended to cure cancer that goes rogue and causes the common cold to start causing cancer, then you become patient zero for a new, man-made plague. And there's a whole lot of really awful shit between that and "harmless but ineffective."

      If your decision has only binary outcomes and only impacts you, then go for it. If your decision has even the potential for broader impact, and you're ignoring that for personal satisfaction, then you're a terrible person, and instead of receiving experimental treatment, you should be euthanized for the betterment of humanity.

    6. Re:China China China by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, it is wrong to enslave everyone else because you have some fantasy about what *might* happen. On the other hand, things bite back and things might happen as you say, like a runaway virus or something. The problem is, how likely does the threat have to be before we can justify taking people's fundamental rights away from them? That's the catch isn't it? In this case, AFAIK, there isn't really much chance of something going wrong and affecting other people. It's not like they are making custom nanoprobes or viruses, is it?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    7. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it goes full 12 Monkeys and destroys humanity? Wow, you aren't selfish. Nope. Not one bit.

    8. Re:China China China by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You probably shouldn't joke about that these days.

    9. Re:China China China by slew · · Score: 1

      Sure, tell yourself that when everybody without Han ancestry drops dead

      I'm sure they'll "passover" the people with Mongol and Manchu ancestry too which should spare quite a few non-chinese given the altan urag...

      OTOH, it probably wouldn't hurt to mark the doorposts of your house with the blood of a slaughtered spring lamb to cover your bases...

    10. Re:China China China by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      people ask, "What could possibly go wrong?"

      In most instances, the answer is "nothing". Gene therapy on a dying patient past reproductive age is going to affect no one but the patient.

      Part of the problem is, the things that go wrong are often not things we even suspected might go wrong.

      You can use this same argument to ban anyone from doing anything.

      Some reasonable regulations would be acceptable, but America has WAY too much of a bias toward "doing nothing". We are letting the future slip away from us in so many ways.

      My daughter is a biotechnology major at the University of California. She applied for an internship for the coming summer. Many of her classmates had every application rejected, but she was offered well paid internships by four companies. Why? She speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese.

    11. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "enslave" people? We're talking about regulations that were enacted so that a medical technique has a statistically significant chance of success with little to no chance of creating greater damage/death to the individual. It's to prevent people from selling snake oil to dying individuals who will do or pay anything for a chance to live. Because the only thing that separates a quack from an actual scientist are *the studies and research*

    12. Re:China China China by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Worst he can do is pass the gene onto his kid, any kind of gene transfer to another organism could just as easily (which is to say, not easily at all) occur in animals or plants which are open season for genetic experiments.

      This has no more broader impact that parents being able to decide to have their kids undergo hormone treatment (which is to say, some).

    13. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My left nut could beat you up you limped-dicked sycophant

    14. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol look at this parasite.

    15. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not genocide if it's not a western government.

      No, son, the Chinese government has been deliberately, systematically eliminating non-compliant cultures. If you're a paid troll, you'll pull out the "we give them educational opportunities". Yeah, we know; we used that to destroy first nation cultures. You've brought employment opportunities, and Han occupy all management spots. Yadda, yadda yadda, keep talking.

    16. Re:China China China by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What was Clarke's law? Something something 'sufficiently advanced technology...'

      Now, I'm not saying Jesus was an alien... but...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re: China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the Wrights crashed and burned in the field, they were the only ones.

      This has ramifications outside the dangers of a bike with wings.

    18. Re:China China China by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      When the wars start, remember all this when I'm shoving a nine-inch stiletto into your left eye socket, you fat ass disgusting piece of shit. All of you are going to DIE and I'll personally take as many of you out as I possibly can FOR THE GOOD OF MY SPECIES.

      Fortunately for the rest of us, your side is not the one with the guns and the organization.

    19. Re:China China China by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      This attitude is why today's China, but not us, can have nice things.

    20. Re:China China China by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Fortunately for the rest of us, your side has the guns but at the same time believes corporate media bullshit to keep them complacent.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:China China China by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's not why. That attitude is why China, not us, are drowning in smog.

    22. Re:China China China by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dude, stop watching SciFi shows. If you can't tell fiction from reality, stick to the Little House on the Prairie

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:China China China by Opportunist · · Score: 1
      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:China China China by psmoot · · Score: 1

      We REGULATE because we care about the harm evil corporations will do to people.

      Well, two points.

      First, at this point, we don't know whether gene therapies will help or harm. Past trials turned out to be ineffective or harmful. There are plausible reasons to believe this time will be different. We won't know until people conduct careful (and likely expensive and time consuming) experiments. In the mean time, people are dying. I'm glad I don't have to decide which approach will kill the most people.

      Anyway.

      My second point is a broad political one. Politicians and regulators say we regulate to protect people, either from evil companies or more likely plain ignorance. But stated intentions aren't real intentions and certainly aren't outcomes. There's a common story these days that much regulation has the predominant effect of protecting incumbents from competition at the expense of consumers. I'm sure there's more than one drug company or AMA lobbyist pushing for regulation ostensibly for safety but really to protect a revenue stream. I'd prefer to think doctors are above that but they're human too with student loans to pay off.

    25. Re:China China China by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      This is actually an example illustrating my point. China's force-draft industrialization gave them a problem with coal smog and CO2, so now they in the lead on nuclearizing their way out of the problem. We can barely finish a couple of plants we started in the Seventies.

    26. Re:China China China by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damn straight, we should absolutely allow unproven and experimental techniques to be used that will expose the patient to immense pain and immediate death.

      Do you realize at all how experimental this stuff is? They haven't even done it on MICE yet. Crisper was developed like 3 years ago. They are still experimenting with bacteria. You think the appropriate action is to jump right to humans?

      What you might not know is someone jumped to humans a decade ago without proper protocols, someone experimenting with viruses rewriting someone's DNA killed a 20 year old volunteer in the US. He spent an agonizing 24hrs in intensive care with total organ failure before he died.

      The problem is we don't even understand the implications of using CRISPR on live people let alone live animals yet. You could immediately kill the person.

    27. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beat me up? See, you don't fucking get it.
      I won't just "beat you up". I will kill you if you start a Civil War.

    28. Re:China China China by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Natural gene transfer with viruses is hardly unheard of - something like 8% of the human genome is viral in origin, and it can reasonably be expected that the reverse happens as well. After all, they do hijack our own DNA replication equipment in the course of their normal reproduction. It may be spectacularly unlikely that any given gene will be incorporated (much less have a related effect), but the sheer number of viruses involved in a single infection improve those odds considerably.

      There's also the question of how the CRISPR molecules are introduced to the nucleus of the cells - a viral "carrier" is one technique, in which case you may now be infected with modified viruses with the potential to pass on the changes to other people as well. I recall one study where modified viruses were used to introduce photoreceptor-producing genes to specific kinds of brain cells - and the researchers were quick to point out that their chosen virus was harmless, rarely even causing noticeable symptoms. What they failed to address was that it WAS harmless, but now caused brain cells to grow photoreceptors - with unknown long term consequences, not to mention the potential developmental consequences if it infected a developing embryo.

      Plus, there's environmental factors as well - alter the ecosystem (body), you alter its inhabitants. The bigger point is that we're just barely getting a grasp on the immediate consequences of gene editing (i.e., managing to make the functional changes we desire), and have yet to even seriously consider the second-order and further consequences that may ripple out from those changes. That would be fine so long as potential repercussions stopped with the patient, but become societies concern when we haven't even begun to ask the question of what can go wrong.

      And before you dismiss that out of hand, consider that with all the years of Cas9/CRISPR research that has been done, as of last year there had been only *one* study done involving full gene-sequencing of the subjects to look for "off-target" modifications, and they found lots of them. Now, there were some serious shortcomings in the study that call it's results into question, but it still stands as the *only* serious study into immediate unintended modifications. In that kind of reckless environment, we need outside regulations to help limit the potential damage being done.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    29. Re: China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderate? The US is past that - you'll have to choose a side.

    30. Re: China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I will help you. These libturds are out of control.

    31. Re: China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN, NBC, CBS, and Soros - that corporate media bullshit? Sure, I "believed" them so much that I went out and voted for Trump.

    32. Re: China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, not to mention they lead in public electrified transportation. America on the other hand is more in the dust than ever, literally. Exhaust in cities is literally killing everyone by giving all of them cancers.

    33. Re:China China China by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting they give a dying person a shot and send them home - what kind of morons am I talking to here?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    34. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might want to look in the mirror, pal

    35. Re:China China China by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Ahh.... I see what kind of morons I'm talking to. Your reply clarifies it for me.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    36. Re:China China China by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That was mainly because they gave him an overdoze and he got an allergic shock.
      Completely preventable ... but it does not mean the gen editing had worked.

      BTW: https://www.google.de/search?q...

      500k hits ...

      You are a decade behind in CRISPR research.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:China China China by nine-times · · Score: 1

      That's not why, though. It's like saying "the reason the addict is clean is because he overdosed." Even if that experience motivated him to get clean, lots of other people stay clean without having ever overdosed. The addict could have stopped doing drugs at any time without overdosing.

      In the same way, America could have been investing in better power sources and infrastructure, but we've just chosen not to. There's a segment of the population that's still insisting that we go back to coal. Until we figure out a way to get rid of these morons, we're going to fall behind. And to your point, it's possible that pursuing bunch of moronic short-sighted goals will create enough of a disaster that we'll be forced to learn our lesson. Performing genetic engineering willy-nilly might end up with us figuring out how to be more careful in the long run. It'd be nice if we could just not be moronic without causing those disasters first.

    38. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of interest: Which XYZ technologies impact on ' a technical scientific level, or on a sociological level. ' Did we know in prior to the invention? Is this even realistic requirement?

    39. Re: China China China by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      extreme left and extreme right are 2 sides of the same coin. both think they are the smartest and know the best way to do everything is their bigoted way.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    40. Re: China China China by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      For example. Plus the media bullshit that tells you all these tell you are lies but they don't lie.

      The fun bit is that ALL sides lie to you. It's your job to find the truth within those lies.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot, So if you are on death bed and decide to go DNA modification, then you are cured and feel awesome and decide to have kids, and all your kids will grow 3 dicks and 5 tits... But that obviously does not concern you, since you are entitled ass hat, finally you will be able to categorized them as gender fluid/nutral....

       

    42. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a race we have "form":

      Thalidomide
      Asbestos need I go on......?

    43. Re:China China China by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I'm going to steal that cliche. There are so many places on this murderous forum where I can use that.

    44. Re:China China China by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      And fuck you if you're on your death bed, you're NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. It's for your own good!

      It's not just for your own good. We don't really know what these gene altering technologies will do-- either on a technical scientific level, or on a sociological level. Lots of technologies seem harmless enough at the outset, and people ask, "What could possibly go wrong?" Part of the problem is, the things that go wrong are often not things we even suspected might go wrong.

      And if you mutate my genes / dna what will my descendents have for theirs, if my wife becomes pregnant? Or if her dna was modified before she got pregnant?

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    45. Re:China China China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I know! Let's mess with the innovation in the US by putting lots of regulation land-mines everywhere! Yeah!!!

  2. China truly beat the USA at capitalism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who has the freest market (and hence the most destruction and abuse of people, the planet, and ALL the good things) now??

    Booya!! China No. 1!! In you face! /s

    1. Re:China truly beat the USA at capitalism! by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      China proper doesn't have a a completely free market. The government has been fairly hands off in a lot of areas, but they still have rules related to foreign investment and how much of a company can be owned by outside investors. They also manipulate their currency in a way that makes a lot of their industries vastly more competitive than they would be otherwise.

      However, Hong Kong (and some of the similar economic zones within China) has what is regarded as the world's freest market. (PDF Warning)

    2. Re:China truly beat the USA at capitalism! by magarity · · Score: 1

      China proper doesn't have a a completely free market. The government has been fairly hands off in a lot of areas

      No, the Chinese government has its hand IN all areas. I know a Chinese businessperson who gave up there and moved to the US. He said in China about half of his time, mental energy, and money was used up placating officials at multiple levels. Government's involvement in business in the US is practically nothing in comparison.

    3. Re:China truly beat the USA at capitalism! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      However, Hong Kong (and some of the similar economic zones within China) has what is regarded as the world's freest market. (PDF Warning)

      Only if you discount Somalia, which I presume the "free market" evangelists do.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:China truly beat the USA at capitalism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete and utter bullshit. China has many 100% foreign owned companies in lots of different fields. You brainwashing isn't very up to date. Just google how to set up a foreign company in China if you want real facts.
      $US is also way down since Trump was elected...

    5. Re:China truly beat the USA at capitalism! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The Chinese currency is bound to the US dollar.
      Since decades. See: no manipulation at all, besides the ones the US do to put the dollar into a certain position, just thats the Chinese currency automatically follows.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. A human life is worth less when you have a billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Behold the future.

  4. Well, Khan was "sort of" Asian by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I guess by the 23rd century we'll know how bad it was ;)

    1. Re:Well, Khan was "sort of" Asian by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I suspect they'll have adequate material for the movie, The Island of Doctor Chen long before then.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  5. They will experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get anime like eyes.

  6. Maybe, just maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a lot of Chinese-translated hentai floating around, so maybe there's a chance we'll get sexy cat-girls soon.

  7. Welcome to Blade Runner, man by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

    " Replicants are like any other machine, are either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit it's not my problem."

  8. More government regulations holding us back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    America doesn't win anymore

    China's curing cancer, and we can't even keep our government in operation

    1. Re:More government regulations holding us back by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Informative

      No proof yet that they've cured shit. For all we know they just gave the test subjects double-cancer.

    2. Re:More government regulations holding us back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Schumer Shutdown is over. Another Trump win.

      Hate on, bitches.

    3. Re:More government regulations holding us back by Bartles · · Score: 1

      We?

    4. Re: More government regulations holding us back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invent situation that will eventually end regardless of what anyone does.

      When it ends, claim victory.

      #Winning

    5. Re:More government regulations holding us back by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      America doesn't win anymore

      China's allowing scientific experimentation on it's own people

      FTFY. While I don't necessarily agree with the US government's position in this regard, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the Chinese government has any altruistic intent when it comes to allowing their populace to be used as guinea pigs - their human-rights track record speaks for itself in this regard.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:More government regulations holding us back by gweihir · · Score: 0

      The point is that they will find out. Sure, the morality of this is problematic, but just categorically denying anything in that direction is nit much better. The history of medical advances is littered with corpses, but these are fewer corpses than if those advances had not happened.

      And it is high time that the medical profession gets its head out of its collective backside and start to tackle cancer successfully. Their performance so far in that field is a disgrace.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:More government regulations holding us back by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      lol trump win is the biggest oxymoron ever

      can't wait until the revolution and we round fucksticks like you up in camps

      The revolution by people that think guns are icky and gross? Yeah that will be a very short revolution

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    8. Re:More government regulations holding us back by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Hah. That's a fallacy. Everyone I know on either side of the fence owns at least one gun. Just because SOME liberals don't like them, don't assume we all have the same beliefs.

      I don't think EVERY conservative is pants-on-head retarded, just the ones that support the Trumpster Fire.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    9. Re:More government regulations holding us back by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Human rights track record? What's not to like about a country that has initiated more wars and armed intrusions than any other in the past century and killed a few million people in the process; has manipulated and interfered in 81 elections in other countries; has stationed its troops in more than 100 countries around the world; bombed 8 Mid East and North African countries in the past 20 years, has insulted literally every ethnic and religious group in its own country (except white, Christian, obese coal workers) and every major nation around the world; already has or is going to pull out of numerous international agreements; blackmails and bullies countries as it wishes; runs the most expensive espionage apparatus to spy on its own people and "fights terrorism" by tapping foreign allies, the Vatican and the UN.

      How many countries has China invaded? As a very great man once said, "No Chinaman ever called me n*gger."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:More government regulations holding us back by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Seems like the democrats are know are the gun owners, and the republicans support gun ownership in principle but personally find them to be dangerous and violence inducing.

      I don't think it should be a party line issue. Rick Santorum was able to exploit this quite successfully in blue Pennsylvania.

    11. Re:More government regulations holding us back by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Trying to remember the last election where interfering in other countries angered people enough to go to the polls.

      Or making insinuations about groups of people.

      I think it was in the 70s.

      Even if it did have political effects (btw it didn't), what racist thing has Trump said? I guess I missed that part. Are you one of those people who think talking tough to Kim Jong Ill is racist?

      And what high crime qualifies Trump for impeachment? Call me when that question gets answered.

    12. Re:More government regulations holding us back by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      It's not a competition.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:More government regulations holding us back by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Are you one of those people who think talking tough to Kim Jong Ill is racist?

      No, but describing all countries that consist mostly of black people "shitholes" is.

    14. Re:More government regulations holding us back by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Gun control is one of the democrat's fundamental party stances. A democrat owning a gun would be a republican. You can't own something and vote for the people that want to take it away.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    15. Re:More government regulations holding us back by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      If you want to give preferential treatment to any ethnicity you are a racist.

      Btw, you were the one who introduced ethnicity into the discussion. Own it.

  9. Custom editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But at least we'll get girls with cat ears! =)

    1. Re:Custom editing by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Score: +1, Kawaii

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  10. Job Killing Regulations by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unhampered by "Job Killing" rules like clean air, clean water, intellectual property, and child labor laws, China has claimed top global growth rankings for the past 2 decades...
    Now live with it... or try anyway.

    1. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure... they also have one of the higest incidents of death by lung cancer in the developed world, with urban air often more poluted than what comes out of your tailpipe by several orders of magnitude. So yeah, our regulations may kill a few jobs, in an economy producing more jobs every day than the available pool of applicants can fill, but China's lack of regulations is killing real people.

      Good to know where your priorities lie.

    2. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Unhampered by "Job Killing" rules like clean air, clean water, intellectual property, and child labor laws, China has claimed top global growth rankings for the past 2 decades... Now live with it... or try anyway.

      China has strict environmental regulation... but they only enforce it for foreign companies. The result is that a LOT of people are getting lung cancer which means they are mass producing subjects to experiment on.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they saw how well it worked for the US in the past...

    4. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Major_Disorder · · Score: 1

      China has strict environmental regulation... but they only enforce it for foreign companies. The result is that a LOT of people are getting lung cancer which means they are mass producing subjects to experiment on.

      Sounds like a win - win to me. :)
      Why yes, I am a sociopath. Why do you ask?

      --
      First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    5. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Commies don't have to worry as much about public backlash from 3-eyed people. Look at the Soviet Union's nuclear research history. (True, the US did some dumb things, but not nearly in the same proportion.)

    6. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought a lot of people were getting lung cancer because the chinese smoke like chimneys.

      350 million chinese smoke...

    7. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same old pattern of history repeating itself. China will set aside human rights, ethics, environment in order to prosper until such time their country hits the desired point in its evolution. Then they will become concerned about the things they had set aside, and chastise others for not doing the same.

    8. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's actually relevant. The price you pay for protective regulation is a slower rate of technological development. Short-term, this doesn't mean much and it's "obvious" that the regulations are superior.

      But long-term... If clean air laws increase lifespan by x years, but lack of clean air laws allows technology to advance so people end up with more than x years of additional leisure time over their lifetime, which is really better?

      I don't honestly know the answer. I don't even know if we can figure out the answer (since we're talking about guessing at what technological breakthroughs will happen in the future). But if you're judging the merit of clean air/water regulations based solely on whether you prefer clean air/water or not, then your analysis is overly simplistic.

      China's decision was a bit easier since they were behind the developed world technologically - they could see the beneficial technologies they were going to get in this bargain. They made a decision to sacrifice something like 10 years of life expectancy, in order to make up a 40 year deficit in technology and catch up to first world nations. If they decide to clean up their air and water now, that 10 year sacrifice in lifespan will only have affected one or two generations, while the 40 year jump in technology will benefit all future generations to come. They probably think that bargain was worth it.

    9. Re:Job Killing Regulations by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Unhampered by "Job Killing" rules like clean air, clean water, intellectual property, and child labor laws, China has claimed top global growth rankings for the past 2 decades... Now live with it... or try anyway.

      But they're all happy with it, and if they're not they don't live long enough to tell anyone. No wonder China and North Korea are best pals

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    10. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We figured out a long time ago experimenting on people really wasn't a cost-effective or accurate way of testing medicine; there's a lot of unknowns with new technology, and while I'm not going to say the Chinese forced the families or these people directly to make this decision, I will make the comment that it's unlikely we'll learn anything from this endeavour aside from we tried this on some people and it worked\did not work.

      I'd like to see it tested on a few generations of guindea pigs or in labs on petri dishes first to proove its stable.

    11. Re:Job Killing Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cock smokeing American with no brain, you're 20 years out of date...

  11. Cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not much else to say there; the same answer that's offered for every other expansion of our regulatory tyranny.

    Enjoy.

  12. Human experimentation. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Considering it's behavior, the Chinese government clearly holds little regard for human life. That said, if someone has a fatal prognosis then they should be able to volunteer for experimental treatments under the condition that they accept that the treatment will likely result in a painful death and part or all of their body may be used kept to study and understand what went wrong with the treatment. However, the volunteer should be given the option of euthanasia should they wish to have it (to avoid the horrible painful death part).

    Human experimentation is gruesome business and should not be taken lightly. It may be your only option aside from death but it's good to remember that a horrible painful death is a likely outcome.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Human experimentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the murder of twelve innocent people can help save one human life, it will have been worth it."
        – Dr. Necessiter, The Man with Two Brains

    2. Re:Human experimentation. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      They're not hampered by western "morality" (which is really religion). Risking the lives of a few tens for a cure that saves millions sounds perfectly rational to me.

      Yes, this is the same country that harvests organs from a spiritual movement disliked by the government, but a country that gave smallpox blankets to Indians or infected people with syphilis doesn't deserve to throw the first stone.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Human experimentation. by slew · · Score: 2

      Considering behavior, very few governments clearly hold regard for human life.

      That has little bearing on the rights to volunteer for experimental treatments. Unfortunately, it is of significant likelihood that participation in such treatment are not really what you might call a volunteer (e.g., if risky experimental treatments are being offered mainly to uninformed/desperate patients, it might signal that many aren't really volunteers, but are merely being tricked).

      In many places you can volunteer for experimental treatments. For example, in the USA this is done under a program called expanded access (aka compassionate use) exemption... However, it is important to note that this doesn't apply to experimental treatments which are NOT currently approved for trials, it only allows access to treatment that is available in an approved trial to patients that are not part of the trial (e.g., because the patient doesn't meet study parameters, or the study is full)... At least in this case there is an active controlled study going on that could give such a patient some indications if things could be going south before things get totally out of hand...

      I suspect that people are unaware of the current (documented) level of experimentation. To do a study of a rare genetic condition they found a person with the blood disorder, extracted their skin cells and used cloning techniques to develop embryos with the same genetic makeup and then proceeded to edit the gene using the CRISPR-Cas9 technique. In 8/20 embryos, they were able to make a correct edit and even then, the resulting embryo was a mosaic (some cell-lines corrected, some original generating some potential immunological problems) which even if was able to correct the disorder in the specific individual, would still likely allow the disorder to be passed to offspring.

      The whole issue of volunteering for this is fraught with ethical issues (do parents technically "own" the right to make the choice for embryo, as the embryo isn't alive enough to do any volunteering)

      With current experiments, the cloned embryos were not kept after 14 days. In the future, to make the changes lasting and w/o mosaic-ism, the modification would need to be done on the egg/sperm cells which has other ethical decisions (what to do with the uncorrected embryos, not too different than doing sex-selection on multiple embryos)

    4. Re:Human experimentation. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      They're not hampered by western "morality" (which is really religion). Risking the lives of a few tens for a cure that saves millions sounds perfectly rational to me.

      OK, thought experiment time:

      You're one of the "tens," which turns out to be tens-of-thousands, and you weren't given a choice in the matter. Still find it rational when you are being experimented upon, against your will?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Human experimentation. by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you know what? If all the people that gave these smallpox blankets are already dead, and the country hasn't done anything wrong in hunderds of years, I think that I'm willing to let them throw the first stone anyway. (I do agree that there may other examples of shitty US morality, I just don't understand why you decided to go that far back in time).

    6. Re:Human experimentation. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Then what about pushing US patent law on the rest of the world (it really hampers down research, especially in medicine)? Or about helping Saudis wage a Hitler-style war in Yemen that involves carpet-bombing civilians in towns with no military presence, concentration camps, and similar niceties?

      I picked smallpox blankets and Tuskegee because of their direct connection with medicine, but if you want atrocities in general, here you go.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    7. Re:Human experimentation. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      They're not hampered by western "morality" (which is really religion). Risking the lives of a few tens for a cure that saves millions sounds perfectly rational to me.

      Yes, this is the same country that harvests organs from a spiritual movement disliked by the government, but a country that gave smallpox blankets to Indians or infected people with syphilis doesn't deserve to throw the first stone.

      Those responsible for that syphilis and smallpox blanket example probably thought they were sacrificing thousands to save millions

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    8. Re:Human experimentation. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about rational actions of a government, not of an individual. If you're infected with a disease that affects only ten people in the world, it's rational for you to put all your savings into attempting to get cured (as otherwise you won't get to enjoy those savings anyway), but, as an unrelated voter, I'd rather prefer my taxes to be put into research into a disease that affects a million -- as the chances that I or one of my nieces get infected with the latter are so much higher.

      And the Chinese don't care about being nice. I wouldn't bash them for an action that actually helps people, rather than merely the government.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    9. Re:Human experimentation. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      In Christianity the individual is higher than the many.

    10. Re:Human experimentation. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      In Christianity the individual is higher than the many.

      If and only if that individual is ordained.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    11. Re:Human experimentation. by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      The smallpox blankets was a lie told by the discredited Ward Churchill. It has been debunked.

    12. Re:Human experimentation. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about is true in some churches.

      I was talking about in Jesus's perspective (cf Luke 15).

  13. what could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, at least we know where the zombie apocalypse starts.

  14. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mengele would have loved you.

  15. Call the fashion police! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do cutoff shorts count as jean editing?

  16. There goes the Olympics by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    There goes everyone else's chance in the Olympics. In 20 years China will be hip-deep in engineered super-human athletes and people that look like Michael Jackson.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:There goes the Olympics by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Considering how dim a view the Olympics takes on any kind of enhancement, they would probably ban the technology very quickly. If there's no way to check for such modifications, then they could always just ban China from attending, like they did with Russia.

    2. Re:There goes the Olympics by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      The Olympics is all about cheating and not getting caught. Even if you ban China, people from other countries will pay the Chinese to boost their embryos for them.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:There goes the Olympics by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      It's only about cheating because of the money at stake. If the Olympics had any integrity they would ban all paid promotion.

    4. Re:There goes the Olympics by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And shortly thereafter the new superhumans will attempt to overthrow the human government.

      Kahnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

  17. Battered and Fried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will will new mutant's mental focus be CRISPR.

  18. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to be fair, the "EVERY EMBRYO IS A PERSON" crowd will keep this from ever being allowed in 'Merica

  19. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to be fair, the "EVERY EMBRYO IS A PERSON" crowd will keep this from ever being allowed in 'Merica

    Perhaps. But I suspect you'll get more pushback from the "NAZIS ARE BAD, MKAY?" crowd... because Nazis are bad, mkay?

  20. Re: Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't the dumbest reply I've ever seen.

  21. What's the big problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife altered my jeans.

  22. I, For One, ... by crunchygranola · · Score: 4, Informative

    I, for one, welcome our new genetically engineered Chinese overlords!

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  23. And this is how China will end up beating us. by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    Our more cautious approach to human experimentation will, in the long run, be the end of us as a scientific superpower when it comes to this kind of stuff.

    It also doesn't help that our government is increasingly politicizing science with one side being quite anti-science. Seemingly we will count on other countries to do the innovation.

    1. Re:And this is how China will end up beating us. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 0

      I'm not too worried. The anti-science party is already working overtime to lose the next elections. Even before the "shutdown", something like 70% of Democrats were opposed to shutting down over DACA, and I can't imagine that number has gone up now that footage has surfaced of Chucky saying, just a few years ago, that it would be crazy to hold the government hostage for immigration.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:And this is how China will end up beating us. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yes, the crystal worshippers are very anti-science. No GMO's, No Nukes!

    3. Re:And this is how China will end up beating us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, expected something else after the second sentence.

      Bravo, sir, you rustled my jimmies and then soothingly calmed them with a mint balm.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go roll my eyes at the rational, logical and scientific Democrats who even now are bringing back the ol' Polio shuffle because MUH AUTISM BAHBEH.

    4. Re:And this is how China will end up beating us. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      The people moderating my comment down apparently think the Democrats are the pro-science party.

      I don't think they know what science is.

      Science is a process for testing ideas so that faulty ones can be discarded. When you cling to an idea after it has been tested and found faulty, you are anti-science. When you count male and female and claim that there are 57 genders, you are anti-science. When you cling to global warming hysteria long after the failure of all projections, you are anti-science. When you pretend that the thing an abortion kills is not a helpless unique human being, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is, you are anti-science.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    5. Re:And this is how China will end up beating us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, No, they may be anti science, but when it comes to weapons tech they are probably number one.

      The rest of the world will probably pass them by in everything else, and the advanced weapons tech will be copied by China, Russia and the rest.

      And since IP laws are pretty strong in the US, it will not be as easy for US to copy tech from the other countries.

      So guess who is probably going backwards in general in the next .... oh ... say .... 25 years?

  24. Progress - of a sort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We have a potential cure for diabetes to show off! Well, that and fourteen goatmen. Non-sterile goatmen who now roam the woods outside our laboratories, striking fear into our hearts, but the cure for diabetes is pending trials very soon!"

  25. China is the new Umbrella Corporation by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Monsanto being Umbrella Corporation is so Last Thursday, China is now the new hotness in being Umbrella Corporation! Look for a zombie apocalypse near you, in the next 10-20 years!

    In all seriousness: enjoy your possible human-caused genetic diseases as you recklessly tinker with human DNA. Oh and by the way so far as I'm concerned if you create genetic diseases that are communicable, and it causes a pandemic? I vote for nuking your entire fucking country over it.

    Seriously, at the rate we're going, we may not be around long enough for climate change to kill us. Guess we'll see if I'm right or wrong won't we?

  26. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a biologist, but i'm pretty sure directly editing genes has far more potential for abuse than most other technologies.

    How many science fiction movies start that way or involve plotlines to some extent? Suddenly the military gets involved with this and bam Forced Evolutionary Virus.

      "If you could cure cancer by killing one person, wouldn't you have to do that?" (hopefully you hear gene hackmans creepy voice saying that as I do...)

  27. Re: Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This isn't the dumbest reply I've ever seen.

    You must browse at a higher comment level than most.

  28. Excite to see the results by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to see what all they cure. I am also a little worried for those it fails on, or damages. Their blood will pave the way for a brighter future, as often happens to those under communist rule.

  29. I for one welcome our new mutant overlords by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And their population-curbing cancer-gene-enabled bioweapons

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  30. "U.S. scientists" were Japanese and European by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but somewhere in the mix of all those Japanese and Europeans, there was an American, so now they effort to make it seem like they developed it, and that China "stole" it.

  31. Tough Call / Risk - Benefit Gamble by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    I think this one's a tough call. Gene editing could hold the key to curing some incurable diseases but it could also produce a moral issue where it's used for eugenics instead. People after all are willing to alter themselves for vain reasons but is that right? I think there's a slightly lesser risk of disease outbreak unless government is doing hostile black ops research but don't expect zombies or anything like that. Think more a plague outbreak.

    Science is a double-edged sword, think nuclear science. It's given us so many modern technologies we take for granted but also it's also given us a chance to blow ourselves off the planet. Genetics is probably similar.

    1. Re:Tough Call / Risk - Benefit Gamble by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, somewhat. Sure, this needs to be done carefully. But if you are so careful that you are not doing it at all, then somebody with far less morals will do it. The Chinese are by far not the worst on the planet in that regards. And they are actually trying to help people. Not so long ago, western medicine did kill most of their patients with serious issues, but those they saved made it still worthwhile. Think surgeries with 20% survival rate, but 0% if not attempted. Biological existence sucks and it is high time that we get better control of it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Mengele experimented on healthy people that did not give consent and the experiments were not intended to help them at all.
    That is a tiny weeny bit different, but it takes two brain-cells to rub together to see that.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. Super Soldiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China will be the first country to produce genetically modified super soldiers and take over the world.

  34. Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, China was the first government to properly denounce hip-hop as music for low class people with poor taste. You can't expect them to be right on every single issue.

  35. This isn't so much about 'rules' by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    China has safety rules just like everyone else. What it is not encumbered by is an anti-technology movement with access to the court system so it can stall every project into infinity by arguing its own dystopian fears.

  36. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Mengele would have loved you.

    When you run out of arguments against something, invoke Nazism.

    Mengele did not experiment on cancerous volunteers.

  37. One Word: Thalidomide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thankfully, the FDA was slow to approve it.

  38. Re:A human life is worth less when you have a bill by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Why future? Has it ever been different?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. They're creating a race of Pigmen by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1
  40. If you're going to quote, write the actual quote by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    "Replicants are like any other machine. They're either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem." - Deckard

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  41. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. - Spock

    Is it any less creepy now? They both have a point.

  42. Communist? In what bubble?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next you'll be telling us that the USA is a democracy, and the Nazis were socialists, and the GDR was both, btw!

    China is approaching the logical conclusion of what would happen, if you gave an oligarchy a so-called "free market".
    A walking-over-dead-bodies hypercapitalist monopoly.
    The difference is, tha China's leaders care more about their power conformism penises than their money penises, like it would be in the USA.

  43. Don't forget: *Actually* nuked two cities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only country in world history, evil (and deluded) enough, to ever even consider this for non-end-of-the-world situations.

    And that whole supporting the Nazis in order to make a profit off of them before,and hiring all the Nazi scientist and concentration camp doctors after the war, to continue with human experiments and developing WMDs.
    Plus the fact that the USA still has several well-known literal actual concentration camps / gulags around the world. (Aka "black sites"), and likely more still secret ones.

    And with both so-called parties being extemist

  44. (continued) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... fundamentailst extremist right-wingers,

    the logical observation is, that the USA is the surviving one, of the two major Nazi states!

  45. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From an amoral utilitarian point of view one could easily argue that Mengele knew his victims would not make it alive either way so the best outcome for all was to advance science and benefit the most at their cost.

  46. Re:Some Dare Call It Treason by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Utilitarian viewpoints usually fall short. This one did too. As a result of his actions a lot of research was later not conducted when it actually could have done with reasonable cost/benefit to all involved.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  47. I've got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Trump is really good at picking experts and hiring people, he should hire the Chinese to build his wall since they have so much experience in that area.