I doubt it has anything to do with him. My comment was in reference to the context of the post, whereby medical experimentation on humans is being regarded as progress and being held back by ethics.

it aint luck. he did it right

You could make the same argument about any experimental medical intervention in a child’s life

Yup, and there's even ethics review boards convened solely to analyze that argument with the particulars of a case and rule whether the treatment is okay to go ahead. This guy played god without approval from this review process and deserved the time served.

Unfortunately, research on prisoners and concentration camp victims did produce new valuable medical information.

Most of the field of gynecology is based on experiments done on women slaves, where the "doctors" decided their victims conveniently didn't have nerve endings.

Ethics throttles research.

But I am aghast at the thought that we should permit unethical research in the pursuit of, at the end of the day, greed.

And I say this as a professional scientist.

I can't believe this conversation is even necessary.

This is obvious though

currently, you might test a drug on mice, then on primates, and finally on humans (as an example). It would be faster to skip the early bits and go straight to human testing.

...but that is very, very, very wrong. Science of course doesn't care about right and wrong, nor does it care if you "believe" in it, which is the beautiful thing about science

so a scientifically sound experiment is a scientifically sound experiment regardless of ethical considerations. (Which does not mean we should be doing it of course!)

Now, taking a step back, maybe you're right that, in the long run, throwing ethics out the window would actually slow things down, as it would (rightfully) cause backlash. But that's getting into a whole "sociology of science" discussion.

Many kinds of early-in-life medical interventions can have permanent negative effects if they go bad, but nonetheless our ethical standards don't preclude them. This is a field where the ethical standards are suffocatingly high without good reason. As an aside, we should consider euthanizing newborns who suffer debilitatingly severe negative side effects due to any kind of failed medical intervention (with parental consent, of course). This will directly improve quality-of-life standards and also allow us to lower ethical standards on experimental treatments too.

Also i havent researched the validity of the ivf not allowed in china stuff, but I don't consider it a bad thing He giving the parents an avenue to a hivfree child when they otherwise are assumed 'too poor' to be able to do it. In fact that totally matches his statements about cures should not be paywalled; and i agree with him. Good thing for the families he was doing this experiment. Now they can have an hiv free child where they couldn't before.

and those arent even the most aggressive articles. Anyway, for people reading, there are many contradictory parts of He's case depending where you look.

thanks i agree i had the 'kids would have been born with hiv otherwise with no alternative' part wrong. good correction. I have edited my comment accordingly. He removed the Hiv with one procedure and immunized with the other.

heres a much less biased telling of events. No it doesnt 100% support He being a saint. it isnt that biased nontrustable trash tho "As the couples listened and flipped through the forms, occasionally asking questions, two witnesses—one American, the other Chinese—observed. Another lab member shot video, which Science has seen, of part of the 50-minute meeting. He had recruited those couples because the husbands were living with HIV infections kept under control by antiviral drugs. The IVF procedure would use a reliable process called sperm washing to remove the virus before insemination, so father-to-child transmission was not a concern. Rather, He sought couples who had endured HIV-related stigma and discrimination and wanted to spare their children that fate by dramatically reducing their risk of ever becoming infected.

He, who for much of his brief career had specialized in sequencing DNA, offered a potential solution: CRISPR, the genome-editing tool that was revolutionizing biology, could alter a gene in IVF embryos to cripple production of an immune cell surface protein, CCR5, that HIV uses to establish an infection. "This technique may be able to produce an IVF baby naturally immunized against AIDS," one consent form read."

funny how things can look so different according to what side u are on. tho im not even going for pro He articles, just neutral or interviews. As far as your hostile ones where they weaponize anything they can... (reminds me of politics) the part I find sillyest is when they complain how He only successfully did the full mutation to one girl so the other may not be immunized. Like it's bad he did it but also bad he didnt do it enough. lol. its exactly like politics.