Re read the article. It's not about the use of CRISPR but the lack of transparency in his operation. The couple gave a consent based on false info. They thought their babies would receive a type of 'vaccination'.
Has anyone read the full article? It's writing clearly that the couple made consent on false given information, as they thought it was a type of vaccination. That lack of transparency is unethical.
Re read the article. It's not about the use of CRISPR but the lack of transparency in his operation. The couple gave a consent based on false info. They thought their babies would receive a type of 'vaccination'.
Has anyone read the full article? It's writing clearly that the couple made consent on false given information, as they thought it was a type of vaccination. That lack of transparency is unethical.