[cixin]

Realistically, what harm can the experiments described in the article do to the general population?

It's so hard to do anything, even design diagnostic tests, that requires FDA approval that personally I'd avoid any startup that had that on their route to revenue.

It's kind of a shame, and countries where it's easier to develop new treatments and tests are likely to take the lead.

[frozenport]

I disagree about the revenue concerns.

Many new ideas for medical technologies are founded on academic work that is often fraudulent. When I hear that a startup is going to start the ball rolling on FDA approval, that often means that the technology is more likely to work.

[Sarki]

First of all, I'm not a biologist but a software consultant and have worked in several software companies as level 3 support.

My personal experience on tiny and sometimes unrelated changes having a catastrophic impact: software configuration changes, new hardware, other softwares bug, antivirus rules and updates, etc.

These points can be roughly related to a living being: psychological/environmental/habit changes, transplant/implant, organ failure/traumatism, immune system false positive (e.g. alergies?), ...

I'm not against the idea gene manipulation, just saying that his doings are very marginal and must not be praised.

If labs have been relying on white mice and drosophilae it's for some good reasons:

Common sense (how many people died because of charlatanism?), ethics and Human Rights.

What is at stakes here can lead either to a nobel price (I sincerely hope for him) or a darwin award (thanks to the ignorance of such red flags).

[DyslexicAtheist]

> What is at stakes here can lead either to a nobel price (I sincerely hope for him) or a darwin award (thanks to the ignorance of such red flags).

We need something like this https://iotdarwinaward.com/ but for genetic engineering :-)