They call it a job for teenagers, but will actually have a meltdown if mcdonalds isn’t open during school hours. God help if they have to wait 2 minutes because staff is low

She wasn’t even a scientist. She just kinda showed up, made friends with the research facility, and convinced them to let her try teaching the dolphin to speak.

Ironically her “method” did start to show some success

I had a proffessor in college that only allowed the use of 1mm black G2s. He was ancient and claimed he could not read anything else

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Are you calling shenanigans?

I’ll follow you

Well boys see you on the front lines when we get shipped to Canada.

I think we know why and it’s not good

Keep the po and the ta

Just toes for me thanks

Now make one with dishes

Once I read the caption I can only see the bag of popcorn now. The effect is gone

I didn’t say it was magic. Part of the issue is we don’t know what modifications he made in making his artificial version. I won’t pretend like there aren’t a lot of unknowns there. It could alter the effectiveness in numerous ways.

Having a heterozygous deletion is still effecting the right gene. Without knowing both of her parents genetics it’s hard to say if it was natural. What he did could produce either a heterozygous or homozygous result on the gene, but only the homozygous presentation is effective at prevention.

So 1 was a full success and the other showed activation on the appropriate gene, but not enough to confer resistance. Although it is possible it does since he used an artificial gene. We know the natural one is not effective in a heterozygous presentation. I still think that was his greatest mistake. He should have just used the naturally effective gene.

You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.

Per the wikipedia page it states that it is not clear if it effective because they’re not going to intentionally infect the children to test it. But we see the results specifically on the targeted gene. That’s a success and demonstrates the technology works.

I’d argue the folly was inserting an artificial gene as opposed to the natural gene that we already know works. Either way the technology showed expression on the correct gene, that is a success.

We’d be having a better discourse on this if his results weren’t banned from every journal and not studied.