AnyOldName3

You’d need to test every cell in the embryo to be sure none of them had off-target mutations, and DNA sequencing doesn’t leave the cell alive, so you can’t prove it worked without killing the embryo. He tested some of the cells and discarded embryos where those cells were damaged, but there’s no way to know if the untested cells in the embryos were fine, and given what we know about the reliability, it’s more likely that there are problems than not.

The linked Wikipedia article says only their fathers were HIV-positive, and typically that wouldn’t lead to a parent infecting their child unless they decided to share needles etc.

He was found guilty of medical malpractice after gene editing babies by treating their embryos with CRISPR/Cas9. He claims that he was trying to make them resistant to HIV, and that medical ethics are preventing cures from being discovered, but his critics say that we know CRISPR is too unreliable to use on a genome the size of a human’s, and is more likely to introduce dangerous mutations than apply the intended change, hence why no one else has done this before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui

I’ve had an unreasonable number of arguments against people who seemed to think animal was a synonym for mammal. Thankfully, we’re now in an era where you can look it up and show them now mobile data is cheap, so it’s become a winnable argument.