Talk:Michael W. Deem

This article seems to have an uncritical positive bias.
This article mentions that Deem had a professional relationship with the controversial Chinese researcher He Jiankui, who is reported to have done research involving gene editing on viable human embryos in violation of both Chinese and international ethical standards. What is not mentioned in this article is Deem's further alleged involvement with He's experiments including observing the participants' informed-consent process in China, which Deem denies through an attorney, despite videotaped evidence to the contrary. Neither does the article mention the subsequent investigation by Rice University which was never published but which seems to correspond with the unexplained termination of Deem's relationship with Rice. Neither does this article say anything about Deem's work or even whereabouts since that time. Reference: Walter Isaacson, _The Codebreaker_, pg. 307 et seq. Gstory20 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The link to Deem's website at Rice University Bioengineering Department is broken. I will remove it. There remains an archive link to Deem in the Rice Faculty Information system, which may be out-of-date. His LinkedIn site does not claim any association. RMcPhillip (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have created a separate section for the gene-line experiments to give them the prominence they warrant and I mentioned the prison sentencing of He et al to emphasize the highly problematic nature of those experiments. I chose not to elaborate on the controversy of Deem's involvement since it remains contentious. If and when Rice finishes its investigation, those findings should be described. I could not find any reliable information on Deem's post-Rice activities nor, in fact, whether Rice has actually severed all ties with Deem. RMcPhillip (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Calling out only the additions via heading belies the editor's intention. The proposed discussion could be placed on the gene edited babies page, but not on this page of a living person.

Material considered Libelous Removed?
I do not believe the material removed by anonymous User:73.232.141.210 is libelous. It consists of statements of fact which are, therefore, are not libelous.

The material provides balance to the article, offsetting its 'uncritical positive bias' and accurately describing an important event in Dr. Deem's career. RMcPhillip (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The cited references removed are factually incorrect as regards authorship, team composition, and other matters. They are libelous. Citing them is libelous.

A link to the Gene edited babies wiki page is provided. That page is a more suitable place for the proposed discussion.
 * That's not how libel works. The Wikipedia article is not addressing the truth of the claims, only that the claims have been made. ... disco spinster   talk  17:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeating libelous claims, via poorly researched links, is also libel. That is how liability flows to Wikipedia, and it is why Wikipedia has guidelines for pages on living persons.

In a private email to Linda Thrane, Vice President for Public Affairs, Rice University, she confirmed that the investigation is complete, the results are confidential, and that Dr. Deem is no longer employed by Rice University. I have updated the article accordingly while re-instating the direct link to the He Jiankul affair so any reader is aware of Deem's alleged involvement in that unseemly affair. RMcPhillip (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Using a private letter is inappropriate as a source. Especially, if it is a private letter to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)