#Julian thinking to himself 'is this ethical? is it right to train him to do behaviours subconsciously using rewards?'

[nightingalesails]

Julian inventing clicker training specifically for Avra

Avra would be more upset about it if he didn't get treats out of it

[subatoism]

So obviously we all recognize the glaring problems with “Chrysalis” re: medical ethics and Julian’s “I can fix her” complex in general, but honestly I’m very interested in examining the context in which all this takes place.

Like, let’s start with Julian’s background, right? He has been forced to walk this tightrope wire of “be normal but also The Best but not so much that people will get suspicious” since he was seven years old (even though he didn’t even know Why until he was fifteen). He has been masking— and living in fear of the consequences if he doesn’t— for literally two decades. The way he’s been trained to see it, there are “normal” people who are allowed to be free and “abnormal” people who are a threat to society and need to be kept locked up. His entire life depends on him remaining in the former category.

Then, we come to “Statistical Probabilities.” For the first time, Julian gets an opportunity to interact with other augments— ones whom, he has been told, fit solidly in the “abnormal” category— and the only way he can get to engage with them is by taking on the responsibility of “helping” them move to the “normal” category, like himself. There was always going to be a conflict of interest here. The doctor-patient relationship was always going to be destabilized by the situation Julian is being put in. How can he “treat” these people when, spending time with them, he finds that he can finally let the mask slip a little? That being “abnormal” doesn’t make one monstrous, doesn’t mean one has to be alone and miserable?

But, of course, the episode ends with a rather jarring reminder to Julian that he can’t let his guard down that way, can’t forget all the social rules that he has to play by if he wants to keep his Starfleet medical career (or even if he wants to avoid being institutionalized himself). I mean, I’m not saying I agreed that surrendering to the Dominion was the correct choice— Julian was right when he reminded Jack that statistics can’t account for every factor— but that doesn’t mean that considering surrender as an option, or even vehemently believing it’s the right one, is some sort of… moral lapse or cognitive distortion.

And yet, in “Inquisition,” Sloan refers to the events of “Statistical Probabilities” as a mistake (and Sisko agrees that it was poor judgment) on Julian’s part, which like… what exactly did Julian do wrong? He connected with the other Augments. He recommended surrender to the Dominion. He raised his voice at Sisko. He implied to Miles that he (Miles) was less intelligent (which, while not very kind, felt like an important moment of acknowledgment for Julian of the truth he’s had to hide his whole life: that he’s an Augment, and not just on paper. It’s not just the fact of his time on Adigeon Prime that makes him “different” from his peers; it’s the reality he lives every day, the way his mind works. He is literally a genius, by whatever standardized metric by which the Federation measures intelligence).

So, anyway, I imagine that a slap on the wrist for “acting out,” followed later by an interrogation and accusation of treason grounded almost solely in his Augment status (and sympathy for the other Augments, as well as the also-genetically-engineered Jem’hadar) might very well serve to reinforce old fears about the consequences of not conforming, and bring back into focus this internalized dichotomy of “normal” vs “abnormal.”

I think this, more than anything, is what we’re seeing in “Chrysalis”. When, after the treatment enables her to speak, Sarina shows herself able to interact with Julian’s neurotypical/non-Augment friends according to their social norms, he sees this as evidence that she can be “normal” like him (and unlike Jack and the others). She doesn’t “belong” in the Institute like they do (side note: I hated hearing him say that to them, even if I understand the psychology behind it). Julian confesses to Miles that he’s been dreaming of finding another “normal” Augment his whole life— someone who could understand him in a way others can’t, and yet alongside whom he could continue to participate in “society”.

Now, of COURSE it isn’t fair to put all that on Sarina; the situation was badly handled on several levels. But, again, these two could never have had a normal Doctor-patient relationship. There was no version of this that wouldn’t have been messy and morally complicated. Because Julian has never had the resources to address his own issues, and (consciously or not) he needs the other Augments emotionally/psychologically in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with having medical authority over them. The results were, while intensely frustrating, probably inevitable.

[jvlicns]

julian amante , twenty - three , cis male , THE TOWER .

amusing , candid , resourceful , petty , cataclysmic , arrogant.

first of all HELLO !! im z. 25 / she+her / pst. im thrilled to be here and honestly a little shocked ?? my app was a rushed MESS but im so happy the admins understood my nonsense !! 

this is going to be a lil long so pls bear w me. im going to break it down into sections and eventually make an entire bio , but this will do in the mean time !

connections are here , & my discord is zvvf#1885 ! 

* tw for mention of drugs & alcohol

. . .

TAROT ━

the tower represents chaos , destruction , & upheaval. this change is usually sudden & unexpected -- & not always good. the tower itself is a symbol of ambition , but in this card we see it built on faulty premises & false beliefs , all of which are no longer useful.

the ruin of the tower is inevitable -- necessary for growth & groundbreaking renewal. it’s time to break out of the old ways.

AESTHETICS ━

cracked asphalt , bloody knuckles , tangerine sunsets. the smell of freshly cut grass . still , slow mornings. a neat row of fire ants , climbing up your bedroom wall. broken stained glass , an overgrown field. tears of laughter , the only you’ll ever shed. 

money in a yellow envelope , guilt in your eyes , pressed flowers , a string quartet , corruption , loss of morals , student debt , a yellow light , darkness , hellfire.

THOUGHTS ━

" you’ve got your orders & that’s enough. you don’t know who’s telling you to throw your classmates off the scent , but you’re getting paid to do it. maybe your moral compass would stop you if you didn’t struggle so much in the financial department , but hey. you’re doing what you have to do to survive. if only you didn’t have to go against your better judgment for it. "

GENERAL ━

assigned to REYNOLDS house 

fourth year -- senior .

currently working at the corner store as a cashier .

scholarship student -- 2.3 average gpa .

athlete , st. cade’s lacrosse team .

BACKGROUND ━

grew up in a small town in arizona , in one of those unfinished suburbs that ran out of funding halfway through a government project to “ upgrade ” that was met with widespread disapproval. it’s all empty pools & dirt lawns , a patchwork neighborhood of old houses mixed in with the new. 

former golden boy who peaked in high school : star athlete , prom king , voted best smile. eternally toeing the line between CHAMPION  & DIRTBAG.

well - liked , but known for being something of a hell - raiser. out every night , hungover every morning. it was less obvious back then -- he could easily brush it off as simple youthful rebellion , rather than a real personality defect.

his first taste of alcohol was in seventh grade. a summer night , with the sun retiring for the day but leaving her kiss on the still - warm pavement. his world -- previously filled with sunday school , tense family dinners , & 24 hour marathons of professional passive aggression , was forever changed. finally , the boredom slipped away. & not just that ! this was actually FUN. 

but for someone with zero impulse control . . . a door opened , & he never managed to close it.

from a young age , his parents were always involved in the church. they attended every sunday , no excuses. 

this lapsed as the years passed & the amante family found it more & more unpleasant to be in the same room together , but his parent’s beliefs never wavered. religion was used as a weapon in their home -- to shame & guilt. they claimed love , preached tolerance. what they practiced , however , was the opposite. as he grew older , julian managed to weasel his way out of most of their theological outings. he gained some freedom , in addition to the ire of his family. their disappointment in him grew from a tiny acorn to a mighty oak.

his parents had their own issues , long before julian came along. a marriage between two irreconcilable people. the love they should have shared mutated into something twisted , something that they could give only to their son. it was enough for them to feed him , clothe him , & put a roof over his head. anything else was simply asking too much. 

despite coming from a low - income family , things have never been particularly DIFFICULT for him. sure , they struggled. he’s lost count of the times the power got shut off , or the water. but julian was the type of kid who could charm teachers into bumping his grade up to a 71% , despite the dozens of half - finished assignments & failed tests. he didn’t really have to try -- they just wanted to help him. ( pity , perhaps ? he turns a blind eye )

he coasted through school. one of those natural athletes that coaches & admin treat like celebrities , focusing all their attention on a teenager they have high hopes for. higher hopes than he had for himself , in fact. 

julian never had dreams , not a plan for his future. all that stubborn arrogance fooled them : he’s spent the better part of the past seven years stalling. cutting corners & taking shortcuts , desperately avoiding reality.

he never expected to even leave his hometown , let along attend a prestigious college on a full ride lacrosse scholarship. somehow , he played enough games & passed enough classes to qualify for an opportunity that would pluck him from his sad , tragic storyline & deposit him on a shiny path to success. a fresh start. 

he didn’t want to go. fought endlessly about it with his parents , his friends , himself. his place wasn’t at some hoity - toity school , surrounded by do - gooders & the conscientious. julian may have a knack for delusion , for spinning a story that suits him in whatever moment is passing. but he’s smart enough knows what his future holds : drinking himself to an early death in the very house he was born in. you can’t fight fate -- but you can surely postpone it.

in the end , it’s the boredom that convinces him. he’s said & done just about everything he can here , exhausted all the options he cares to consider. made plenty of enemies , as well as friends. built & burnt bridges. 

the expectation of his teachers , his parents , were choking him. it’s foolish to think that this might be the way out – he’ll never change. but why not have some fun , while he’s still here ?

st.cade’s was a treasure trove for julian , filled with endless opportunities to amuse himself. despite his placement in reynold’s house & the mandatory church shit ( a part of his scholarship’s stipulations ) , it hasn’t been bad. another social scene for him to invade , conquests to be had , fights to provoke. the first few years were amazing : an intoxicated blur of his own little slice of this world. 

he lives in the moment , greedily gathering every experience he can. nodding off in class , smoking behind the greenhouse , collecting all the free alcohol he manages to sniff out.

he’s learned this : a loud laugh & bravado can get you far. but now , his actions have finally caught up with him. the school is threatening to terminate his scholarship , to pack up his bags & send him on the first train home. & while he has no idea what to do , he knows he can’t go back. god , no. 

even without what’s keeping him – the enticing mystery of helena’s disappearance , his friends , his freedom. he just can’t stand to go in reverse ; it would mean facing the consequences of every mistake he’s ever made ( & there are quite a few ! ) 

he’s a shark – he has to keep moving. 

that first letter came soon after the school - wide assembly. small , neat type. direct. there was no mincing words , the sender made it perfectly clear : this is his only option. if he wants to maintain this lifestyle , this is the way. so he burns the letters , following their instructions. almost relieved to be given direction. it’s a respite in the current disarray – something he used to enjoy , but now just feels exhausting. he’s the band , humming away as the titanic sinks. not my business , he thinks. but he’ll drown all the same.

PERSONALITY ━

he’s an asshole but a F U N asshole -- that makes it palatable , right ?? 

not a dumbass , but the lack of impulse control + arrogance could have fooled me ! his intelligence is only hinted at , invisible unless you’re looking : reciting keats from memory , listing off all 79 of jupiter’s moons. remnants of past & fleeting obsessions.

 has to actively undermine his own common sense -- for the laughs , of course !

selfish ; his needs & wants come before anyone else’s. a childish habit , yes , but one he’s been unable to break. ( not that he’s tried )

vacillates between aloof & dramatic. you can count on him to stir some shit up -- he adores chaos & just can’t keep his mouth shut. petty , to a fault.

he’s hot - shit & he knows it ; well aware of his pretty face & statuesque build. julian’s never been afraid of using it to his advantage , or even just reminding anyone around him of just how cute he is. ( listen up 5′s , a 10 is speaking ! )

 has a strong aversion to authority. “ don’t tell me what to do ! ” . . . * quietly takes your advice when you’re not looking * . . .

the good parts of him are buried deep. his loyalty , his gentleness. a warm heart that can easily empathize , but chooses not to. julians pursuit of superficial gratification blinds him , warping his reflection like a funhouse mirror.

aggressive & unrelenting. this could be channeled into something of a work ethic , if he cared enough. instead , he uses it to get what he wants. whatever that might be.

curious as a cat with nine lives , he won’t hesitate to ask the question everyone’s thinking. that bluntness is almost appealing , as long as it’s not directed at you. this makes him somewhat of a good listener , even if he’s only paying attention to satisfy his own nosiness. 

he’ll literally fight for the ones he loves. there aren’t many of them , but the sentiment stands. years of sports have taught him the value of teamwork , & he has yet to shake it. once you endear yourself to him , there’s no going back.

despite everything , julian manages to be a charismatic little firebrand. he’ll guarantee a good time , he just won’t help clean up the mess.

FUN FACTS ━

can fit his entire fist in his mouth

has The Loudest Sneeze Of All Time

once bit into an apple n saw a WORM inside so now he hates apples w a passion

right handed , but taught himself to be ambidextrous during the summer between fifth & sixth grade

promptly forgot he was ambidextrous & never uses his left hand

has surprisingly neat handwriting

can fall asleep ANYWHERE

likes country music ( will never admit it , tho )

his mother used to read him poetry , so he’s lowkey Very Into It

can’t carry a tune for shit , & his impressions are a w f u l. his british accent is just a cheap dick van dyke imitation , & his australian accent is what the british one SHOULD be

[autisticandroids]

DS9 for the fandom ask

The first character I first fell in love with:

okay so storytime: i actually watched ds9 out of order, because when i’m at home i mostly watch trek with my parents. we were running out of good tng, and mum and dad were like “hey, everyone likes ds9 even though we hated it back when it aired, let’s watch it” and i was like “nooooooo, dataaaaaa” and they were like “we’re watching it.”

so we watched emissary and they were like “this sucks” and i was like “but i heard worf is there in later seasons let’s jump” and so i picked a random middle season and that’s how i started ds9 with season five.

anyway, the first character i really fell in love with was odo, oddly enough. or rather, not oddly at all because he is superficially smack dab in the middle of my Ideal Character Type, but i later got quite disillusioned with him because of the show’s uncritical attitude towards his Police-ness, the way he is set up as a Protagonist of the show instead of the lovable quirky side-boy, and his conspicuous lack of gender complexity (he is the most comfortably masculine of the spocks, and it’s a symptom of ds9′s uncritical valorization of masculinity, degradation of femininity, and specifically villification of male femininity)

The character I never expected to love as much as I do now: 

okay so there are three answers to this that each deserve equal space.

first, ben. ben ben ben ben ben. my love, whom i adore, and care very much about. it took me so long to understand him.

i spent the first maybe..... two months? of watching ds9 ranting at my mother for three hours a day about how benjamin sisko had the possibility to be such a good character with so much potential if he wasn’t so INCONSISTENTLY WRITTEN. i really couldn’t understand him. i wanted to love him but i couldn’t get inside his head. i spent all of my time wishing that he’d been better written so i could have the character i wanted him to be

this has a lot to do with the fact that i need to understand a character’s ethical system, why they follow it, and what efects it has on them to really understand a character, especially in a series as driven by ethical dilemmas as star trek. most characters i get get a read on it fairly quickly. to use the other two characters i’m about to list here, julian bashir is an idealist, in a way that’s rooted in a combination of naivete and his raging god/hero complex. elim garak has no morality, just a system of loyalties that he will follow to the death, and a sense of propriety based on rather conservative cardassian ideals; this has a lot to do with his tendency to dehumanize other people, and to not see himself as a person with agency but rather as a tool, as well as his rather uncritical patriotism.

anyway, i just could not figure out captain sisko. i couldn’t do it. and then i read hollow men, and it all slid into place.

the funniest running gag/plot point in hollow men (which takes place directly after in the pale moonlight, an episode which i fumed about for WEEKS after watching it) is ben sisko going around to approximately every member of starfleet who outranks him and begging them to yell at and punish him. and none of them will do it, because he did, you know, actually do the right thing.

before this, i had assumed that his ethical beliefs had been carelessly and inconsistently written. after, i realized that he was actually a hypocrite, of a very particular type. specifically, three things are true about his worldview/psychology and they’re totally incompatible. first, he truly, genuinely believes that a Good Starfleet Officer is a Moral Paragon of Perfect Idealistic Purity. second, he is a pragmatist who will always, in the end, do what needs doing. but third, most importantly: he needs to believe that he is a Good Starfleet Officer. this is why he is always so surprised at himself when he must Do Something Bad, and yet always so willing to do it. why it always throws him into a crisis. he has to lie to himself about things in order to function. he’s also incapable of maintaining a healthy level of detachment from affairs at hand, even though in the end he will generally make the right decision. he gets very emotionally involved in things, in all sorts of way: he holds a personal grudge against eddington. he gets angry at garak at the end of in the pale moonlight. hell, he gets caught up by dukat’s friendly and charming demeanor and happily banters with him despite knowing he’s a monster. ben is very bad at taking a step back. and that was the piece i was missing.

next: julian. here’s the story on julian: whether i like a character depends very much on how they’re framed. and i fucking hated the framing he got from both the show and the fandom. i’m not interested in julian as the audience avatar the way he is framed in the show, nor am i interested in him as the naive baby/perfect caretaker/sidekick boyfriend/garak’s pet twink that he is in the fandom. i don’t care for it.

now, i thought i hated julian bashir in an uncomplicated way for a long time. but about four months into my watching of ds9, three things happened at once: first, i began bingeing season seven seven with my parents. you know, the season where julian goes off the rails to the point where the show can’t lie to itself anymore. second, i hit a string of julian/miles episodes on my own personal runthrough of the earlier seasons. and third, i realized that i talked more about julian bashir than almost any character except mr garak, and that....... normally doesn’t happen with characters i straight up hate.

julian is a perfect, beautiful nastyboy antihero who thinks he’s hot shit and the savior of the galaxy. and i love him for it. but i couldn’t love him for it when i thought that i was supposed to love him for being a different character. which he wasn’t. 

third, and this is the one that’s gonna shock EVERYBODY: i didn’t like garak at first. and the thing is, garak is like odo: he’s my type, to a t. mr queercoded (ex-)villain, wildly gnc, utterly fucked up, no healthy coping mechanisms we die like men and yet still dangerous through all of it.

but see, i started with season five. and his first episode of season five involves him 1) being a racist asshole and 2) not doing anything else of note. so i was like ???????????? why don’t i love this guy like everyone says i should. sooooooo i went back and watched past prologue. and i didn’t care for it. past prologue is a VERY badly written episode, on a number of levels. first of all, garak doesn’t make any attempts to not be obviously suspicious. second of all, he CREEPS ON JULIAN IN THAT FIRST SCENE IN A WAY THAT MAKES MY SKIN ABSOLUTELY CRAWL JESUS CHRIST. third, it just isn’t a very good episode. imo.

AAAAANYWAY so instead of giving up like a sensible person i kept skipping through garak episodes one after the other. i enjoyed cardassians (although the resolution was, imo, Bad), and i absolutely LOVED profit and loss, (although that was as much for the quodo as for garak), and then i got to the wire. here’s the thing about the wire: it is a LOT of emotional turmoil for a character who we’ve only seen in three episodes. it helped me reconcile my biggest issue with garak (that he seems like a spy when he should be able to seem innocuous since he has spy training; he acts suspicious bc he was high and also as a form of self-sabotage) and it also made me more attached to both him and julian, but also...... after watching it, i felt like i should have been more invested going in. i felt like i didn’t Feel enough, because i didn’t know him (or julian, really) well enough.

so i kept going on my garakbinge. the first time i felt maybe a touch of the emotions i feel for him now was in second skin. it was when he vaporized that obsidian order agent after bantering with him and quipped “a shame, i rather liked him”. and then the other charcters turned and looked at him in absolute horror. deep in my gut i felt a little bell go off. a bell that said damn that is a good piece of writing. because like, action hero style quips right? actually kind of a brutal and terrifying concept. no one ever points that out. and like..... god damn is he quick with the quips.

and then.... then........

civil defense. civil defense helped me to truly understand what kind of monster garak is. what makes him tick. and it’s all in the scene where he insults dukat for hitting on kira. what he focuses on in his insults? the fact that dukat is married, and calling dukat unattractive. he focuses on dukat’s failings according to Propriety (that he’s slipping around on his wife) and as a man (that he’s an incompetent seducer/unnatractive). he doesn’t comment on the fantastic rapey-ness of the situation, doesn’t comment on the fact that what dukat wants is one last validation that his role in colonialism was justified/is forgiven. it showed me that garak dehumanizes everyone, yes, and thinks of himself as above everyone (except, as i was to learn later, the Objects of his Loyalty), but that he had two categories. non-cardassians couldn’t know any better. they were sub-cardassian by nature. they could never be held to the same standard. whereas cardassian should know better. they should be better. the fact that they’re not is their own personal failing. this racist principle controls garak’s entire way of relating to other people, and i didn’t understand him until i understood it.

and then........

improbable cause/the die is cast. never has a piece of television quite so effectively Totally Destroyed My Ass.

improbable cause is a smart little piece of comedy that brilliantly develops a relationship that has a ton of potential: garak&odo. they’re both brilliant on their own, but together they reach new levels, and the writing is glorious.

the die is cast is a harrowing walk through elim garak’s daddy issue riddled psyche and i don’t know if i could not-love any character after watching them go through that shit. 

the mood whiplash between the two episodes is ingenious, the writing is tight, and the emotions? very real. i was so invested. i decided i was ready to die for elim garak at about exactly the moment odo punched him in the face.

The character everyone else loves that I don’t: 

jadzia dax. she’s the only in the credits-main character who i truly cannot muster up some love for, somewhere. the only time i ever enjoyed an episode focused on her was rejoined (yeah, shocking, i know). jadzia dax is a sex object who is defended from accusations of being a sex object by doing two things: 1) giving her a superficial list of traits (sass, scientific knowhow, some fighting skills) associated with Strong Female Characters, and 2) making her a Mighty Whitey with the klingons.

but she isn’t actually a complex person. she responds to workplace sexual harassment and even stalking (lookin at u juli) by laughing and flirting back, and her sexual libertinism mostly serves to make her supremely available to all nearby men. if you are a young straight man in the audience, she is your wise mentor (but without any kind of power over you), your fuckbuddy (with no strings attached), your best friend and drinking (but without any of those nasty feminine interests and habits girls tend to have) and your girlfriend (but with no difficult Womanfeelings). ds9 has some really terrible gender bullshit and essentialism that we can blame for this. miles o’brien’s line about wishing keiko was more like a man in that one episode is a good example. it sounds gay, and it is, but it’s also underpinned by this terrible gender essentialist, heteronormative assumption that women are inherently alien to men and inherently difficult, (and also that men don’t have feelings/shouldn’t have feminine traits/yadda yadda). jadzia dax is the perfect woman for a man who follows this philosophy. she is a sexy woman who has none of the traits that make women difficult, won’t ever so no, and will always make things more fun without being a person in her own right.

the only time she ever gets to be a person on screen is when her gender is overridden by her performing the role of white audience avatar among the scary, barbaric, non-white-coded klingons. she is a textbook mighty whitey, an audience avatar who is instantly loved and respected by all klingons she meets, and can out-klingon most klingons as a party trick. it’s really absolutely disgusting and plays into ds9′s really bad racial politics and especially bad racial politics regarding klingons. like, she just waltzes into their culture and they shower her with adoration, and also she’s used to highlight the barbarism ds9 likes to portray klingons as having.

i’m gonna work myself up into a snit about ds9, klingons, and worf so i’m just gonna stop here, but, god DAMMIT,.

The character I love that everyone else hates: 

there aren’t a ton of universally hated characters in the fandom? but ben sisko doesn’t get the three dimensional appreciation he deserves and i cringe every time i see him reduced to “baseball dad”

The character I used to love but don’t any longer:

odo and jadzia, but just so i can round this out with another character, i’ve gotta say quark sort of too. i still love him, and actually i still love odo too, but i no longer get excited when i see a quark episode because they’re so repetitive. as the series went on, quark got more and more shunted off into his own corner of the narrative and stopped being allowed to interact with others in meaningful ways, and that just made him less interesting to me? because without outside influence, quark is totally cyclical. he can’t develop. he’s trapped in his own trap and all his plots are the same. i love him but i need him to do something else for once. please.

The character I would totally smooch: 

kira :3c

The character I’d want to be like: 

i don’t normally take fictional characters as role models, because i tend to be more interested in them for their flaws than their virtues, but if i had to pick i would say ben.

The character I’d slap: 

julian. deserves slapping but doesn’t deserve anything worse.

A pairing that I love:

:3c y’all know

A pairing that I despise:

all the het especially the canon het, garashir

[frontproofmedia]

Pacquiao vs. Thurman Predictions: Current & Past Champions & Top Contenders

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

PRESS RELEASE

Follow @Frontproofmedia!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id))(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

Published: July 16, 2019

LAS VEGAS - The predictions are in from around the boxing world and the expert group that was polled is nearly split 50-50, but overall gives eight-division champion Senator Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao a slight edge over WBA Welterweight World Champion Keith "One Time" Thurman ahead of their Premier Boxing Champions on FOX Sports Pay-Per-View main event this Saturday from the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas. The tally was 24-to-19 for Pacquiao over Thurman, with three picking a draw. Pacquiao even has a chance to stop Thurman based on the picks of at least three former champions who participated in the poll, while two picked Thurman to end the night early. In addition, eight respondents believe the fight is so evenly-matched that it will end in a split-decision. Here are the predictions from a mix of boxing legends, current and former champions and contenders, plus some of the most renowned trainers in the sport: Thomas Hearns, former five-division champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. Manny Pacquiao has the better skills and the experience overall in comparison to Keith Thurman, and I see Manny winning a decision by just out-boxing him. Deontay Wilder, WBC Heavyweight Champion Pick: Thurman SD 12. I like both fighters and what they've been able to achieve. Manny Pacquiao's a legend who still is among the world's best fighters despite his age and having to overcome so many ups and downs. But I'm going with Keith Thurman on a split-decision in this one based on his youth and mentality. People are talking about Keith's last fight against Josesito Lopez, but he feels like he's the best, and that he's not going to let anyone take that away from him. Roy Jones Jr., Former Three-Division World Champion Pick: Pacquiao W12: I'm going to go with Pacquiao because he's the older and therefore more experienced fighter. Errol Spence Jr., IBF Welterweight Champion Pick: Thurman SD 12. It just depends on which Pacquiao shows up and which Keith shows up. I think Keith will be a lot sharper than he was in his last fight. You know he had a long layoff and is just coming back. Keith is a lot tougher than people think he is. He took a lot of punches in that last fight. He took a lot of punches in the Shawn Porter fight, too. He might be a boxer, but he's tough and he's gritty, so I think he's going to win a split-decision or he's going to blow him out. It just depends on which Pacquiao comes out. If he can turn the tables a little bit and become the Pacquiao of back then, I think he can win. But if it's the Pacquiao that fought Broner, then I think Keith will edge him out and outpoint him. Keith can get on his bicycle and move around and just pot shot him. I think Keith will edge it out. Sugar Ray Leonard, former five-division world champion Pick: Thurman W 12. Keith Thurman has a ton of talent, power and speed. I like him to win. Gerry Cooney, former heavyweight title contender Pick: Pacquiao W 12. Manny Pacquiao's been a phenom, but age has been creeping up on him. Thurman's gonna try to box and use his power, and Manny's been knocked out before. It's a 50-50 fight, but I'm going with Pacquiao, who is really awkward and fast, to win a decision. Shane Mosley, former three-division world champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I think that Pacquiao is going to win because of the experience, the speed and his power. Shawn Porter, WBC Welterweight Champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I'm going with Manny Pacquiao, who still has the hunger, several levels of competitive spirit and quickness out of that southpaw stance that's hard to game plan for. Keith Thurman's young but coming off of a very long layoff and a level of relaxation and comfort that makes it difficult for me to see him being ready for this fight. I don't think Keith's body will be able to withstand what's going to come during those championship rounds. Pacquiao weathers the early storm and wins a decision. Andy Ruiz Jr., Unified Heavyweight World Champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I'm going with Pacquiao because of his speed and aggressiveness. Mikey Garcia, four-division world champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. Ultimately Manny's footwork, hand-speed, combinations and volume punching will carry him throughout the rounds. Keith Thurman has the power to win it, and he's very dangerous for that power, but he's not a better fighter, overall, than Manny. I think Manny takes it. Julian Williams, WBA & IBF 154-pound World Champion Pick: Thurman SD 12. Manny's always super-competitive and I believe we'll see a hungrier and more determined Manny Pacquiao than the one who beat Adrien Broner. Manny may even be able to hurt Keith Thurman as he does everybody, but I believe Keith Thurman will have too much youth for him. Keith may not look great, but I'm going with Keith to win a close decision. Derrick James, trainer of welterweight champion Errol Spence Jr. and former champion Jermell Charlo Pick: Thurman W 12. I think Keith Thurman's gonna beat Manny Pacquiao by a decision as long as he can do what he did for the first seven rounds against Josesito Lopez for 12 rounds against Pacquiao. Keith's consistency will win the fight. Leo Santa Cruz, WBA Featherweight World Champion Pick: Thurman W 12: I feel that Keith Thurman is going to win because he's younger. Roberto Duran, former four-division world champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12: Manny Pacquiao is very tough and for me, he is going to win this fight. Robert Garcia, trainer of former four-division champion Mikey Garcia, contender Josesito Lopez Pick: Thurman W 12. Keith Thurman is strong, solid and smart in the ring, and he has youth on his side, so I see him winning a unanimous decision. I would no doubt pick Manny Pacquiao if this was four or five years ago the way he was dominating, but with him being at the age of 40, that's hard for me to do. Paulie Malignaggi, former two-division champion Pick: Thurman TKO 11. I saw Pacquiao in January beating Adrien Broner who was willing to enter the pocket but not let his hands go. Pacquiao is not a defensive genius, and I'm not saying that he's super hittable. But I do see Keith catching up to him and winning by a late-round TKO. Tony Harrison, WBC Super Welterweight Champion Pick: Draw. I have so much love and respect for Manny Pacquiao and Keith Thurman and I've seen fire in each of their eyes. I am envisioning an action-packed, seesaw battle that enhances the legacies of both fighters with the fans getting their money's worth. Manny's been re-awakened into the beast he's been in the past, and when the final bell rings, I believe this fight will end in a draw. Jarrett Hurd, former unified 154-pound champion Pick: Thurman W 12. I believe the youth of Keith Thurman will play a big factor. Yes, Thurman had a long layoff but I think he broke the ring rust after the Josesito Lopez fight. Josesito Lopez, Former title challenger Pick: Pacquiao SD 12. In our fight, Keith Thurman took a really hard punch from me that would have taken out almost anyone. That proves a lot about his championship ability to come back to win a fight. Thurman has great power and boxing skills and movement, but I still see Pacquiao pulling out a close decision victory. Gary Russell Jr., WBC Featherweight Champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. Keith Thurman is probably the bigger, stronger fighter, which will give him the puncher's chance, but I think Manny Pacquiao's work ethic and his punch output will dictate the fight. I really like Keith Thurman, but I don't know which Keith will show up. He has the ability to get Pacquiao outta there, but I see Pacquiao being more consistent. So, I think Manny's gonna outwork him and take it. Ronnie Shields, trainer of 160-pound champion Jermall Charlo, former 154-pound champion Erislandy Lara Pick: Thurman W 12. Keith is fast on his feet and has enough boxing ability to keep Manny at bay. I don't believe a KO will occur. I really believe they both will try for one, but in order for Manny to win, he has to hurt Keith early and often. I don't see it any other way. Jessie Vargas, former two-division champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I'm going with Manny Pacquiao because of his experience and explosiveness and the fact that I believe that's something Keith Thurman's never seen before. A knockout for Pacquiao is 85% possible. Each is a great fighter who doesn't back down. Stephen Edwards, trainer of unified 154-pound champion Julian Williams Pick: Draw. I can't call this fight. I was picking Keith Thurman due to youth and not being the better fighter. I thought he would control Manny Pacquiao with a check hook. But Thurman has not looked right to me in the training footage. Maybe that's a ploy. Who knows? One fighter is 40 and the other looks rusty. I expect a close and controversial draw. Sergio Mora, former 154-pound champion Pick: Thurman KO 9. Manny Pacquiao's speed and footwork has diminished with age but he is still dangerous. Both will be aiming for the body and both will have their moments. Ultimately, I see Pac getting over aggressive and caught attempting to be great once again. Size and youth prevails in an exciting and competitive fight. Andre Berto, former two-time 147-pound champion Pick: Thurman W 12. I'm picking Keith Thurman to win a decision because he is younger, faster and stronger than Manny Pacquiao. Omar Figueroa, former world champion Pick: Pacquiao by KO 8. Keith Thurman is a really smart fighter, but he leaves himself open with some of his punches. I think Manny Pacquiao catches him with those short lefts and right hooks inside and possibly stops the fight in eight. Robert Guerrero, former two-division champion Pick: Pacquiao by late round KO. Manny's experience, combined with this speed and power, hitting off angles, is going to be too much for Keith Thurman. Jay Deas, trainer of WBC Heavyweight Champion Deontay Wilder Pick: Thurman W 12. Can Manny Pacquiao spell bound Keith Thurman, building a lead and holding off a late-round Thurman rally to take a decision? I don't think so with only one knockout since 2010. Thurman's left hand will be a key if he can jab the southpaw Pacquiao effectively. If Thurman is intelligently aggressive, uses his left and starts and finishes the exchanges, I believe he will win a decision in an exciting fight. Joel Diaz, renowned trainer Pick: Pacquiao W 12. Keith Thurman didn't look good against Josesito Lopez, who is a warrior but not on the level of a Manny Pacquiao. Pacquiao's a lefty with great speed and footwork to create problems for Thurman. Thurman's bigger, younger and stronger, but Pacquiao has the power to hurt Thurman with either hand. I see Pacquiao increasing the pace over the later rounds and winning a decision. Abner Mares, former three-division champion Pick: Thurman W 12. Everyone is going off Manny Pacquiao's last performance, where he looked phenomenal against an Adrien Broner who didn't throw a lot of punches and was on the ropes a lot. Pacquiao's not fighting Broner but a Thurman who knows how to work every round. He got hurt against Josesito Lopez, but that was after a long layoff. Erislandy Lara, former 154-pound champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. This is a true 50-50 fight and a great one for the boxing fans. Going off their last few performances, I'm leaning towards Manny "Pac-Man" Pacquiao to win a decision. But I wouldn't be shocked to see Keith Thurman return to form. Sergey Lipinets, former 140-pound champion Pick: Draw. The fight looks like a 50-50 proposition. Manny Pacquiao is a way more diverse fighter then Keith Thurman. The big question would still be if Pacquiao has got any of that left or enough to maintain that through 12 rounds. I think we'll see them fight to a draw. Gary Russell Sr., father and trainer of 126-pound champion Gary Russell Jr. Pick: Thurman W 12. Manny Pacquiao has a herky-jerky style that can cause problems for Keith Thurman, who I don't think can out-box Pacquiao. Keith's gonna have to be the more physical fighter, coming out as the stalker and going to the body. I think that ultimately that's what he's gonna do to win a decision. David Benavidez, former 168-pound champion Pick: Pacquiao by KO 9. I feel like Manny is going to have a hard time with Keith Thurman running around in the first few rounds. Then I expect "PacMan" to start hurting Thurman by Round five or six and then I see him stopping "One Time" around the ninth. It's gonna be a great fight though. Marcus Browne, interim WBA 175-pound champion Pick: Thurman W 12. This is a great fight that's tough to call, so to pick a draw wouldn't be far-fetched. I'm a big Manny Pacquiao fan and he looked great in his last fight beating Adrien Broner. But Keith ain't Adrien Broner, and I think he'll overcome the ring absence since he appears to be in a zone. I'm going to choose Keith to win a close decision. Ruben Guerrero, father and trainer of former two-division champion Robert Guerrero Pick: Pacquiao SD 12. It's going to be one hell of a fight, but Manny Pacquiao will win the later rounds to win a close one. Luis Ortiz, heavyweight title contender Pick: Pacquiao SD 12. Manny Pacquiao will win via decision. He has too much experience and has been active. Keith Thurman has been too inactive. I think it will probably be a split decision for Pacquiao. Erickson Lubin, 154-pound title contender Pick: Pacquiao SD 12. Manny Pacquiao's southpaw style will confuse Keith Thurman. "Pacman" wins by split-decision with his power, speed and combination punching. Austin Trout, former 154-pound champion Pick: Thurman SD 12. I'm going to rock with my man Keith Thurman. People who are judging off his last fight don't understand how much inactivity can play a role. Now that the rust is off, I expect Keith to pull it off. Keith is going to go above and beyond in what will be a 12-round fight that he's gonna win by a split-decision. Kevin Cunningham, trainer of Erickson Lubin Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I'm gonna have to go with Manny Pacquiao on this one because he still has good speed, explosiveness, footwork and punches well in combinations. Keith Thurman may be looking to land something big, and he may be able to hurt Manny in some way, but I'm picking Manny by decision. Jamal James,147-pound contender Pick: Pacquiao W 12. Keith Thurman comes in with great skills, but I don't see him beating Manny Pacquiao, who is a really crafty southpaw, is still quick on his feet, and throws fast, sharp combinations. I don't think Keith can match Pacquiao's hand-speed and footwork. I can't rule out a knockout, but I think Pacquiao wins a decision. Caleb Truax, former 168-pound champion Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I think the smart pick is Keith Thurman, but I can't bet against Manny Pacquiao. I have "PacMan" by close decision in a back and forth fight. Calvin Ford, trainer of WBA 130-pound champion Gervonta Davis Pick: Thurman W 12. Keith Thurman's motivated to get his name back into the spotlight, but Manny Pacquiao looks as if he's up to the challenge after beating Adrien Broner. Pacquiao throws a lot of punches, but I'm going with the younger guy on this one and Thurman winning a great fight by decision. Andre Rozier, trainer of former 160-pound champion Daniel Jacobs Pick: Thurman W 12. I have a tale of two fights for you. If we see the "One Time" Thurman of old, it will be a long night for the "PacMan." If we see the tentative, super cautious Thurman that we have been seeing lately, the "PacMan" will have a chance. Stephen Fulton, Unbeaten 122-pound contender Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I see Manny Pacquiao winning a unanimous decision based on his activity and that fact that Keith Thurman has been inactive for a while. Pacquiao lets his hands go more than Thurman, and I believe that, as well as Pacquiao's heart and being smarter in the ring, wins the fight. Mario Barrios, undefeated 140-pound contender Pick: Pacquiao W 12. I believe Manny's going to be too crafty for Keith Thurman and Thurman won't be able to land those big shots on him. Total: Pacquiao - 24 Thurman - 19 Draw - 3

(Featured Photo: Andres Kudacki/AP Photo)

[ionecoffman]

The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day

Before last week, few people had heard the name He Jiankui. But on November 25, the young Chinese researcher became the center of a global firestorm, when it emerged that he had allegedly made the first CRISPR-edited babies, twin girls named Lulu and Nana. Antonio Regalado broke the story for MIT Technology Review, and He himself described the experiment at an international gene-editing summit in Hong Kong. After his talk, He revealed that a another early pregnancy is underway.  

It is still unclear if He did what he claims to have done. Nonetheless, the reaction was swift and negative. The CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna says she was “horrified”, NIH Director Francis Collins said the experiment was “profoundly disturbing,” and even Julian Savulescu, an ethicist who has described gene-editing research as “a moral necessity” described He’s work as “monstrous.”

Such a strong reaction is understandable, given the many puzzling and worrying details about the experiment. Even without any speculation about designer babies and “Gattaca”-like futures that may or may not come to pass, the details about what has already transpired are galling enough. If you wanted to create the worst possible scenario for introducing the first gene-edited babies into the world, it is difficult to imagine how you could improve on this 15-part farce.

1. He didn’t address an unmet medical need.

He focused on a gene called CCR5, which the HIV virus uses as a doorway for infiltrating human cells. To lock the virus out, several scientists have tried extracting the immune cells of HIV patients and deactivating CCR5 using gene-editing techniques before injecting the cells back into the body. Although Nana and Lulu’s father is HIV-positive, neither of the infants actually had HIV. As I’ve written before, He’s team deactivated a perfectly normal gene in an attempt to reduce the risk of a disease that neither child had—and one that can be controlled through safe-sex education, or antiviral drugs. Even if you wanted to block CCR5 specifically, there are drugs out there that could do the job, many of which have been repeatedly tested in clinical trials. The rationale for using a method as extreme and untested as gene editing doesn’t hold up.

[Read: A reckless and needless use of gene editing on human embryos]

Deactivating CCR5 doesn’t confer complete immunity to HIV either, since some strains of the virus can enter cells via a different protein. And although people with natural deficiencies in the gene appear healthy, they might be more susceptible to West Nile virus, and be more likely to die when they catch influenza. Essentially, He gave Nana and Lulu resistance to a virus that they could avoided in myriad other ways, and may have opened them up to other dangers.

2. The actual editing wasn’t executed well.

He’s data haven’t been published or peer-reviewed, so many of the details of his experiment are unclear. But based on the slides that he presented at the Hong Kong summit, other scientists have denounced the work for being amateurish.

For example, it appears that He only managed to edit half of Lulu’s CCR5 genes; the rest are normal. That could either be because every cell in her body has one normal copy of CCR5 and one edited one (she’s heterozygous) or that half of her cells carry two edited genes and half carry two normal ones (she’s mosaic). If the former, she would not be resistant to HIV. If the latter, it depends on whether her immune cells specifically carry the edits. The same might apply to Nana, who, based on the slides, seems to also have normal copies of CCR5 somewhere.

What’s more, the edited cells don’t seem to have been edited in the right way. He planned to delete a small section of the CCR5 gene, mimicking a naturally occurring mutation called delta 32 that’s found in around 10 percent of Europeans. But according to Sean Ryder, a biochemist from the University of Massachusetts Medical School, He’s slides show no sign of delta 32 in either girl. Instead, Lulu has an entirely different CCR5 mutation, and Nana has two. These are in roughly the same part of the gene, but “it’s a fairly outrageous assumption that any change to this region would lead to some benefit,” Ryder says. “He made new mutations, and there’s no reason to think that they’d be protective—or even that they’d be safe.”

3. It’s not clear what those new mutations will do.

At least two of the three mutations that He introduced into Nana and Lulu’s genomes are substantial changes that could alter how CCR5 works. Typically, scientists would introduce the same mutations into mice or other lab animals to see what would happen. If they felt reassured enough to move into human patients, they could recruit patients with HIV, take out some immune cells, introduce the new CCR5 mutations, transplant the cells back, and monitor the volunteers to see if they’re healthy. “That could take months or years but to do anything less would be cutting corners,” Ryder says.  

But He appears to have leapfrogged over all of those basic checks, and implanted the edited embryos into a woman. “The children are test subjects for variants that haven't been vetted in animals,” Ryder says. What’s shocking about this “is the blatant disregard of all the rules and conventions we have in place for how one should approach any proposed intervention,” said Leonid Kruglyak, a geneticist at the University of California at Los Angeles, on Twitter.

4. There were problems with informed consent.

It’s not clear if the participants in He’s trial were actually aware of what they were signing up for. He relied on an AIDS association to reach out to the patients, and falsely described his work as an “AIDS vaccine development project.” He told delegates at the Hong Kong summit that he personally took the volunteers through the informed consent process, along with another professor. But taking consent is a specific skill that requires training; He had none.

The consent document that he used describes CRISPR and gene editing, but does so in heavily technical language. He has said his patients were “very well educated” and already knowledgeable about gene-editing technology. But according to a news report from the Chinese magazine Sanlian Life Week (which has since been removed, but not before a digital copy was saved and translated), one of the people who dropped out of the experiment had only a high-school understanding of biology, and only heard the term “gene editing” when news stories about He’s experiment broke. The man claimed that he was not informed about the risks of off-target effects, or that gene editing was a prohibited and ethically controversial technology.

Also, the consent form “is not a consent form,” says Kelly Hills, a bioethicist at Rogue Bioethics. “It’s a business form, of the kind that a company might use when subcontracting.” For example, the section about possible risks says nothing about any negative consequences of deactivating CCR5, and is instead more focus on absolving He’s team of legal responsibility for problems arising from the procedure. The form also gives He’s team rights to use photos of the babies in magazines, calendars, billboards, propaganda, product packaging, and posters in cars and elevators.

5. He operated under a cloak of secrecy …

By his own admission, He didn’t tell his institution, the Southern University of Science and Technology, about the experiment, and took a stint of unpaid leave in February to begin work in secret. The university plans to launch an investigation into the project, which it called a “serious violation of academic ethics and standards” in a statement.

He also claims that he received ethical approval from Shenzhen Harmonicare Hospital. But in a statement, the hospital says that the Medical Ethics Committee never met to discuss such a project, and that the signatures on He’s approval “are suspected to have been forged.” Meanwhile, He’s laboratory webpage has disappeared, as have statements praising his other work on government sites.

6. … but organized a slick PR campaign

Given how many people He kept in the dark, it is all the more striking that he was simultaneously organizing a public-relations effort. He contacted the Associated Press months ago to prep a story that would launch when he unveiled his work at the Hong Kong summit. He engaged the services of an American PR consultant, Ryan Ferrell. He created a set of five YouTube videos describing his actions and the rationale behind them. And all this while the actual technical details of his work have yet to be released in any official publication.

7. A few people knew about He’s intentions but failed to stop him.

Even though He spoke at scientific conferences about his gene-editing research in other animals, he only discussed his ambitions to edit human embryos with a select few. Those included his former advisor Michael Deem of Rice University, who played an active role in the project and was reportedly present in China when several patients were consented. (Deem holds a small stake in He’s two companies, and is under investigation for his involvement in the matter.)

Other scientists were not supportive. As reported in STAT, He also consulted Mark DeWitt of the UC Berkeley, who told him not to go ahead with the project. The AP also reported that He expressed an interest in editing human embryos to his former advisor, Stephen Quake from Stanford University, who cautioned him in broad terms to seek ethical advice. This February, He also told Stanford’s Matthew Porteus that he had hospital approval to proceed with his experiment. Porteus told the AP that he was angry at He’s naïvete and recklessness, but after chiding him, assumed that he would not go ahead.

The chair of the Hong Kong summit, David Baltimore, called the episode “a failure of self-regulation by the scientific community.” Baltimore urged other scientists in the field who learn about experiments like He’s to alert the authorities. But this “see something, say something” approach won’t work, says Kelly Hills, the bioethicist. “Would scientists actually recognize a bad actor if one was working with them?” she says. “The answer is no. We simply assume that if someone is a colleague, they have shared values.”

“And who do you say something to?” she adds. “We don’t have an international group that oversees gene editing.” China is unusual in that it actually does have a medical-ethics agency that oversees all medical research in the country, and that Porteus or others could have contacted. The U.S. does not, and the work that He did would only have been illegal if it had been federally funded. “Literally every single thing He did could have happened in America,” Hills says.

8. He acted in contravention of global consensus.

To the extent that there was any global consensus about using gene-editing technologies on human embryos, it was: Don’t rush into it. That was the feeling in 2015 when the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine convened an international summit of scientists, ethicists, and others to discuss the topic. And it was the view of a landmark report that the same group published in 2017.

The report did not call for an outright ban on germline gene editing—that is, altering the DNA of sperm, eggs, or embryos in ways that could cascade through generations—but said that “there is a need for caution.” It only be done in clinical trials with “rigorous oversight,” “maximum transparency,” and an “absence of reasonable alternatives,” and only after “much more research to meet appropriate risk/benefit standards” and “broad participation and input by the public.”

He’s work, which was both rushed and cloaked in secrecy, clearly did not fit these criteria. And as reported by Antonio Regalado at MIT Technology Review, He wrote in the ethics proposal that accompanied his experiment that the National Academies in their 2017 report had “for the first time” approved germline gene editing in human embryos to treat or prevent serious disease. It’s as if he took the absence of a red light as a green one.

9. He acted in contravention of his own stated ethical views.

Last July, He spoke at a conference at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He didn’t mention his plans to edit human embryos, but he brought up the case of Jesse Gelsinger, an American teen who died in a botched gene-therapy trial in 1999. To avoid such deaths, and the chilling effect that they can have on research, He urged scientists to move cautiously before editing the genome of embryos.

He also published a paper in The CRISPR Journal that lays out ethical principles, such as transparency, that he himself violated. The paper was in the works well before the news of the babies broke, and was published two days afterward. Ryan Ferrell, He’s PR consultant, is one of the co-authors.

10. He sought ethical advice and ignored it

Sharon Begley at STAT reports that He spoke at length with two bioethicists, William Hurlbut at Stanford University and his son Benjamin Hurlbut at Arizona State University. Neither one was aware of He’s plans, but spent time telling him about their conservative Catholic stance on ethics, in which human life begins at conception. “It seems like He came to the conclusion that ethics was synonymous with Christianity,” Hills says. That allowed him to politely disregard the Hurlbuts’ opinions and “develop his own personal code that reads like what you would expect from a freshman in the first weeks of Bioethics 101.”

11. There is no way to tell if He’s work did any good.

Both Nana and Lulu will be monitored at least until they turn 18. But “the children were already at virtually no risk of contracting HIV,” said Alta Charo, a bioethicist from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, in a statement. This means that “there is no way to evaluate if this indeed conferred any benefit. If they remain HIV-negative, there is no way to show it has anything to do with the editing.”

At the Hong Kong summit, He was asked if the two children would be treated differently by their parents, who will know that they have been edited. “I don’t know how to answer this question,” He said.

12. He has doubled down.

If He shows any contrition about how these events have unfolded, it has not been obvious. Speaking at the Hong Kong summit, he apologized, but only because news about his work “leaked unexpectedly” before he could present it in a scientific venue. That, He said, took away from the community. Regarding the experiment itself, he said: “I feel proud.”

13. Scientific academies have prevaricated.

In the wake of He’s bombshell, several scientists, including the CRISPR pioneer Feng Zhang and the stem-cell biologist Paul Knoepfler, have called for a temporary moratorium on similar experiments. The organizers of the recent Hong Kong summit have not. After the news first broke, the organizing committee of the Hong Kong summit, which includes representatives from scientific academies in Hong Kong, the U.K., and the U.S., released a bland statement in which they simply restated the conclusions from their earlier report. A second statement, released after the summit, was stronger, calling He’s claims “deeply disturbing” and his work “irresponsible.”

But the second statement still discusses the creation of more gene-edited babies as a goal that should be worked toward. The risks are “too great to permit clinical trials of germline editing at this time,” it says, but “it is time to define a rigorous, responsible translational pathway toward such trials.” George Daley from Harvard Medical School, one of the meeting’s co-organizers, made similar points during the event itself. Given that the world is still grappling with the implications of what has happened, “no, it’s not time yet and it’s tone-deaf to say so,” says Hank Greely, an ethicist at Stanford.

“Although the chair opened the summit by invoking Huxley’s Brave New World, few of the discussions at the meeting, and nothing in the concluding statement, suggest a meaningful engagement with social consequences,” says the Center for Genetics in Society, a watchdog group.

14. A leading geneticist came to He’s defense.

In an interview with Science, George Church, a respected figure from Harvard and a CRISPR pioneer, said that he felt “an obligation to be balanced about” the He affair. Church suggested that the man was being bullied and that the “most serious thing” about his experiment was “that he didn’t do the paperwork right.” “[Church’s] comments are incredibly irresponsible,” says Alexis Carere, who is president-elect of the Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors. “If someone contravenes the rules that we have laid down, we are very justified in speaking out about it. The unfortunate effect of this is that it makes it seem like there is some kind of balance, and George is just in the middle. There is not.”

Carere was also dismayed at the rest of the interview, where “every sentence was a new ethical maxim that I had never heard of,” she says. For example, Church noted that “as long as these are normal, healthy kids it’s going to be fine for the field and the family.” But unethical actions are still unethical, even if nothing goes wrong. Arguing otherwise gives a pass to scientists who blow past ethical norms, provided they find something interesting. “It’s bizarro-land consequentialist ethics,” Carere says.

15. This could easily happen again.

Last year, the world learned that a group of scientists had resurrected a virus called horsepox. Several researchers and ethicists criticized that work, arguing that it would make it easier for others to recreate the related (and far more dangerous) smallpox virus. As I wrote in October, regardless of the risks or merits of the experiment, it reveals a vulnerability at the heart of modern science. That is: Small groups of researchers can make virtually unilateral decisions about experiments that have potentially global consequences, and that everyone else only learns about after the fact.

He Jiankui’s experiment reveals that vulnerability in the starkest possible light.

Article source here:The Atlantic