Talk:He Jiankui affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 March 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashmay1999.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created talk-page[edit]

Created talk-page for the "Lulu and Nana" article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overkill[edit]

Hello. One issue to note is citation overkill where there are too many references for claims made in the lead section. Note that much non-specialist resources (churnalism by groups that didn't break the original AP/Technology review reports) from the 26 November is misinformed compared to 28 Nov where the researcher has put his slides up online. I am going to remove some of the 26 Nov sources (Wikipedia should not focus on speculation and conjecture - WP:CRYSTAL). -- Callinus (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that citation overkill does not equate to quality or thoroughness. Cull to the essential. I normally I leave no more than two as inline citations: one scientific source and a high quality pop-report/news. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article topic[edit]

This page is putatively about two girls. When I worked on this last night, I tried to turn the focus to them, as much as possible. This was originally written with the topic being something like "First example of human germline genetic editing". We can change the name and focus it on the experiment, but if we don't then when folks edit, please keep this in mind. If folks want to change the name of the page, let's talk about that. In the meantime, I am undoing some of the changes that were made, as they push it back toward the "this is about the experiment" topic. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I made edits to focus this more tightly on the girls; I moved the extensive reactions section to the He Jiankui page. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I went further and boldly merged this into He Jiankui‎; I don't believe we have enough to sustain a page about the two girls per se. If it is contested we can have a formal merge discussion...Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your merger was reverted. If you still like to merge Lulu and Nana into He Jiankui, please go through the process of proposing a merger. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog will not be able to propose a merger at this point so another editor will need to do so if they agree it should be merged. My concern with this article regards notability of minors. The incident itself definately meets WP:GNG, but I am uncomfortable having an article about two babies that have no agency in their notability. I think their is some policy or guideline regarding minors, but I don't have time to look for it right now. A name change could work, or else maybe a merger is best. AIRcorn (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this article is not a biography. It actually talks, and should talk, about the incident, not about the life of the two babies. Maybe Lulu and Nana can be renamed to something like Lulu and Nana incident or Lulu and Nana experiment or Lulu and Nana controversy. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - possibly relevant here as well (see copy below):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2018#(Closed)_Lulu_and_Nana

Copied from (closed) discussion re the "Lulu and Nana" news nominated for a possible "In The News" (ITN) entry =>

Support [for the proposed ITN entry]: as OA => wait for verication seems best of course; however, [ITN] blurb notes that the news is a "claim" - and - there seems to be a considerable amount of worthy international press coverage (clearly "In The News" so-to-speak) => Google Search for "Lulu and Nana" gives 27.2k results at the moment (10am/et/usa, 28 November 2018) (perhaps compare similar search results - and the significant upward trend in the related graph - with the "Denny (hybrid hominin)" news article not long ago?) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Lulu and Nana" are just fictional names; the article is certainly not a biography. It's about the notable incident in which the first genetic engineered babies were made known to the world. STSC (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The move merge by Jytdog was illegal as it omitted the move merge request and consultations. However, this is about a claim by Dr. He and whether he did it or not, it belongs to his biography. The move merge request has to be done to assess it properly. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to point out user Jytdog has been banned from Wikipedia [1]. Before that he/she was actually topic-banned from GMO related articles. So, all his/her past edits on Lulu and Nana would not be acceptable. STSC (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few clarifications to the two above comments. There is nothing disruptive (let alone illegal) about redirecting a page to another related broader one, unless there has been some previous consensus not to do so. A central tenet of editing here is to be bold, which means not everything needs a discussion. If a bold edit is disagreed with it is then reverted and discussed as is the case here. Whether Jytdog is banned from editing these articles is up for debate (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jytdog) and I see no practical way to undo all his edits in this area even if this were found to be the case. Even though this is no longer an issue with them, there are other editors banned under the same principle so I might open an clarification request about the scope of the bans at some point. AIRcorn (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement to rename this page with notable opposition to a page move based on "too soon" and "common name", so the new title should begin with that common name. The word and concept of "controversy" seems to have some approval, and the name becomes the Lulu and Nana controversy, which is a title suggested by the nom. To be clear, since there is no actual consensus for the title chosen, any editor may open a new move request at any time to try to garner consensus for a better name if it exists. Events are still unfolding, and that may be a significant factor in the near future. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu and Nana → ? – Per the discussion above, I formally request the move. This article is, and should be, about the incident (experiment), not about the life of the two babies. I am not sure what the new title should be. Possible candidates maybe include Lulu and Nana incident, Lulu and Nana experiment, and Lulu and Nana controversy. Any suggestion? Neo-Jay (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - No need to move. Lulu and Nana has become the common name now for the controversy involving the birth of gene-engineered twins. STSC (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - yes - *entirely* agree - no need to move - for the reason presented above by STSC - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
* [UPDATE: Support - re newly suggested move to "Gene editing of Lulu and Nana" - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC) ][reply]

  • Support - move to Gene editing of Lulu and Nana. It side-steps the mentioned problems with biography of living people (especially those of children) and is concise. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to move to Gene editing of Lulu and Nana (or other names than "Lulu and Nana") -It is absolutely right that "the article is certainly not a biography. It's about the notable incident" (said by STSC at the discussion above). So logically the suggestion by Rowan Forest is very reasonable: Move to Gene editing of Lulu and Nana. Article name "Lulu and Nana" is an apparent biography name, but the twin babies are too young and have too little substantial information about them per se to have such article only using their names.--Lvhis (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:1) The Lulu and Nana are borrowed from the anime characters in Shugo Chara!! Doki. Article with just the fictional names in the title would not be seen as biography of living persons.
2) The birth of Lulu and Nana babies is real but any "gene editing" still has not been verified; how can we put that into the title then? STSC (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - good points - and reminder - esp - the incident has yet to be verified - perhaps - either "Lulu and Nana" or "Lulu and Nana incident" may be the best choice for now? - at least until there's better information available? (the other suggestions - "Lulu and Nana experiment" and "Lulu and Nana controversy" - may be a bit sensationalistic, and less encyclopedic, in comparison, I would think atm) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -The incident per se is real. What is pending for verification is whether the two infants have been really gene-edited as claimed by He Jiankui, and this is also a part of the incident.--Lvhis (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking it might be better naming it for He. Something like "He gene editing scandal/controversy/incident". Some other controversial genetic engineering incidents are named "affair" (e.g. Pusztai affair), but they are a bit different. The final name will probably be decided in the future when the dust settles and reliable sources look back on it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to He gene editing controversy. The more I think about it the more I feel focusing this article more on He Jiankui is the right thing to do. It is basically his action that have led to the event and the commentary in reliable sources currently concentrates on his involvement. He is likely to be subject to ramifications from this that should be covered here. Even if it turns out it is all a big fraud the incident will still be notable for the ruckus he caused. The proposed name of Gene editing of Lulu and Nana will be incorrect in this case and is probably factually inappropriate unless we get some reliable independent verification. I am not terrible fussed with what adjective we use, but in order to formalise it (I wish we had this discussion before opening the requested move) I will propose He gene editing controversy for consideration. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW - over 20 "Redirects" to the target "Lulu and Nana" article have been created, and include all suggested wordings so far in the above discussion - PageView-count (total) results (possible measure of popular search terms?) at the moment seem to greatly favor the target "Lulu and Nana" article itself, with 21,245 counts; followed by "Gene edited babies" (48 counts) and "Gene edited human" (46 counts); all other Redirects are less than 35 counts - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your finding proves that the search term "Lulu and Nana" has been commonly used by the readers who want to find out about the incident. And I'm sure they know pretty well the article isn't a biography. STSC (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: Thank you for your comments - however - the "Lulu and Nana" article naming (ie, using the names of possibly the 1st genetically modified humans) - may be similar to the "Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua" article naming (ie, using the names of the 1st cloned primates) - there may be other related examples of this re other Wikipedia articles, I would think - in any case - Thank you for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too soon to say. There are BLP issues but as the babies and their parents are all referred to only by pseudonyms I think this is under control at present. The existing article name, with all those redirects, and scope is adequate for now, so best not to clutter the article histories with moves until we see what happens when the current political and ethical feeding frenzy subsides. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Altered longevity and retracted paper[edit]

The current version of the article says that there is a paper published in June 2019, that suggests that "the purportedly genetically edited humans may have been mutated in a way that shortens life expectancy". The paper says that "two copies of CCR5Δ32 mutations (homozygotes) were about 20% less likely than the rest of the population to die before they were 76 of age". This means homozygotes have higher life expectancy.

The article also says that "Lulu carries a heterozygous mutant CCR5 that has a 15 bp in-frame deletion; while Nana carries a homozygous mutant gene with a 4 bp deletion and a single base insertion." This would mean Nana has higher life expectancy (since she is homozygote for the CCR5Δ32 mutation). And this would mean nothing specific for Lulu. So I believe something is weird here.

Also, this paper has been retracted. I mention this this so we keep in mind that a retracted paper shouldn't have a lot of coverage in the article (but I think the way it is now, with at maximum one paragraph, is ok). Mateussf (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is retracted should we not just remove the paragraph. AIRcorn (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the story is that it is a retracted paper which received wide media coverage. The paper with false research used to criticise He Jiankui's experiment adds, in my opinion, to the controversy – in an interesting way. 03:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CAS First-Year Seminar[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2022 and 9 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LLgreenery, Traaaco (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Living2022, Jcic.

Reorganize and expand the technical/ethical controversies section[edit]

The current version of the article has Ethics under Technical controversies. Since biomedical ethics could potentially has its own section divided into the four aspects: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice, we propose to reorganize the page's sections into technical controversies and biomedical ethics violations. I'm working with Reagle -Zhifanfu (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhifanfu, it doesn't look like this page is super-active anymore, but with your scholarly sources in hand, you should be able to make a good contribution here, including any that discuss the subject in the context of the Belmont Principles (i.e., respect, beneficence, and justice). I'm not sure why the section "Technical controversies" is titled as it is, and suggest it be renamed to something such as "Ethical criticisms" and "Publication" be renamed to "Peer Review," etc. Also, I'm not sure if the section on "Related research" is duplicated elsewhere? And I note there's a fair amount of typos and prose that could be improved upon. In short, the article does need reorg and editing, and extending the ethics content with reputable sources on the topic is merited. -Reagle (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the ethics section and added a "ethical critics" section based on two scholarly articles on Dr. He's violation on bioethics. I welcome all the feedbacks and contributions. Zhifanfu (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhifanfu I've changed some of the subject headings, I encourage you to work with other Wikipedians to:
  1. make sure your section in particular links to other Wikipedia articles.
  2. edit the "ethical controversies" for coherence (re-organize) and concision (remove some of the redudancies).
Reagle (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chhandama Thanks for the contribution on this page. I noticed that you reorganized the ethical section and has divided the ethical controversies section into several sub-section. Can you explain why you think it is necessary to add the "Misconstrual of science" section please? Thank you so much!Zhifanfu (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Zhifanfu (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sub-section is indeed quite odd. I did write the text, but in earlier version, it flowed nicely with the general story. Additional text and sub-sections were added by other editor(s). It was essentially intended to give a picture of how the scientific basis was not entirely justified by the experimental editing, thus violating the biological principle. Let's give it a separate main section. Chhandama (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JDBauby Thanks for the contribution on this page. Your edit has made the whole easier to read and understand. I'm learning how to use effective and precise wording to edit a wiki page as a wiki student editor. I have added a subsection related to bio-medical ethics to this page I would love to receive some feedbacks from you. Zhifanfu (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhifanfu your contribution is really detailed and some organization improvement may be considered, but overall very good contribution. Here is the link of my peer review, wish my feedback can be helpful for improving content quality in the future! Susususushi (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Susususushi, Thank you so much for the feedback and I found them very helpful. I will work more on the two organizations and be able to make the whole structure clearer. Zhifanfu (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hear my feedback help you! Thanks for your contribution and well sourced content. Susususushi (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:He_Jiankui_affair&oldid=1207599315"