My understanding is that they were embryos from HIV infected parents, so they had very little chance of avoiding infection during birth. His argument is that their chances of survival were already so low, there’s little harm that could be done if the treatment wasn’t effective.
I feel the need to point out that almost no babies get HIV from their mother as long as the mother is being successfully treated with anti retroviral medication.
The linked Wikipedia article says only their fathers were HIV-positive, and typically that wouldn’t lead to a parent infecting their child unless they decided to share needles etc.
Sequence them; he was bashing in a gene that we already know conveys HIV resistance (but not complete immunity), the ∆32 mutation. If sequencing shows that the babies have the mutation, and also don’t have any other negative mutations as a result of the experiment, then it was successful.
Making them resistant to HIV. How does he test it whether they actually are…?
My understanding is that they were embryos from HIV infected parents, so they had very little chance of avoiding infection during birth. His argument is that their chances of survival were already so low, there’s little harm that could be done if the treatment wasn’t effective.
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the circumstances. It puts stuff in a different perspective.
I feel the need to point out that almost no babies get HIV from their mother as long as the mother is being successfully treated with anti retroviral medication.
The linked Wikipedia article says only their fathers were HIV-positive, and typically that wouldn’t lead to a parent infecting their child unless they decided to share needles etc.
Sequence them; he was bashing in a gene that we already know conveys HIV resistance (but not complete immunity), the ∆32 mutation. If sequencing shows that the babies have the mutation, and also don’t have any other negative mutations as a result of the experiment, then it was successful.
That ‘and also’ is the hard one to be sure about.