The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
now if this had been some disease that the children had inherited cystic fibrosis sickle cell disease Huntington's disease some terrible thing that they would encounter in their lifetime the scientific Community would have been much more sanguine about it
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
but what is known is that there is international consensus that we don't want to do these types of embryo uh germine editing um right now even for things where it really matters so the apoe4 and the LPA don't you know you don't have to do that but what about Huntington what about inborn eras of metabolism where children are going to probably die during infancy cystic fibrosis things for which we have no viable treatments right is the international consensus still that this type of Gene editing will not be pursued