• Phlogistol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m having trouble trusting anyone with no scientific background (i.e. no PhD), no published journal articles, and no ethical committee oversight to proceed with a complex problem such as this one.

    • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I would not blindly trust those people either, if they are human they are corruptible as well.

      Looking at certain ‘scientific background’ people they act just like politicians, if you take the time to look into them and their activities.

      I am just saying to be criticial and do not treat them like celebrity worship status, because I have done that mistake with politicians as well.

      We must stay criticial of people in power and with money/influence.

      • slumberlust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Science IS political, at all levels. You can’t compete without funding and your institutions will pressure you to perform a certain way.

        • Phlogistol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Sadly, I agree. Scientific background does not a good person make. It’s just mostly (not always) required to solve problems of this level of complexity.

          I’m mostly concerned because of no independent ethical committee oversight which is standard in breaking ground on new research and procedures and is widely practiced in medicine and psychology that I know of. I can’t know if this is a fraud, it’s not my field, but the lack of any public information on their groundbreaking procedure based in science is also quite concerning.

          This article is basically promotional material.

  • Taohumor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    As long as you don’t use the word eugenics explicitly apparently you can sell anyone on anything.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      No they acknowledge that the technology could be used that way. But there’s a lot of actual medical problems we can catch this way. Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          No. Eugenics is race theory as much as it’s anything scientific. It was about making sure the “correct” races had children. I don’t know what the name for this is in science but Eugenics isn’t about making kids healthier, it’s about making them whiter.

  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    How much does an Orchid screening cost?

    It’s $2,500 per embryo.

    And presumably you’d be screening several embryos. What about for families that can’t afford that?

    We have a philanthropic program, so people can apply to that, and we’re excited to accept as many cases as we can.


    I must now ask a question I’ve been dreading. I’m sorry in advance. Here goes. It’s the inevitable question about Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes.

    No, this is the worst question. This is so mean.

    Tell me why it’s so mean.

    I find it sad. It’s a sad state of affairs where—my friends who aren’t even in health, they say they get it too. It’s like, any female CEO with any tech-adjacent thing is constantly being questioned—by the way, are you like this other fraud? Do you want to comment on this other random fraud that occurred that has absolutely nothing to do with you besides the person being the same gender as you?

    If you’re trying to charitably understand where this question is coming from, how do you do that?

    What would be the charitable interpretation—besides that our society is incredibly misogynistic and men’s frauds and failings are passed aside and when one female does it she stands for every other female CEO ever?

    So there’s no charitable interpretation.

    I don’t think there is. Society treats men as, like, default credible. For a woman, the default is skeptical.