Noor Siddiqui founded Orchid so people could “have healthy babies.” Now she’s using the company’s gene technology on herself—and talking about it for the first time.
  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    3 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.

    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      They could just ask who has verified the outcomes… No need to do the ‘are you a fraud’ line

  • Phlogistol@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    3 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.worldEnglish
      11·
      3 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.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    Does population decline worry you?

    I mean, it’s super important. The population of all of the places we love is shrinking. In 50 years, 30 years, you’ll have half as many people in places that you love. Society will collapse. We have to solve it. It’s very critical.

    Uhhh…what? There are a handful of countries with recent population decline, but most of the world is still growing even if growth rates are slowing. I’ve never seen any credible projections of catastrophic population decline.

  • Taohumor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

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

    • Maggoty@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 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?

    • Patches@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      They literally say “Word beginning with ‘eu’ and ends with ‘genics’” inside the article pimping them out.

      With a sprinkling of ‘Orchid doesn’t like us to use that word’ as if ‘Nazis do not like to be called Nazis’ is a valid complaint.

    • Sharon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Ironically, this would enable those with genetic conditions to more safely have kids. I’d argue the problem with Gattaca was that the one man who wasn’t genetically perfect was discriminated against, not that everyone else was genetically perfect.

      The problem with this is that it sounds like they haven’t proven that it works.

      (Sorry for the edits, accidentally pressed post before I was done.)