Designer (Genetically Modified) Babies

[frank]

Should we be messing around with nature creating designer babies?

As much as I hate seeing kids born with defects of one sort or another I think Mother Nature should be left alone when it comes to making babies. I've no problem with IVF using the hubbys or someone elses little tadpoles to help along the way but actually changing the genes so kids are born free of any disablement sounds similar to me what Hitlers medics like mengele were doing to create the German Master Race.

 

[Cobra]

I can see both sides of this argument,
how many times have you heard people say, do you want a boy or a girl, and the response is, I don't care as long as its healthy.
by having the opportunity to take out "defective genes" you are offing just that, for parents predisposed to many of the physical and or mental problems,
due to their genetic make up.

On the other hand ( as you suggest) where will it end? many cultures demand ( or at least prefer) a certain sex child.
And some people will even continue to "try" for a certain sex baby, when they already have 2 or 3 ( or more) of one sex.
Maybe it will even reduce the population if you can chose.
But as I understand it, that's not what its for at the moment, but like you , I can see it heading that way.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

Should we be messing around with nature creating designer babies?

As much as I hate seeing kids born with defects of one sort or another I think Mother Nature should be left alone when it comes to making babies. I've no problem with IVF using the hubbys or someone elses little tadpoles to help along the way but actually changing the genes so kids are born free of any disablement sounds similar to me what Hitlers medics like mengele were doing to create the German Master Race.

If we can genetically modify embryos so they grow into people that aren't able to contacts cancers or other disabling ailments, then I am all for it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If we can genetically modify embryos so they grow into people that aren't able to contacts cancers or other disabling ailments, then I am all for it.

This^

I fail to see what the objection is. If it helps to reduce or eventually eradicate all manner of medical issues we currently have, surely there is no reasonable objection other than the usual moral/religious ones... which, as they're based on nonsense, should be dismissed.

No one's planning a master race... just trying to make a better, healthier world.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

This^

I fail to see what the objection is. If it helps to reduce or eventually eradicate all manner of medical issues we currently have, surely there is no reasonable objection other than the usual moral/religious ones... which, as they're based on nonsense, should be dismissed.

No one's planning a master race... just trying to make a better, healthier world.

Better engineer a few wars to keep the population down in your healthier world!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Better engineer a few wars to keep the population down in your healthier world!

I see.... so are you saying we should keep cancer, or any other diseases as a means of population control? I hope you remember that if you ever are unfortunate enough to contract the disease. Maybe it will make you feel better as you die.

I prefer an educational route, and a change in societal values that stops people seeing having kids as some kind of right... when it's clearly not any more.

 

[rjbell]

This is the topic of one of my favourite films Gattaca. If you haven't seen it i would highly recommend it.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

I see.... so are you saying we should keep cancer, or any other diseases as a means of population control? I hope you remember that if you ever are unfortunate enough to contract the disease. Maybe it will make you feel better as you die.

I prefer an educational route, and a change in societal values that stops people seeing having kids as some kind of right... when it's clearly not any more.

Not by any stretch of imagination but good luck with persuading folk not to have babies.

You're advocating a very slippery slope paved with good intentions.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Not by any stretch of imagination but good luck with persuading folk not to have babies.

You're advocating a very slippery slope paved with good intentions.

And you're advocating not curing cancer and other diseases as they act as a control on the population. The population is already increasing at a rate that's not sustainable... sooner or later, we'll have to take steps to control it or die as a species... or take some pretty draconian steps to prevent it in other ways, I think education is the only morally suitable response,,, you're just burying your head in the sand.

 

[frank]

There is nothing wrong in trying to find cures for cancer or the common cold for the living as we have done for years. I think my concern is for genetically modified babies who may be resistant to many types of illness/diseases that these genes will be passed to to their offspring for generations to come resulting in living longer and even perhaps altering the lifespan of humans on a already over populated planet. Once that might have sounded like science fiction but it is something worth considering is it not.

Personally I think the genes of a baby should be as nature intended, a parent should love a child no matter what condition they are born and take care of the child to the best of their ability, not to have the choice of going into a clinic and tell them they want a blue eyed fair child or whatever without any defect/illness.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think my concern is for genetically modified babies who may be resistant to many types of illness/diseases that these genes will be passed to to their offspring for generations.

A bit like natural selection then... but with a helping hand.

Population control is something we'll be forced to deal with before long any way.. don't worry.

 

[viv1969]

Genetic modification may remove certain genes suggesting a predisposition to certain heredetary cancers, but many more are caused by environmental and other factors, so messing with genes won't alter that.

 

[cambsno]

To create your designer baby like making sure they are blond etc.., no. To help with illness, of course that should be possible. As per above, while cancer can be more likely with genes, lifestyle is huge too. But for disability, why not? If you could remove certain types that would be better for the kids themselves. What would be wrong say about removing schizophrenia or other types of mental illness? Benefits the people and society.

 

[Gremlin]

I don't believe we should mess about with nature, in the wild natural selection/survival of the fittest defines the population, mankind has taken this away
and we now keep beings alive with little quality of life at times. Surely quality of life counts for more then a beating heart and breathing and yes before I get
jumped on I do have personal experience in this respect.
It's another area where we treat animals far better then humans, and get praised for doing so.
How far will this go, will it be only for the developed nations or will it extended to the 3rd World, where in my view is it needed far more.

 

[viv1969]

I don't think anyone's talking about the lack of life quality endured by some with debilitating conditions; it's about the possibility of eradicating certain genes which would perhaps prevent the conditions developing in the first place, and therefore improving quality of life in the long run.

 

[Gremlin]

I don't think anyone's talking about the lack of life quality endured by some with debilitating conditions; it's about the possibility of eradicating certain genes which would perhaps prevent the conditions developing in the first place, and therefore improving quality of life in the long run.

Possibility being the crucial word, how many embryos will be needed to research it, at what point does an embryo become a life ?
What of the failures that go to full terms and still suffer, messing about with nature just isn't something I sit easy with

 

[simon ess]

Homo Sapiens has been "messing about with nature" since day one.

 

[viv1969]

Possibility being the crucial word, how many embryos will be needed to research it, at what point does an embryo become a life ?
What of the failures that go to full terms and still suffer, messing about with nature just isn't something I sit easy with

As I understand it, much of the research being carried out already, is on the sperm and the ova, before they've slept together, or indeed even had dinner. The gamete stage. Surely you wouldn't class these as viable 'life' at that point.

 

[Daysleeper40]

I have a BRCA2 gene mutation. Contrary to popular belief this does not technically predispose me to cancer. BCRA1 & 2 are tumour suppressors - everyone has them. Those of us with a mutation do not have the same level of protection as those who do not - therefore we are significantly more at risk of breast and ovarian cancer. I have had breast cancer myself, and lost my sister to the disease in 2014. It is not as simple as 'eradicating the gene' though. Obviously I can only talk about BRCA but there are hundreds of BRCA mutations - some of them even appear to be harmless. You would need to correct each specific fault rather than get rid of the gene.

Obviously if we are ever able to try for a baby this is a massive consideration. We were lucky enough to be able to do IVF before my chemo and have three embryos on ice. We have been offered genetic testing for the embryos but the option would be to discard of any (or all of them) that are positive for the gene mutation. This is something I just could not do. If my parents had taken this option neither my sister or I would have been born. Cancer has brought my family great suffering - but I cannot say I wish my sister and I had never been born.

 

[Gremlin]

As I understand it, much of the research being carried out already, is on the sperm and the ova, before they've slept together, or indeed even had dinner. The gamete stage. Surely you wouldn't class these as viable 'life' at that point.

Did I not state embryo a slight difference perchance
It will develop further in time no doubt to prove a point

 

[Cobra]

but I cannot say I wish my sister and I had never been born.

Of course you can't

If my parents had taken this option neither my sister or I would have been born

If my mum had married someone else, and had kids, I as me, wouldn't have existed, I doubt that I would have known that though

 

[Daysleeper40]

Of course you can't


If my mum had married someone else, and had kids, I as me, wouldn't have existed, I doubt that I would have known that though

You wouldn't have been intentionally discarded as worthless though would you.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't believe we should mess about with nature, in the wild natural selection/survival of the fittest defines the population, mankind has taken this away
and we now keep beings alive with little quality of life at times. Surely quality of life counts for more then a beating heart and breathing and yes before I get
jumped on I do have personal experience in this respect.

Of course, but we've been doing this for a long time already now, so why get all squeamish now? 200 years ago 1 in 3 babied died.. now 99.6% survive. We've already bypassed evolution with technology.

Genetic modification may remove certain genes suggesting a predisposition to certain heredetary cancers, but many more are caused by environmental and other factors, so messing with genes won't alter that.I don't think anyone's talking about the lack of life quality endured by some with debilitating conditions; it's about the possibility of eradicating certain genes which would perhaps prevent the conditions developing in the first place, and therefore improving quality of life in the long run.

Exactly. There's no argument against it that stands up to moral, or scientific scrutiny.

Possibility being the crucial word, how many embryos will be needed to research it, at what point does an embryo become a life ?

I doubt very much any research will be done on anything that anyone would resemble as a foetus. It will be done at the cellular level.

What of the failures that go to full terms and still suffer, messing about with nature just isn't something I sit easy with

I think it's a good punt to take.
Being risk averse didn't get us where we are as a species. The only reason people are risk averse now is because all the benefits of decades of medical research that allow them to live a long and comfortable life are behind them - pull the ladder up Jack, I'm OK now.

Homo Sapiens has been "messing about with nature" since day one.

Exactly. Farming anyone? That's not natural. Industry? You all sit there at your computers, in comfortable homes and didn't have to actually build it, or make the computer, or hunt your dinner... and bang on about what's natural? You all need a reality check.

To create your designer baby like making sure they are blond etc.., no.

So what if they did any way? Who gives a crap what colour hair someone has.

 

[Cobra]

You wouldn't have been intentionally discarded as worthless though would you.

Neither are the embryo's in question, we are talking about them being genetically modified not aborted

 

[viv1969]

So unless we can eradicate it completely... may as well not bother? So if you were identified as having a genetic marker making you far more likely to a certain type of cancer, you'd have no interested in gene therapy to remove that risk? I think you probably would be very interested.




Of course, but we've been doing this for a long time already now, so why get all squeamish now? 200 years ago 1 in 3 babied died.. now 99.6% survive. We've already bypassed evolution with technology.




Exactly. There's no argument against it that stands up to moral, or scientific scrutiny.



I doubt very much any research will be done on anything that anyone would resemble as a foetus. It will be done at the cellular level.




I think it's a good punt to take.
Being risk averse didn't get us where we are as a species. The only reason people are risk averse now is because all the benefits of decades of medical research that allow them to live a long and comfortable life are behind them - pull the ladder up Jack, I'm OK now.



Exactly. Farming anyone? That's not natural. Industry? You all sit there at your computers, in comfortable homes and didn't have to actually build it, or make the computer, or hunt your dinner... and bang on about what's natural? You all need a reality check.




So what if they did any way? Who gives a crap what colour hair someone has.

And where have I suggested I'm against it?
I was pointing out that certain cancers could be decreased by this kind of testing or modification, but not all, not even remotely the majority.
Many more insidious conditions exist.
If I had been offered testing when pregnant, I'd have taken it.

Reading more slowly might help your uppishness decrease. ..no gene modifications necessary.

 

[Pookeyhead]

And where have I suggested I'm against it?

You haven't, and I've not suggested you have.

I was pointing out that certain cancers could be decreased by this kind of testing or modification, but not all, not even remotely the majority.
Many more insidious conditions exist.
If I had been offered testing when pregnant, I'd have taken it.

Which is why I said in response to your quote...

Exactly. There's no argument against it that stands up to moral, or scientific scrutiny.

{edit]

Misquoted you Viv.. sorry... post fixed. I did Wonder LOL

 

[Daysleeper40]

Neither are the embryo's in question, we are talking about them being genetically modified not aborted

You might be talking about them being genetically modified - I'm talking about how the science is actually currently being used. I'm not saying it's not possible to repair gene mutations - but it is incredibly naive to think that this could be a realistic option for most people.

 

[viv1969]

You haven't, and I've not suggested it..

Really??

So unless we can eradicate it completely... may as well not bother? So if you were identified as having a genetic marker making you far more likely to a certain type of cancer, you'd have no interested in gene therapy to remove that risk? I think you probably would be very interested..

That reads as particularly arsey.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Really??



That reads as particularly arsey.

See above... I split your quote somehow, and then actually read half of what you said out of context. I've already apologised.

 

[viv1969]

You might be talking about them being genetically modified - I'm talking about how the science is actually currently being used. I'm not saying it's not possible to repair gene mutations - but it is incredibly naive to think that this could be a realistic option for most people.

Currently, I'd agree.
But without research we'll never have the opportunity to either find out, or to make our own informed choices.

 

[Pookeyhead]

You might be talking about them being genetically modified - I'm talking about how the science is actually currently being used. I'm not saying it's not possible to repair gene mutations - but it is incredibly naive to think that this could be a realistic option for most people.

Look.. there are cultures still prevalent today that leave baby girls outside to die if there are already enough sons. We've been selectively breeding ourselves for centuries. It's not possible to breed some super race... we're talking about stopping hereditary diseases and genetic code that leaves people vulnerable to suffering easily avoided. Sure.. some mad scientist in a hollowed out volcano may try to invent a race of super warriors... but this is not a movie... they're just trying to make the world a better place.

 

[Cobra]

but actually changing the genes so kids are born free of any disablement

You might be talking about them being genetically modified

This is how the thread started and the question posed

but it is incredibly naive to think that this could be a realistic option for most people.

If you think about all the advances in the last few years, and they way that its all galloped forward, both medical and technological, I would suggest that its naive not to think this would be a very real possibility
in the not too distant future.
And such screening ( and correction) would routinely be offered a matter of course.

I qualified and worked in medical research many years ago, and its satisfying to see that many projects that I was involved in all those years ago, ( 35+)
being used routinely "today" .
As above medical advancement, is going forward in leaps and bounds, fast than ever before, so yes I believe that it soon will be a very real possibility.
Whether or not its generally held as ethical or not, is up to the "law makers" to decide on our behalf of course

 

[Daysleeper40]

This is how the thread started and the question posed

If you think about all the advances in the last few years, and they way that its all galloped forward, both medical and technological, I would suggest that its naive not to think this would be a very real possibility
in the not too distant future.
And such screening ( and correction) would routinely be offered a matter of course.

I qualified and worked in medical research many years ago, and its satisfying to see that many projects that I was involved in all those years ago, ( 35+)
being used routinely "today" .
As above medical advancement, is going forward in leaps and bounds, fast than ever before, so yes I believe that it soon will be a very real possibility.
Whether or not its generally held as ethical or not, is up to the "law makers" to decide on our behalf of course

I disagree. If a cheaper option is available - i.e. select an embryo without the mutation - then money will not be spent on 'correcting' an embryo with a mutated gene. Obviously if people are willing and able to pay for this themselves that is a different story. I do however agree that screening could become routine.

Out of interest - what is the wink smiley after all of your posts intended to convey? It comes across as rather condescending.

 

[Gremlin]

Genuine questions, how would this work, would everyone be tested prior to embarking on possible parenthood ?
Within families, children of the same parents aren't always affected by defective genes, so how do you test?
Would be a case of every pregnancy becoming IVF after testing ?

 

[Daysleeper40]

Look.. there are cultures still prevalent today that leave baby girls outside to die if there are already enough sons. We've been selectively breeding ourselves for centuries. It's not possible to breed some super race... we're talking about stopping hereditary diseases and genetic code that leaves people vulnerable to suffering easily avoided. Sure.. some mad scientist in a hollowed out volcano may try to invent a race of super warriors... but this is not a movie... they're just trying to make the world a better place.

I don't know where you're getting this tangent from... I don't recall mentioning super warriers as a concern :/

I am simply offering an opinion as one of the 'mutants' you are talking about. Selective breeding may have been going on for centuries but that does not automatically make it ethical. One of my bigger concerns is actually that by 'correcting' a certain genetic mutation we would be unwittingly causing others. Without research we'd obviously never know though so it is a matter of weighing up the potential risk to benefit.

With my particular gene mutation, I would rather have known I had it and been able to take preventative action before being diagnosed with cancer than have had experimental gene therapy.

 

[Daysleeper40]

Genuine questions, how would this work, would everyone be tested prior to embarking on possible parenthood ?
Within families, children of the same parents aren't always affected by defective genes, so how do you test?
Would be a case of every pregnancy becoming IVF after testing ?

This is another concern. Everyone has genetic testing and potentially finds out the are high risk for XYZ...? We won't necessarily have any options to help them with this. When I had my genetic testing I opted not to be tested for TP53 mutations. This is because a positive result would have meant I was high risk for a number of diseases that have no preventative options or effective monitoring available. I discussed this with a genetic counsellor who agreed that knowing you have this mutation has limited benefits and is incredibly difficult to cope with mentally.

 

[boyfalldown]

As above medical advancement, is going forward in leaps and bounds, fast than ever before, so yes I believe that it soon will be a very real possibility.

I have to disagree with you there Chris. I doubt it will ever be realistic. There are so many conditions with a genetic component known about now that testing, shotgun style, for those genes is likely to never happen. I'm sure, as happens now, that if there is a specific reason to test for a specific gene that may well be offered. But forcing any sort of testing on anybody is extremely ethically and morally dubious (at best).

 

[viv1969]

I disagree. If a cheaper option is available - i.e. select an embryo without the mutation - then money will not be spent on 'correcting' an embryo with a mutated gene. Obviously if people are willing and able to pay for this themselves that is a different story. I do however agree that screening could become routine.

.

I disagree.
The cost of testing would surely be vastly less than a lifetime of intensive and often futile treatment, palliative care and support by way of benefits payments.

 

[Daysleeper40]

I disagree.
The cost of testing would surely be vastly less than a lifetime of intensive and often futile treatment, palliative care and support by way of benefits payments.

I'm suggesting that routing screening and only 'healthy' embryos being selected is the more realistic option.

 

[boyfalldown]

I disagree.
The cost of testing would surely be vastly less than a lifetime of intensive and often futile treatment, palliative care and support by way of benefits payments.

I'm not sure you're right there. Atleast if you take a scattergun approach. If you take targeted testing then you probably are..one of the parents has a specific mutation then test for that mutation type thing....

But even if thats the case are you going to force testing on the parents, forcing any medical procedure is dubious at best