Calling them "lab-grown" is part of the propaganda against them.

Like they're alive or there's some weird chemicals involved.

It's not silly stories when evil corporations with deep pockets are outright lying, like ads with doctors smoking.

> Calling them "lab-grown" is part of the propaganda against them.

Indeed: Even the article perpetuates this:

"Whereas a two-carat real diamond engagement ring might cost $35,000, Oymakas says a two-carat lab-grown diamond with the same clarity and colour could only be about $3,500."

Sorry - they're both real diamonds.

Maybe it's my engineer-brain talking, but "lab-grown" actually biases me towards the diamonds. Feels precise and futuristic.

Synthetic diamonds definitely need a marketing glow up. Current names are man-made, lab grown, and synthetic diamonds. Instead we could lean into how cool the HPHT and CVD processes are and have - giga forged diamonds (gigapascal pressure of HPHT), plasma coalesced diamonds (CVD process), or even human forged diamonds (highlighting technological triumph required to achieve these).

Again, I'm all for lab grown diamonds for both consumer and industrial use.

I think "lab-grown" is a pretty neutral term, and it is also scientifically accurate in the case of CVD and other diamonds where the process really is "growing" the diamonds. There are certainly other terms for them that sound more derogatory such as "synthetic" or "artificial" diamond.

I thought the process used to grow them in a lab was somewhat different than the process used in nature. Labs use Chemical Vapor Deposition while nature uses high pressure and high temperature. The lab grows the diamond crystal while nature squeezes a lump of carbon into one.

Lab-grown meat is not true meat. It doesn't matter people would be willing to put a lab-grown organ inside their body if saves life.

Well it is common terminology to say "grow crystals".