Chinese Scientist Who Edited Babies' Genes Sentenced To Prison (bloomberg.com) 186
The Chinese scientist who created the world's first genetically altered babies has been sentenced to three years in prison and a lifelong ban from working in reproductive technology, state media reported on Monday. From a report: He Jiankui, a Shenzhen researcher who drew widespread condemnation when he revealed his experiment last year, will also have to pay a 3 million yuan ($430,000) fine, said a report from Xinhua News Agency, citing the verdict of a court in the southern Chinese city. Two others who assisted him were also sentenced. Zhang Renli, a researcher at the Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, received a prison term of two years and Qin Jinzhou, a researcher at the Shenzhen Luohu Hospital Group, received a term of 18 months, suspended for two years. The verdict is China's first public statement on the fate of He, who disappeared from public view after his 2018 experiment sparked a global backlash. His work to edit the genes of embryos to make babies who are resistant to the virus that causes AIDS was sharply critiqued by the international scientific community as an abuse of new gene-engineering methods that are still not fully understood.
Good (Score:2)
Now undo what he did ...
Re: Good (Score:2)
Interesting, being ablr to "undo what he did" would actually be an even bigger scientific accomplishment than doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence, my comment.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think that killing these poor kids is the solution.
"had forged ethical review documents" (Score:5, Insightful)
"The court found that He and the two others had forged ethical review documents and used “impersonating and concealing tactics” on unsuspecting doctors to complete their experiment, said the report."
... but did it work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every scientist: "This is an outage and a complete abomination of all ethics and morality... ...did it work?"
Also: ... because they weren't my kids! (Score:2)
Everyone: "This is unacceptable and unfair! Generating a two class society! And the ones with the advantages ... won't be MY kids!"
Give it to everyone, and prove you do fairly, and everyone will be fine with it. Maybe a bit of theatralics for show ... but fine. ;)
Wanna bet?
(The catch is that nobody will believe it is fair, unless they themselves got obvious massive unfair advantages.
Re:... but did it work? (Score:4, Informative)
Every scientist: "This is an outage and a complete abomination of all ethics and morality... ...did it work?"
The answer is No.
He’s stated goal was to give the children born from his experiment genes for a protein called CCR5 with 32 base pairs deleted. This mutation, called CCR532, seems to protect some northern Europeans from infection with HIV. Yet soon after the announcement of his “success” in November 2018, some experts noted that the likely benefits were smaller than advertised, since He had given neither of the twins that specific gene edit. According to He’s own analysis, his CRISPR treatment yielded mutations in CCR5 that had never before been seen in humans — meaning the effectiveness of the edit against HIV infection and its safety were unknown.
Adding to his sins, He knew after the gene editing — but before the embryos were transferred to their mother’s uterus — that one of the twins, whom he called Lulu, had a normal CCR5 allele on one copy of her chromosome 3 and an edited version on the other copy, greatly undercutting any protection she might have received. The other twin, called Nana, had two edited copies, but neither of them was CCR532. We can only hope that the girls, whose real names and identities have been shielded, remain healthy.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/... [statnews.com]
Re: ... but did it work? (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t believe the effect is unknown. He caused a frame shift in both copies of the genes in one of the babies. A frame shift yields a stop codon quickly. Therefore it will effectively disable the gene the same as CCR5delta32 does. In other words it can be considered successful in my opinion. That baby should have resistance to many (though definitely not all) of the HIV strains in circulation as of 2019.
The other baby is a homozygote (only one of the two gene copies were modified, and that too a
Re: ... but did it work? (Score:2)
Re:... but did it work? (Score:4, Informative)
It worked in one of the babies, not both.
Technically, he didn't recreate CCR5delta32 (which is the name of the most common HIV resistance mutation) -- he didn't even attempt it in what I would even call a half-ass manner in my opinion (ie, he didn't try it using HDR). However according to the presented data, he did get a frame shift on both alleles in one of the babies, so that's will with 99.99999999% probability have the same effect as CCR5delta32 in my opinion -- in spite of what other fools think. That kid should be immune to many (most?) currently circulating strains of HIV. In the second baby it was a heterozygous edit -- meaning one copy of the wild type gene was still present -- this kid would NOT be immune to HIV/AIDS but might progress to it slowly depending on the strain of infection.
So basically in one of the babies, according to the data he presented, he may have succeeded in inducing resistance against many of the common currently circulating strains (as of 2019).
By the way this is in technical terms not innovative .. we have been doing this in mammals (not humans for 6 years) .. the only reason we haven't done germline editing of humans in the west is because it's still considered unethical until we get more data from animal studies.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this was about HIV resistance anyway. Removing CCR5 is known to make mice smarter and is believed to have the same effect on humans. In the context of the experiment - scientist from China - the benefit from creating smarter kids is probably much bigger than protecting them from HIV.
See https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
Re: ... but did it work? (Score:2)
They had no reason or incentive to announce it if that were the case.
Re: (Score:2)
What does it do normally? Natural selection seems to have preserved the gene, so there is a strong possibility it has - or perhaps had, in the past - a beneficial effect too.
*** Breaking News *** (Score:2)
This just in, two mutant super babies Kaihua and Qìpao have just freed their father/creator Prof. He Jiankui from Citytown Prison!
The genetically altered super babies were heard to exclaim, "Watch out Mojo Jinping! We're coming for you!"
More details at 11. We now return you to your regularly scheduled cartoon.
Lesson learned: Don't actually reveal it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do it in secret.
(You don't think this will stop anyone, do you?)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the incentive? They did it to gain fame and academic recognition, you can't get them if you do it in secret.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what they did with the first human clone. She's a 22 year old South Korean college student studying music theory now. She doesn't even know she's an experiment yet and won't. Data collected from her life will not be published until 2067.
seriously doubt he will be in prison. (Score:2)
Not strong enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, they know that disabling a certain gene, CCR5, enables immunity to many strains of HIV. This has been found out by looking at what genes people who were exposed to HIV accidentally or by their partners had. Now I am not going to explain multiple semesters of biology to you. Anyway, the point is that it doesn't need to be tested any more than you need to test if your cars airbags work.
Re: (Score:2)
You know they test car airbags with crash tests, right? They really do test those. It's done on a model-by-model basis, but sentiblue is actually a bit correct. They still need to test if the genetic editing to disable CCR5 actually took before they can certify that the edit can work on future generations of children.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA sequencing will show if the gene is edited. It doesn't need to be tested really, there are hundreds of thousands of people with mutated/disabled CCR5 genes who we know are resistant to HIV. Plus, we understand the mechanism (the CCR5 gene provides the only entry gate for certain strains of HIV to get into cells). .. its pure statistical chance. That is, we can tell
When enough people have the edit, if it fails we'll know. I mean, some out of certain number of people will encounter the virus accidentally
Re: (Score:2)
On NPR they said two things of note.
1. They don't know that CRISPRing this won't screw up similar but unrelated sequences elsewhere, and the effect.
2. When asked if jail was a harsh penalty, the western woman said kind of but not really, as many western countries would similarly put these guys in jail.
The latter seemed disturbing to me, given the potential upside for millions should outweigh a chance of downside for a few dozen.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you test via sequencing at a minimum. And apparently the edit didn't work anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
There are ethical constraints on how and why research can be done and this scientist violated them. That doesn't mean all research of this nature is bad or even that our current set of ethical constraints i
The gene mod may have failed anyway (Score:4, Informative)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/12/04/2219204/china-gene-edited-baby-experiment-may-have-created-unintended-mutations [slashdot.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/04/china-gene-edited-baby-experiment-may-have-created-unintended-mutations [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They broke the gene. That *probably* means HIV resistance, but with a risk of unforeseeable side-effects.
HIV is a Bullshit Cover Story (Score:2)
He was trying to create super-intelligent humans:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
HIV-resistance doesn't make any sense as a target for the risks this guy took. It provides plausible deniability, though.
Five bucks says he gets to serve most of his sentence on work-release at a military lab.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that was my first thought. The Chicoms will put him to work just the same was the US handled Von Braun.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Then why did they go out of their way to show up at a conference and announce anything at all? We still don't even know the real names or info of the people who were edited. Your assertion makes no sense whatsoever.
Super Hero Origin Story (Score:2)
Life is short - Be greatful. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems especially hypocritical from the Chinese government to condemn this doctor for work that may have harmed the babies, then turns around and kills prisoners for organs.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems especially hypocritical from the Chinese government to condemn this doctor for work that may have harmed the babies, then turns around and kills prisoners for organs.
You make the common error of treating a large organisation (and they don't get much larger than the Chinese government) as a monolithic entity, rather than as countless components working semi-independently. Why assume the people making or enforcing laws on reproductive technology even support capital punishment?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it hypocritical that the US law protects babies from harm while having the death penalty? Because that's the exact same thing with the possible exception of China having more crimes with a death penalty.
USA: I'll buy ten! (Million) (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, tell me, "we" wouldn't be the first to buy that. Like all other Chinese crap. Free 'shipping included! ;)
Re:China is not managed well? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that the Chinese government is not managed well. Yes, the Shenzhen researcher should have been stopped, but I see no reason to put him in prison.
It probably brought gene editing of babies into the spotlight and risked revealing the Chinese government/military's own research programs in that area.
So primitive! (Score:2)
We did that, almost a century ago!
China... pish ... caveman people! /s
Re: (Score:2)
He went to prison for embarrassing the Chinese government. If this happened in America or EU, then they would go to prison for performing unethical experiments on humans.
In modern times, for good or for bad there is a large process before we try something on humans. As the past has shown that there have been a lot of death, and often unjust selection on who to experiment on. And many are suffering from the consequences after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
If this happened in America or EU, then they would go to prison for performing unethical experiments on humans.
How is this unethical? Explain.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this unethical? Explain.
It may not have been immoral, but it was certainly unethical.
An act is immoral if it violates your own internal principles.
An act is unethical if it violates society's standards of behavior.
Since this act was both illegal and in violation of professional standards, it was unethical.
Whether it was immoral is subjective. You can decide for yourself. I don't think it was immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
An act is immoral if it violates your own internal principles.
Basically, yes. Also, immoral if it violates a community's principles. Morality is basically a farce with no backing and should be abandoned.
An act is unethical if it violates society's standards of behavior.
False. An act is unethical if it decreases the welfare of a person without valid ethical justification. For example: A collectivity can agree that some people's welfare is unacceptably low and that they will sacrifice some of their own welfare for the greater good; or a criminal can face welfare-diminishing actions to prevent them from harming the welfare of oth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It violates basic principles of consent and autonomy. The children were not offered any choice in having their genes modified, nor were they able to make an informed decision.
You could say the same thing about every child born. None of them consented or chose to be born, nor did they have any control over their mother's diet, smoking, drinking, or choice in a sexual partner. Once they are born, children are given no choice over where they live, their family's religion, or who their siblings are. Medical procedures can also be imposed on children without their consent.
Re: (Score:3)
Medical procedures are performed with the explicit permission of the parent or guardian, unless it is an emergency and a life saving/limb sparing procedure is immediately necessary and the parent/guardian cannot be located. That is the single exception - and you had better be able to prove in court that it was indeed a required life saving procedure. I should know about this one, being a doctor. Otherwise you cannot do anything to a child. There are specific exceptions in the laws of certain countries, such
Re: (Score:2)
The children were not offered any choice in having their genes modified, nor were they able to make an informed decision.
Are children offered a choice to be vaccinated, to undergo dialysis or surgeries when they have congenital defects that will cause them great pain their whole lives, or to be given anti-seizure drugs when they are born having potentially-fatal seizures?
Were the children offered a choice to face the risk of not having the genetic modification?
Was the action taken in pursuit of increasing the welfare of the child?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs an show trail.
Most Americans can't afford a proper jury trial. They often can't even afford bail, so they sit in jail for years waiting for a trial date.
Much better to just take a plea deal for an immediate reduced sentence, whether you are guilty or not.
Per capita, America incarcerates four times as many people as China.
Re: (Score:3)
Per capita, America incarcerates four times as many people as China.
The US should follow the Chinese model of executing prisoners instead of keeping them alive. Also, the model of presenting prisoner numbers that can't be verified. Also, the model of redefining what constitutes a prisoner, e.g., the US needs more "re-education" centers.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that because China tends to just kill them? Really cuts down on repeat offenders....
And does that Chinese figure include the people in Concentration Camps?
Re: (Score:2)
China won't ever tell you exactly how many people they have incarcerated in their country.
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:4, Informative)
You don't need to Pay for a jury trial... However if you want a layer who just wasn't picked out of a pool of available lawyers being paid a "charity rate" to cover you for any prolonged legal action, you are going to need to pay a lot more. If you get the court provided lawyer his interest is to get this job over with as quickly as possible so they can work on something more profitable. So they will probably just try to settle out of court, or get you to plead guilty and take a lighter punishment.
If you have a lot of money or chances on getting rewarded a lot of money, then you could get a legal team vs just a lawyer. To help defend you and make sure you get a more thorough trial.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd settle for a layer who can spell lawyer.
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:5, Informative)
Nearly everything you just said is bullshit...
Much of what you are saying is wrong and horribly naive. So please don't cast aspersions on others.
A public defender works for the public defender's office
This is often not true. Lawyers in private practice are often asked, and sometimes ordered, to take on public defender duties. They are paid of course, but not as much as they make from their private clients.
The two disadvantages to public defenders are that they typically weren't successful enough in school to garner better job offers coming out of college or haven't distinguished themselves through their casework
That is the point. A PD is usually going to give you a 2nd rate defense. People with public defenders are more likely to be convicted or to be pushed into a lousy plea deal.
The richer you are, the more likely you are to be acquitted or to work out a "no-jail" plea deal.
it's more advantageous for everyone involved that you plea down to a lesser offense and move on with your life.
Indeed. But not all plea deals are equal, and whether you are guilty or innocent is mostly irrelevant. An innocent person who is acquitted at trial often has their life destroyed by pre-trial confinement, astronomical legal expenses that drain their pensions and home equity, career interruption, and ruined reputation. A quick plea deal for a reduced charge can avoid much of that.
Re: (Score:2)
A PD is usually going to give you a 2nd rate defense.
Not necessarily. Jobs are not obtained on qualifications alone. Who you know is also very important - possibly even more important. Just because one little sperm gets to fertilize the egg doesn't mean that all the other little sperms are defective...
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:4, Interesting)
What are the trials like in China that make them so much better?
I would not say that trials in China are "better", but they are better in some ways and worse in others.
The major problem with China's system is a lack of judicial independence. Judges are required to obey orders from the CCP. So someone convicted of a political crime is certainly going to be treated more fairly in America.
On the other hand, a normal quotidian criminal defendant of modest means is going to be treated more fairly in China.
America has an adversarial legal system. The prosecutor controls the investigation and has a vested interest in obtaining a conviction. The investigators are looking for incriminating evidence. If they accidentally stumble across exonerating evidence, they are legally required to turn it over to the defense, but they have plenty of incentive to avoid finding such evidence. The defense receives no public funding to conduct their own investigating, although rich people can pay for their own investigation.
China has an inquisitorial system and the court controls the investigation. The investigators are neutral and have no vested interest in either a conviction or acquittal. The investigators have no loyalty to either the prosecutor or the defense and seek out all the facts impartially, at least in theory.
IMO, the legal systems in both countries are deeply dysfunctional and unjust. I complain more about America's system because I live in America, I am an American citizen, and therefore my opinion should mean something. My opinion means nothing to China.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that prosecutors in the US have little incentive to follow their mandate to turn over exonerating evidence, I would bet that the Chinese inquisitors have even less desire to do anything other than obtain a clean, fast conviction. Which means putting away the suspect at hand. Anything else would take tons of extra time. You really think those investigators have the light caseloads that allow thorou
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ha ha, good one. Next you'll be telling me that the law forbids any person from holding an office of profit or trust from accepting presents or emoluments from foreign states, and since the law forbids it, then it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, parts of the Constitution are blatantly ignored. The Fifth Amendment is supposed to protect against unreasonable search and seizure, yet civil forfeiture is common practice. The Thirteenth Amendment is supposed to outlaw slavery, but prisoners can be treated as slaves. The Second Amendment is supposed to protect one's right to own firearms, yet many places create laws that diminish that right (such as limits on ammo).
Some parts of the Constitution are still upheld (like the First), but many
Re: (Score:2)
Only part of the First Amendment is being upheld, and even that is under assault by the con artist. The separation of church and state is clearly not being upheld. In fact, it borders on being outright ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Thirteenth Amendment is supposed to outlaw slavery, but prisoners can be treated as slaves.
The 13th Amendment has an explicit exception for convicted criminals.
The 13th Amendment of the Constitution: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a victim of the travesty that is our "justice" system. I was accused of a crime with no evidence, held over a weekend until my arraignment the following Monday so I lost the job I had recently started, and although I was lucky enough to be allowed to pay bail, I was initially told I would not be eligible for a court appointed lawyer. You see, they do not give you one simply because YOU have no money to pay for a lawyer, they base it on your household income. So as a young man with roommates, I was denied as my "household" had enough income to afford an attorney. They set my next court date for almost three months from then, it was the soonest they could fit it, really "speedy," right? Fast forward to that date, by then I was no longer living with those roommates as I'd had to take a lower-income position after losing my previous job and started renting a room in a low-rent area. They asked me if I'd found a lawyer, and I told them truthfully I was unable to find a lawyer I could afford and asked if we could reevaluate my eligibility. They were able to do this that day and assigned a lawyer to me. My next court date would be a little over two months away. On the next court date, they asked me again if I had found a lawyer, at which time my assigned lawyer explained that the court had appointed him as my attorney, which the judge then told us there was no record of. Because of their paperwork snafu, the day was lost, but they assured me it would be fixed at my next court date another two months away from then. It was not. It was almost two years of delays, throughout which the only alternative option they offered was to go to trial without an attorney. Several times throughout this process they told me I was not eligible for a court-appointed attorney due to my household income, I told them not only was that information outdated but I have never had access to the funds of any other member of my household, and my attorney was always kindly reminding them they had, in fact, assigned him to me. Two whole years this went on, until I finally went to trial and the "witness" didn't show and I was acquitted. I won't go deep into the aftermath of this, suffice it to say the person who filed the false report did not go through nearly as much of a hassle as I did in court, they just paid a very small fine and were told to stay away from me.
The key points here? I was allowed to effectively buy my own release, but if I didn't have money I would have had to sit in jail that whole time. I was initially denied a court appointed attorney, not because of my own income, but that of my "household" as the courts expect anyone you live with to foot the bill for your legal expenses if you, yourself, are poor. And my "speedy" trial took two years to actually get underway, despite lasting only a few minutes, during which time I would've been stuck behind bars had I been unable to pay. Not only did all of this cost me every time I had to take a day off to go to court, the stress of having this go on for two years affected my health quite a bit and led to numerous medical bills. It is also worth noting this was not in some high-crime big city where the courts are inundated with one trial after another, it was just a small-ish town in the USA where the courts are usually empty by the time early afternoon rolls around.
You can evaluate "speedy" trials for yourself by going to a court arraignment session, they are typically open to the public and they generally have the next available court dates that can be assigned posted where everyone can see. I have never seen a next court date within a month, and in my experience most are closer to three. Three months might not sound like a long time, but if you can't afford the bail a judge sets for you that's three months behind bars where you can not work, pay your bills, care for family, or any of the many things we take for granted as "free" people. If you were in a lease or have a credit card, you will be
Re: but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that people are required to sit in jail for YEARS waiting on trial based upon financial resources??
If they don't have money for bail then they sit there waiting for the trial. Occasionally there will be a rare humanitarian release without bail, but that's not common (unless you're rich, at which point it's assumed that you will return for the trial.) In quite a few cases defendants found guilty or pleading out will be sentenced to 'time served' simply because they've already sat in prison longer than
Re: (Score:2)
Some jurisdictions allow OR bonds. They should probably do that more often.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it is for murder or something, the jail is not going to be willing to hold you pre-trial for very long. Nobody is paying for it, the county just eats the cost of holding you. No freakin' way that is happening. If you refuse to post bail, they'll release you anyway and write down "overcrowding," if they're crowded or not. Though they probably are.
And the fact is that you have a right to bail, they're required to lower it if you can't pay what they first set.
Re: (Score:2)
Waste everyone's time and we throw the book.
If people are harshly punished for speaking their opinion, then there is no right to free speech.
If people are harshly punished for demanding a jury trial, then there is no right to a jury trial.
The 6th amendment, like the 9th and 10th, no longer has any meaning.
At least the US attempts a fair trial.
Very rarely. In American federal court, only 2% of defendants receive a fair trial.
Re: (Score:2)
>harshly punished for speaking their opinion,
It's not about speaking their opinion. It's about wasting everyone's time denying other people their rights because some people would rather be an ass.
> harshly punished for demanding a jury trial, then there is no right to a jury trial.
You can demand a jury trial and you will get it*. But if you are found guilty when it was obvious you were guilty then don't be surprised that the patience of the court has already been worn thin and will give you the maxim
Re: (Score:2)
"Plea deals do not undermine a fair trial. It's a means for the courts to manage a limited and burdened service."
That is such bullshit. A plea deal, whereby someone is offered a reduced sentence even when they are not guilty, in order to "manage a limited and burdened service" instead of being told that you're going to "have the book thrown at you" for not taking the plea, is the worst possible outcome of the "justice" system in the USA. If that many people are being told to plea rather than get a fair tr
Re: (Score:2)
>A plea deal, whereby someone is offered a reduced sentence even when they are not guilty,
You are not forced to accept the deal. Don't accept if innocent.
>, is the worst possible outcome of the "justice" system in the USA
You have a very warped perception of reality. No system is perfect. Do not judge the efficacy of any system to perfection.
>If that many people are being told to plea rather than get a fair trial, than something is seriously wrong with the system.
Why? Are people able to make a deal
Re: (Score:2)
Source please.
Here you go: Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial [pewresearch.org].
Plea deals do not undermine a fair trial.
They most certainly do: Innocence Is Irrelevant in the age of the plea bargain [theatlantic.com]
It's a means for the courts to manage a limited and burdened service.
Indeed. Innocent people go to prison so the government can save money on court costs.
*Military law notwithstanding.
Wrong. Military personnel have a right to a jury trial. NJP happens only when a defendant waives their right to a trial.
Military rules of evidence are different, and it is harder to suppress evidence, but providency hearings make it harder for the innocent to be coerced into plead
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You'll have an infinitely fairer trial in America, always.
Then why are there 120,000 innocent people in US prisons [vice.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
You'll have an infinitely fairer trial in America, always.
Then why are there 120,000 innocent people in US prisons [vice.com]?
There are definitely many things to criticize about the US legal system, even decades after the supposed end of Jim Crow. However, there are indications that China's system is even worse. For example, the conviction rate in Chinese courts is more than 99.9% [telegraph.co.uk]! Yes, that is not a misprint and doesn't exactly scream "fair trial". In contrast, US conviction rates [wikipedia.org] run from 93% at the federal level to much less at the state and local levels.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the conviction rate in Chinese courts is more than 99.9% [telegraph.co.uk]!
This is misleading because Chinese courts work very differently.
In America, the prosecutor conducts the investigation and indicts the defendant based only on incriminating evidence. The defendant has no opportunity to present any mitigating or exonerating evidence until the trial itself.
In China, the investigation is neutral and seeks out both incriminating and exonerating evidence. All of this evidence is reviewed by the judge before the trial. If there is not enough evidence to convict, the charges are d
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the conviction rate in Chinese courts is more than 99.9% [telegraph.co.uk]!
This is misleading because Chinese courts work very differently.
This is the crux of the problem of analyzing China. Whom and what do you trust? On paper, China has wonderful human rights, low crime rates, and low incarceration and execution rates. Yet, it is accused of atrocious human rights violations and more executions that the rest of the world combined. It could be possible that the China legal system has prosecutors that are so wonderfully benevolent that basically all truly innocent people are never even charged in the first place, i.e., Chinese prosecutors a
Re: (Score:2)
> You'll have an infinitely fairer trial in America, always.
This is blatantly false. Erroneous and even fraudulent convictions do still happen.See:
https://time.com/wrongly-convi... [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs an show trail.
A trial in which a jury hand-picked by the opposing lawyers to know nothing about science will vote the plaintiff a billion dollars because Monsanto bad.
Re: (Score:2)
My impression of their justice system is that it's a lot better but sometimes still horribly broken. For example a current very high profile case that seems to have an outcome Predetermined by political affiliations rather than impartial legal considerations. I am happy I don't live in either of these two countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody goes to gitmo over unethical medical practices. That was reserved for combatants apprehended on foreign soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahahahah good one. No wonder you're posting as AC.
Are you a hobbyist contrarian? (Score:3, Insightful)
Previously: "Boo, such horrible people, who let this happen! China is a hellhole. They should all be in prison!"
[China puts him in prison.]
Now: "Boo, such horrible peope who put him in prison! China is a hellhole. This should not have happened!"
My kingdom for China giving kittens to childen with cancer, JUST to see how you put that in a bad light.
But I'll settle for you playing the game [quotemaster.org], by calling me a Chinese or commie or something
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for China giving kittens to childen with cancer, JUST to see how you put that in a bad light.
When the child dies, there will be no one to care for the kitten, and it will likely be abandoned (or in Guangdong, eaten).
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for China giving kittens to childen with cancer, JUST to see how you put that in a bad light.
The money spent acquiring the kittens for the cancer kids would be better spent on research to cure the kids' cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's grandma knows, cat's steal a babies breath
China is just trying to use feng shui stuff to euthanise the infants while having plausible deniability...nay, even good PR!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because BABIES HAVE BEEN BORN
That's what "offspring" means
Re: (Score:2)
It's China. Anyone can be executed for anything there, including infants. Of course, the offspring would just . . . disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
That's amusing. They can "disappear" democracy activists, but children who kill people have to be let free? You sure the Chicoms aren't letting them alone to hire them on later once they're adults? That's Johan Liebert-level stuff right there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Unethical Chinese research: we love it!
Unethical Nazi research: omg the six million :~~~~~(
Alright, I'll play the Godwin game here...
First, admittedly I haven't browsed at -1, but I haven't seen any of the comments which have been modded up being ones which lauded this individual's practices.
Second, from what I understand, a cure for AIDS isn't something for which we've been successful at making some sort of penicillin-like cure. Exploring gene re-sequencing as an avenue of last resort for a very specific condition is something I agree is still unethical, but is at least targeted in scope and int
Re: (Score:2)
How much is ethics worth if it slows down the introduction of things that could save millions?
Nobody wants to be the one a risky test goes wrong on, but at least be aware cautiousness does not actually save net lives.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Nazis managed to cure AIDS with a million dead Jews as its cost, they'd have saved many tens of millions of people. And yes, I know HIV was unknown in the 40s. You're just turning it into the trolley problem: Is it ok to kill a small number of people in order to save the lives of a much larger number of people?
I think most people just solve the problem by using a very strong bias towards inaction. If you merely *allow* people to die when you could have prevented it, then it's not your fault and you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it any more ethical to throw research out that could improve or save lives? You assume ethics is in some manner based on rationality. It is not - it's based on a rough consensus, and an inbuilt ability to deny the personally inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume ethics is in some manner based on rationality. It is not - it's based on a rough consensus
That's exactly why I said it was relative, and varies from time to time and culture to culture. Who knows what humans will consider ethical in 500 years.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have been much cooler...
If my baby can't breathe under water, soar like a bat and provide me a handy living nightlight what did I spend all that money of having it edited for?!