Slashdot Mirror


China Halts Work by Team on Gene-Edited Babies (apnews.com)

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. AP reports: 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. His experiment "crossed the line of morality and ethics adhered to by the academic community and was shocking and unacceptable," Xu said. A group of leading scientists gathered in Hong Kong this week for an international conference on gene editing, the ability to rewrite the code of life to try to correct or prevent diseases.

80 comments

  1. China Coverup On Fake Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cat almost got out of the bag here that CHINA LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING.

    1. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by Megol · · Score: 1

      Yes China is just one person.
      Fake science is everywhere, false claims are made everywhere* - but only the one Chinese (only one of those remember) is relevant for our brave AC.

      (* Favorite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )

    2. Re: China Coverup On Fake Science by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      Did your social credit score go up defending China's face?

    3. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Fake science is everywhere, false claims are made everywhere*

      Yes, fake science occurs everywhere, but not at the same levels. I have lived in China, and I am married to a Chinese woman, and I can tell you that lying and deception is far more tolerated in their culture than it is in America.

      (* Favorite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )

      Poor example. This was a Japanese researcher who's fraud was exposed by Japan's own scientific community. Their internal system fixed the problem.

      That happens less frequently in China, where fraud is often only exposed when the claims are big enough to draw international scrutiny. And even then, China will make a show of punishing the one offender, often harshly, rather than reforming the system.

    4. Re: China Coverup On Fake Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I bet they would love to be able to build good chinese citizens that follow the standard determined by china

      Germany would have loved that option back when... you know

    5. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Lying is fine, _everywhere_.

      Lying badly and getting caught has a social cost, everywhere.

      Peer review is supposed to catch liars, but when nobody reads 75% of papers...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lying badly and getting caught has a social cost, everywhere.

      Not really. China is a low trust society. Chinese people don't trust each other, they expect others to try to cheat them, and if they think they can get away with cheating others, they are often willing to try.

      But this also means that dishonesty is so widespread that they have no choice but to tolerate it. If an employee is fired every time they are caught lying/cheating/stealing, the company will soon have no workers and be out of business. So instead, they use one of two solutions: 1) Hire only your own family. This is common in China, and is a reason why they have many many tiny companies, a few gigantic SOEs, and almost nothing in between. 2) Have excessive cross checks and controls. In many Chinese department stores, a checker totals up your items and bags them, then gives you a receipt, and then you go to a separate cashier desk to actually pay. This way the owner has to trust or monitor only the one cashier, and not the six checkers.

    7. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't trust my fellow Americans or Germans (dual citizen).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't trust my fellow Americans or Germans (dual citizen).

      Do you buy products without opening the box first to see if it is full of sawdust?

      Do you wear a knapsack on your back in a crowd, rather than shifting it around to your chest so no one slices the bottom with a razor?

      Do you share information with your co-workers, even when you are not required to do so?

      Do you feed your baby domestically produced baby formula?

      If you do any of these things, then you trust your fellow citizens more than Chinese do.

    9. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes to two of those. The one about buying products and being cheated though, I see as a consumer issue that hopefully will be resolved soon as China feel they can trust private contracts and the law more. Moreover I believe the trust issue descends mainly from China being a very poor country not too long ago, rather than something inherit in their culture.

    10. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Not really. China is a low trust society.

      That is a piece of information I have never heard of before. I clicked the link and found a very short Wikipedia article. None of the sources were websites. All of the information came from these things called "books". I guess I will have to go visit the keeper of the books at that place we used to go to before the internet. I forget what it's called.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    11. Re: China Coverup On Fake Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... b-ok.org also has some books.

    12. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      The main cause of low trust in a society is that competition is high. China has 1.4 billion people and many are still poor. There are over 7 million college graduates every year.

      You can compare their trust level to that of the Americans before the 1930's.

    13. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      One more to add to your list:

      Have you ever been sold fake eggs before?

    14. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In many Chinese department stores, a checker totals up your items and bags them, then gives you a receipt, and then you go to a separate cashier desk to actually pay. This way the owner has to trust or monitor only the one cashier, and not the six checkers.
      In Thailand is it the opposite way around, you pay and get the stuff bagged and get a recipe.
      In the exit area your bags are checked versus the recipe ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by mentil · · Score: 1

      That's nothing, I was given fake water once. The label clearly said 'water' but it obviously tasted, looked and smelled exactly like urine.
      Last time I grab a bottle of water on a roadtrip after being told to "use this".

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    16. Re:China Coverup On Fake Science by mentil · · Score: 1

      Legend has it that amazon.com used to sell books, aeons ago.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  2. Ooops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't vet their research and conduct with the Party before publicly announcing it?

    I mean I have no doubt China is doing this as a skunkworks project anyway, but the party's outward appearance is important to it, and seeming amoral/unethic is frowned upon. Having said all this, I can't help but believe the Chinese government is working on its own eugenics program, even if they refuse to publicly disclose it. The Mandarins and others want both their own superior genes as well as their docile and obedient Han laborers in the best condition to maximize their benefit for a minimum of capital or chance of political unrest.

    1. Re:Ooops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody wants AIDS so it is unlikely we’ll know if this was effective. They know that. So probably a scam.

      Instead, just make a Chinese baby with blue eyes. Boom verified experiment.

    2. Re:Ooops? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Even Soviet Russiaâ(TM) didn't have 100% control of different internal development, China isn't even close to that in the first place. Think capitalism under the watchful eyes of dear leader Xi Jinping.

    3. Re:Ooops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're dumb AF if you think Planned Economics = Free market economics.

    4. Re: Ooops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has neither, they have a mixed economy. What's your point?

  3. Can you spot the Chinese cow in this herd? by olsmeister · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Can you spot the Chinese cow in this herd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Chinese, Knickers is from Australia.

    2. Re:Can you spot the Chinese cow in this herd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. all the cows look the same.

      impressive bull though

    3. Re:Can you spot the Chinese cow in this herd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Chinese, Knickers is from Australia.

      Knick(er)s, aren't they from New York?

  4. Missed Opportunity... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    I thought the lure of research in China was lack of oversight. If you can't conduct an ethically questionable scientific study there, what's the point?

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Missed Opportunity... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Lack of oversight as long as you don't attract too much attention. The idiot at the head of the team decided to start giving interviews that made international news.

      Not sure if he was that stupid in things outside his field or realised that he's got too much publicity already and was trying to sell his project to party leadership before he was inevitably going to get shut down by party apparatus clamping down on his "actions that are damaging harmony in society".

    2. Re:Missed Opportunity... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You can do ethically questionable studies. You just cannot make the state look bad, lessen state control over the populace, or make the state weaker. If you publish a report that makes the state look bad internationally (we're making super-babies) you'll get smacked down.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Missed Opportunity... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How do you come to the idea that a totalitarian state has "lack of oversight"?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  5. Off target effects by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 1

    That's good to hear. I'm as concerned as anyone about the eugenics/GATTACA angle of this, but on a more immediate note, I think the potential off target effects are of ethical concern as well. If you're making a gene edited plant and you accidentally change something else that has a deleterious effect, who cares? Toss that plant and try again. In an animal model, if that happens and is causing undue problems, euthanizing the animal is an option.

    But in humans? You get one shot, and it better work exactly right the first time. I'm all for gene editing, but even without the wide arching societal concerns, I don't think the technology is even close to using on humans at this time. Gene editing gets hyped up a lot, but there are still problems to be worked out when it comes to the actual practical application of the technology.

    1. Re:Off target effects by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      That's good to hear. I'm as concerned as anyone about the eugenics/GATTACA angle of this, but on a more immediate note, I think the potential off target effects are of ethical concern as well. If you're making a gene edited plant and you accidentally change something else that has a deleterious effect, who cares? Toss that plant and try again. In an animal model, if that happens and is causing undue problems, euthanizing the animal is an option.

      But in humans? You get one shot, and it better work exactly right the first time. I'm all for gene editing, but even without the wide arching societal concerns, I don't think the technology is even close to using on humans at this time. Gene editing gets hyped up a lot, but there are still problems to be worked out when it comes to the actual practical application of the technology.

      Perhaps it's also a matter of pride. Sure the technology is cool, but you don't want the world to believe that "your best of the best" are genetically engineered humans and not natural talent. (after all, Asians generally do quite well on those "education tests" that show which countries' students are the smartest of the lot, or educated, or whatever. Whether or not it's a valid test (North American generally only does "OK", behind Europe, Eastern Europe and Asia) is a question for another day).

      Last thing anyone would want is to have the world believe that your students are "smart" because you've genetically engineered them to be so and that among people of "natural birth" they don't do so well. In other words, to make their students appear better, China cheated.

    2. Re:Off target effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is going to care though. If a competitive advantage can be obtained by genetically engineering babies, then someone is going to do it to the detriment of everyone else. An ethical framework doesn't do one much good if you lose. At this point the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back, I'd prefer it if my side developed super soldiers and super intelligence first.

    3. Re:Off target effects by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Once human genetic engineering become possible, a few hundred years in the future this kind of ethics will be the ethics held by those who will be known as "ancient ancestors that went extinct under competitive pressure with us".

      Which is why anyone with interest in continuation of their lineage will now be pouring resources into it.

      Most people living their comfortable lives in Western cities tend to forget something that everyone else remains acutely aware of. Evolution hasn't stopped. It's chugging on. And there's nothing as powerful as complacency to select one's tribe from gene pool.

    4. Re:Off target effects by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Toss that plant and try again.

      So long as the gene doesn't spreads to the nearby plants, which we now know can happen like Glyphosate resistance did.

    5. Re:Off target effects by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 1

      When I say toss, I mean 'properly dispose of' as in autoclave. Not literally throw outside.

      But just FYI, glyphosate resistance didn't spread to nearby plants from the transgenic ones, it evolved in them. Selection pressure from continued spraying of glyphosate promoted the evolution of resistant weeds, which then had an advantage due to selection pressure, so they proliferated. I get what you're talking about, but that's not how it happened.

    6. Re:Off target effects by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Look how common myopia in vision is now, whereas before it would have been a deadly flaw for our ancestors and thus there was a strong selective pressure against it. Even though we now we can wear glasses, (a prosthesis) or undergo surgery to correct for it, this should be unnecessary.

      This superstition and resistance to improve the human condition at the genetic level reminds me of how blood-letting was once seen as a practical medical cure. Yes every precaution and great consideration should be made in the methods, but to condemn gene mods entirely as 'unethical'? Might as well say it conjures demons.

      Even just looking past an individual parent's desire for their offspring to have the best possible advantages, imagine what our world might be like if the average IQ was just 20 points higher. That alone is worth some risks.

    7. Re:Off target effects by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Fun part about your analogy. World average IQ is in fact about 20 points higher than it was about a hundred years ago. Biggest suppressing element on IQ until modernity was childhood starvation.

      We still have the test cases in places like Malawi, where children were starving just a few decades ago. And now, they have a severe problem with competitiveness of work force against surrounding states, because those that were starving but survived as children have problems even at rudimentary tasks like doing housework due to depressed intelligence and are measurably lower on IQ scale on average than people of surrounding nations.

      It's utterly crippling on civilizational scale, and that's how our ancestors were on average just a century or two ago. Perhaps genetic engineering will be the second "removal of childhood starvation" level of civilizational advancement in our lifetimes.

    8. Re:Off target effects by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      Researcher He Jiankui claims to have altered the DNA of the twins to try to make them resistant to infection with the AIDS virus.

      So how are they going to test this? Expose them to HIV?

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    9. Re:Off target effects by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      imagine what our world might be like if the average IQ was just 20 points higher. That alone is worth some risks.
      From an ethical point of view: that only means, the psychopaths in business and government have a stronger grip on the less priviledged, those with less IQ.

      The ethical question is: do you want gene editing on perfect healthy embryos? Why? Is the edited gene transferred to off springs? What is better: if it is, or if it is not?

      Do you want to be dependent in future generations on elite doctors performing the editing? How do you control them? Will there be a black market (well, if you ban it, then most definitely)? If there are government regulation, will it spiral into a GATACA world?

      Higher IQ does not mean much. E.g. you don't win a chess game because your IQ is higher. You win it because you know more about chess than the other guy, or are mental more stable and make less mistakes.

      Or lets go to computer science ... a higher IQ nearly means nothing if you don't have a grasp about architectures or many other things, simplified: if you want to repeat the mistakes of people before you instead of learning from them first, your IQ helps you nothing.

      Anyway, the problems with gene editing will be how to integrate it into society. And I doubt countries that have no affordable healthcare will have a good path for it. Some have not even a way to handle abortions in a peaceful way.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Off target effects by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But just FYI, glyphosate resistance didn't spread to nearby plants from the transgenic ones, it evolved in them.
      How do you know that?

      We know since the 1930s that horizontal gene transfer between plants does exist.

      it evolved in them. Selection pressure from continued spraying of glyphosate promoted the evolution of resistant weeds
      How do you know that?

      Watched them evolving?

      I get what you're talking about, but that's not how it happened.
      Sorry, the likelihood that your parent is right, is probably a million times higher than your point of view.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Off target effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. We need Human Genetic Engineering! Correcting the hideous genetic diseases that we have is the first step to ensure our species survives in the environment we have already created for ourselves.

    12. Re:Off target effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking idiot.

    13. Re:Off target effects by spth · · Score: 1

      Expose some of their blood to HIV in a (sealed so no air gets in) petri dish.

    14. Re:Off target effects by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah... IIRC, HIV lives partly in various types of white blood cells and their helpers - it is like malware hiding in your anti-virus software.

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    15. Re:Off target effects by mentil · · Score: 1

      They don't vaccinate babies either, to prove how strong their immune systems are, right? No? This is no different.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    16. Re:Off target effects by mentil · · Score: 1

      They were given a gene that's been studied for decades and is known to confer HIV resistance. If they're confirmed to have the gene, then experiment successful. A bigger question is if they're chimeras, with some of their cells having the gene and others not, in which case HIV could infect the cells that don't, thus leading to AIDS anyway.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    17. Re:Off target effects by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Perhaps genetic engineering will be the second "removal of childhood starvation" level of civilizational advancement in our lifetimes.

      Interesting point, thank you.

      So far in my lifetime I've seen the rise of the internet and telecommunications. Now it is common for even gradeschool children to carry incredibly compact and powerful multi-function computers that can utilize the global data infrastructure for instantaneous communication. Further societal changes due to rapid onset of technological development in the next several decades doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

      It's actually a cause for a bit of hope.

    18. Re:Off target effects by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      From an ethical point of view: that only means, the psychopaths in business and government have a stronger grip on the less priviledged, those with less IQ.

      At first, sure that is a risk. What do we know about technologies as they mature and become subject to market pressures?

      The ethical question is: do you want gene editing on perfect healthy embryos? Why? Is the edited gene transferred to off springs? What is better: if it is, or if it is not?

      How that research itself is done ethically is the greater issue. Everything else amounts to putting the cart before the horse.

      However, the choice to remain captive to the biology of natural evolution is illogical, when we are no longer subject to normal evolutionary pressures. As products of evolution ourselves there must exist potential for improvement.

      For example, let's say that in order to help ensure our survival as a species we want to colonize low-g environments. The ability to genetically engineer solutions to the associated health risks, and ensure offspring carry those traits, would be prudent and necessary towards that goal. Erecting barriers based on ethical and moral grounds would be moronic.

      As for IQ, if you don't believe that heightened intelligence allows for better capacity for learning, problem solving and critical thinking ability, then there is nothing I can say.

    19. Re:Off target effects by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      As for IQ, if you don't believe that heightened intelligence allows for better capacity for learning,
      Yes, it does. But it does not mean the person in question is actually learning something.

      problem solving and critical thinking ability,
      As long as they have not learned 'problem solving', or 'critical thinking': no.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  6. fake news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even though it's probably fake news you still have to treat such tabloid stories the same way men in black would. You know it's probably related to modern take on tales about pioneers, settlers, exploration of remote lands, etc.. You know where natives and locals succumb to diseases introduced by old world landed gentry following orders of the new world. In this case concept of editing the DNA and existence of AIDS virus serve as fictional levers. You know they are not lying. The girls will be able to resist this virus since it doesn't exists. they will no longer be targeted by narratives of it.

  7. Demographics engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Social engineering is a hobby of the Left but they may not appreciate this level of engineering when considering all the possibilities it brings. For example, a homophobic state like Iran could research the "gay gene" and the phenomenon of homosexuality would be removed from the Earth in 100-200 years max.

    1. Re:Demographics engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There would have to be one first

    2. Re:Demographics engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's probably a birth defect rather than a gene tbh. how could a gene for that kind of thing possibly be widespread?

  8. Dear One by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    You're only useful to the Glory of the Leader until you aren't.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. one less scientist by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Looks like China is going to have one less scientist in the near future.

  10. Bad news for science and humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a wonderful world where to build weapons with no other usage than killing is ok but editing embryo genome at very early stage when no nervous cells is developed is forbidden. Contrary to what it said, yes, we can be sure that only the right thing is edited: just sequence the genome!

    Cystic fibrosis, Achondroplasia, Sickle-cell anemia, Huntington's disease, Wolfram syndrome and many other can be prevented for the future generation with this technique.

    F*ck you people!

    1. Re: Bad news for science and humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is bad because this is how you get

      Kkkkkhhhhhhaaaaaaannnnnnn!!!!!!

      Wrath of khan for u non- trekies

  11. wanna bet? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Chinese gov, like most gov, has little to no ethics. They made this announcement but have no doubt allowed this to continue.
    This is no different than China's gov claiming that they were stopping large numbers of new coal plants and once their bad economy turned, they restarted the projects.
    THis group will go underground. literally and figuratively, to continue this work. They are learning how to make a body resist HiV. Later on, it will be other virus, such as a synthetic smallpox. Welcome to the solution for getting the world to drop CO2.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:wanna bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agenda 21 not working out for you?

    2. Re:wanna bet? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The primary ethical principle of any state is state survival. It overrides everything else.

      That is because if you do not have survival, everything else is taken from you. This is not unique to humans, or even animals. This is a base principle of evolutionary process itself. And yes, that's one of the pathways to being the winners in the evolutionary race in the long run.

    3. Re:wanna bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > THis group will go underground. literally and figuratively, to continue this work.

      It's common knowledge that multiple countries are doing this, if people have been keeping track. This whole press frenzy speaks to testing the waters with old news.

    4. Re:wanna bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, what nations are using CRISPR to manipulate human genes? And back it up with real links.

  12. Bun in the Oven by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    Is that a bun in the oven, or a salad in the crispr?

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  13. Raelians are far ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? Raelians are already far ahead in engineering a master race.

  14. Disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if some other country won't take this on. Some day there'll be genetically engineered supersoldiers and we'll be in the corner crying about ethics.

  15. Re: More fuel for the fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, this is indisputable evidence that Smurfs created AIDS and Smurfette was patient zero. Then, our government retaliated and killed all the smurfs. You want PROOF??? Just look out your window. See any smurfs??? Didn't think so. There's your proof.

    Follow the money! Wake up people! Flush the toilet America! Who ate all my Cheetos???

  16. Code of LIfe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DNA is not the code of life. It has been talked about as it is, but it is not. DNA is one important pillar of a multi-faceted system, which includes nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), proteins, cellular functions (which contain both nucleic acids and proteins, but their configuration and interaction matter enough to call them out as a separate system), other forms of biological communication such as exosomes, neurotransmitters, etc., the microbiome...

    You could tell this was fake because claiming to make babies more powerful or stronger or resistant to disease is just impossible. Biology is an ever adapting system and you can't just add features like inserting a software module. People like to think that's how DNA works and it makes for great science fiction, but the reality of science shows that biology is a system in balance; you can't change a few base pairs like a few lines of code and alter how a creature functions.

    1. Re:Code of LIfe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can. DNA makes RNA and RNA makes proteins. Lactose intolerant people lack the digestive enzymes (proteins) required to digest milk, for instance.

  17. like most, but only bad if it's China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go troll your idiocy elsewhere.

  18. Because it is unlikely this even happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their own university has distanced themselves. Now their government just wants to shutdown the story.

  19. sure by sad_ · · Score: 1

    they may say one thing, and do another.
    as if china isn't massivly interested in developing this (well, probably not only china).

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.