Designer (Genetically Modified) Babies

boyfalldown said:
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
Click to expand...

Who said anything about enforced testing?
 
Who decides what conditions to screen for? What's a socially acceptable disability to have? What if the prevalent view of society was that homosexuality was an illness? It was just 50 years ago. What if they were able to select that trait out?

What about autism? Do we want that? Do we select that out? Aspergers?

One individual with both those traits certainly had a rather positive impact on this planet in living memory.
 
viv1969 said:
Who said anything about enforced testing?
Click to expand...

So how else would it work, if you don't test everyone ?
Even seemingly healthy couple can have disabled/sick children.
TBH I can't really seeing it work unless it everyone is, so then who says who can and can't go on to have children........................................ Big Brother Strikes Again
 
Furtim said:
Who decides what conditions to screen for? What's a socially acceptable disability to have? What if the prevalent view of society was that homosexuality was an illness? It was just 50 years ago. What if they were able to select that trait out?

What about autism? Do we want that? Do we select that out? Aspergers?

One individual with both those traits certainly had a rather positive impact on this planet in living memory.
Click to expand...

Possibly, and stuff like autism would be a hard one to decide on, but am sure that things like cystic fibrosis don't have many benefits! Anyway, isn't it about repairing that gene?
 
So if you find a gene that is one of the cancer high risk genes and modify it.

The cancer isn't caught but the chance of some other more agressive illness is increased but no-one realises until people start dropping dead in their 30's and 40's.
How would be stopped from happening and how many people would have had the treatment in the 30-40 years?
 
cambsno said:
Possibly, and stuff like autism would be a hard one to decide on, but am sure that things like cystic fibrosis don't have many benefits! Anyway, isn't it about repairing that gene?
Click to expand...

There's nothing great about Muscular Dystrophy either but having it at doesn't mean you can't make a hugely positive contribution in what time you have.

Screening is a lot easier than repairing so in all probability that's the route that would be taken, but even if you could repair something like autism / Aspergers, you would be doing the world a huge disservice. Perhaps we can fine tune the process to only take out the 'stupid' ones?

It's a very slippery slope, and one I don't trust us humans to manage as we are hell bent on corrupting things to fit an agenda. This is one area where I'll stick to chance.
 
Daysleeper40 said:
I do however agree that screening could become routine.
Click to expand...
As I'm sure it will, surely
And if a defect was found, the parents offered the opportunity to have it corrected.
no one would object that that?

Daysleeper40 said:
Out of interest - what is the wink smiley after all of your posts intended to convey? It comes across as rather condescending.
Click to expand...
It was a wry smile aimed at the law makers, that are always looking after our best interest ;)
Cobra said:
Whether or not its generally held as ethical or not, is up to the "law makers" to decide on our behalf of course ;)
Click to expand...


boyfalldown said:
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).
Click to expand...
I certainly wasn't suggesting that its forced on anyone, Hugh, just the same way as a pregnancy scan is not forced on anyone,
you don't have to have one, but most people do.
However when defects are detected ( depending on what "it" maybe,) the parents MAYBE offered an abortion,
in years down the line I see that it will become offering corrective gene therapy, rather than abortion.
 
Last edited:
Gremlin said:
TBH I can't really seeing it work unless it everyone is, so then who says who can and can't go on to have children........................................
Click to expand...
No one is suggesting that, its about the ethics of corrective gene manipulation,

Gremlin said:
Big Brother Strikes Again
Click to expand...
As in so many other walks of life too ;)
 
Yes, I think the fear is that it could expand into some kind of eugenics thing, where only babies with "the best" traits are valued.
 
Cobra said:
As I'm sure it will, surely
And if a defect was found, the parents offered the opportunity to have it corrected.
no one would object that that?
Click to expand...

Potentially yes - I do have reservations as per my previous comments.
 
Furtim said:
There's nothing great about Muscular Dystrophy either but having it at doesn't mean you can't make a hugely positive contribution in what time you have.

Screening is a lot easier than repairing so in all probability that's the route that would be taken, but even if you could repair something like autism / Aspergers, you would be doing the world a huge disservice. Perhaps we can fine tune the process to only take out the 'stupid' ones?

It's a very slippery slope, and one I don't trust us humans to manage as we are hell bent on corrupting things to fit an agenda. This is one area where I'll stick to chance.
Click to expand...

Maybe ask md sufferers if they would rather have it or not? Bet most would say not.

Complex issue, I get the thought that they may not exist if selection was there 30 years ago, but if I hadn't been in the q at a club 15 years ago and my now wife's friend knew someone In my group, my kids would not be here either. If my dad had not had the falling out with his dad at 17 I would not be here!!
 
Cobra said:
I certainly wasn't suggesting that its forced on anyone, Hugh, just the same way as a pregnancy scan is not forced on anyone,
you don't have to have one, but most people do.
Click to expand...


Thats OK, but how then would this achieve the Utopian goal of eventually reducing or eliminating all manner of medical issues?

Cobra said:
However when defects are detected ( depending on what "it" maybe,) the parents MAYBE offered an abortion,
in years down the line I see that it will become offering corrective gene therapy, rather than abortion.
Click to expand...


Theres an ethical nightmare right there. Where do you stop? i.e. whats a disabling condition or what stops one child living a full and fruitful life with a condition. Another issue it seems not bought up. Lets assume a child is found positive for a disease (remember not all genes just mean an increased risk, some mean you will develop that condition and even how bad its likely to be), which could only be inherited from a parent. How would you or you partner cope with being told your child had something like Huntingdon's Disease which realistically must have come from one of the parents?

I think corrective gene therapy has an awful long way to go before thats even a glimmer
 
cambsno said:
Maybe ask md sufferers if they would rather have it or not? Bet most would say not.

Complex issue, I get the thought that they may not exist if selection was there 30 years ago, but if I hadn't been in the q at a club 15 years ago and my now wife's friend knew someone In my group, my kids would not be here either. If my dad had not had the falling out with his dad at 17 I would not be here!!
Click to expand...

It is not the same at all. We are all here by a chance series of events - but you and your wife not meeting by chance is very different to my mum and dad CHOOSING to discard me because I have a genetic mutation. The intention may be to prevent suffering - but it also insinuates that I am not worthy of being born.
 
Furtim said:
What if the prevalent view of society was that homosexuality was an illness? It was just 50 years ago. What if they were able to select that trait out?
Click to expand...


Not sure that's a particularly good example. While there are homosexuals who breed, it's more common for their preference to make passing it on a little unlikely.
 
boyfalldown said:
I think corrective gene therapy has an awful long way to go before thats even a glimmer
Click to expand...

Of course it does.
But with no genetic research it'll never happen.
 
Cobra said:
No one is suggesting that, its about the ethics of corrective gene manipulation
Click to expand...

But correcting to what standard? How do you judge whether something needs fixing? How far from the standard does it need to be?

Let's assume that we are talking about correction rather than selection, I'm still not convinced it's a good thing. What's to say that we, as a society, don't benefit from the overall diversity we have at the present. The different challenges we each face bring different perspectives to how we solve problems and move forward as a society.

I'm not advocating 'pain and suffering' because I think it's a good thing. Of course I want to stop it where I see it - what person wouldn't, but what right do I have to judge what is going to be acceptable for you? What if I, in all good consciousness, take away something that you consider defines you? These are the choices that are being suggested, only the subject of the decision doesn't yet have a voice.
 
It's a strange thing, in a society where we don't have the right to chose to die, someone else will decide whether we even get life
in the first placeo_O
 
boyfalldown said:
Thats OK, but how then would this achieve the Utopian goal of eventually reducing or eliminating all manner of medical issues?
Click to expand...
It'll never happen while people have freedom of choice ( and long may it continue) Just the same a people don't have to have surgery for life threatening illness's so do, some refuse.

boyfalldown said:
How would you or you partner cope with being told your child had something like Huntingdon's Disease which realistically must have come from one of the parents?
Click to expand...
Different people act differently to different situations, thankfully this is nothing that I have to face.

boyfalldown said:
I think corrective gene therapy has an awful long way to go before thats even a glimmer
Click to expand...
Maybe not in my life time but there are people out there working their little socks off, on this type of problem.
As I said above things have come to fruition > 35 years later, And with modern technology things are advancing at an even faster rate.


boyfalldown said:
Ask them if they'd rather have it or have been aborted? Bet you get a different answer
Click to expand...
Probably, but as I said above, if my mum had married someone else I wouldn't have been born, and would know nothing about it.
Its one of those it'll make your brain hurt questions, if you think about that too long :D
 
Furtim said:
But correcting to what standard? How do you judge whether something needs fixing? How far from the standard does it need to be? .
Click to expand...
That's not my call to make, but I covered it when I said
Cobra said:
Whether or not its generally held as ethical or not, is up to the "law makers" to decide on our behalf of course ;)
Click to expand...
 
Nod said:
Not sure that's a particularly good example. While there are homosexuals who breed, it's more common for their preference to make passing it on a little unlikely.
Click to expand...

I don't even know if it's an inherited generic trait, a mutation or nothing to do with genetics at all, but there are plenty of other examples of traits being deemed as either undesirable or conversely favoured to the extent that they may affect what was understood as 'normal' by society of old that no longer apply today.

Once the capability to manipulate the next generation to conform with today's ideal of normal exists, diversity decreases, and we end up with more of the same.
 
Cobra said:
That's not my call to make
Click to expand...
I can't agree. We have to look at this issue in the whole and not assume that someone, somewhere will make all the difficult decisions for us.
 
Furtim said:
I can't agree. We have to look at this issue in the whole and not assume that someone, somewhere will make all the difficult decisions for us.
Click to expand...
We have an elected government that makes the calls whether or not we like the calls or the government, is irrelevant they will make them.
They don't hold ( public) referendums on the laws they pass now, can you honestly see them starting with something like this?

Thats the reason we / they have ethical committees, and I'm sure they don't read TP threads before making a decision.
 
Cobra said:
We have an elected government that makes the calls whether or not we like the calls or the government, is irrelevant they will make them.
They don't hold ( public) referendums on the laws they pass now, can you honestly see them starting with something like this?
Click to expand...

You don't think public debate influences this?
 
Nod said:
Not sure that's a particularly good example. While there are homosexuals who breed, it's more common for their preference to make passing it on a little unlikely.
Click to expand...

Isn't it more a case of your unborn child may be a homosexual Mr and Mrs heterosexual?
 
Furtim said:
You don't think public debate influences this?
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised THB, but as I also said
Cobra said:
Thats the reason we / they have ethical committees, and I'm sure they don't read TP threads before making a decision.
Click to expand...

I think the best we can do, is vote for a the government that shares the same values and ideals as *us* and hope they do our bidding.
 
I wonder if "rebelious behaviour" or "dissent" can be explained genetically. It could be very useful for an unscrupulous government to weed those traits out of its people.

Other, more general things that could be "fixed" or weeded out:

Addiction - food, fags, drugs, booze, gambing, internet etc etc
Risk positive/risk averse behaviour.
Lazyness.

"Calm, fitter, healthier and more productive
A pig in a cage on antibiotics" Radiohead - Fitter Happier.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
I think the best we can do, is vote for a the government that shares the same values and ideals as *us* and hope they do our bidding.
Click to expand...

If a political party truthfully declares their views on such things, and sticks to them once in office :thinking:
 
Gremlin said:
If a political party truthfully declares their views on such things, and sticks to them once in office :thinking:
Click to expand...
You are as cynical as me then ;)
 
THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL gentlemen i rest my case .
 
ZoneV said:
I wonder if "rebelious behaviour" or "dissent" can be explained genetically.
Click to expand...

It can be explained parentally in a good many cases I suspect, but nothing to do with genes.
 
Interesting conversation. A couple of points:

We already conduct screening for certain defects on the embryos of pregnant women, and those found to have certain conditions where the child might otherwise have a happy, albeit shorter, life are often terminated.

Many perfectly viable embryos will be lost during the process of IVF.

In principle I'm not opposed to genetic modification of embryos to fix genetic defects that would lead to disease, provided it is done to single embryos with none discarded. However I think it would be better for those who know they will pass on a serious inherited disease to voluntarily choose not to have have children, and rather to adopt.
 
I see a future of 6 ft + men with big dicks and leggy blondes with big tits.
 
rjbell said:
I see a future of 6 ft + men with big dicks and leggy blondes with big tits.
Click to expand...


Well, Mrs Nod and I decided many years ago not to breed, so bang goes that theory!!!
 
ancient_mariner said:
In principle I'm not opposed to genetic modification of embryos to fix genetic defects that would lead to disease, provided it is done to single embryos with none discarded. However I think it would be better for those who know they will pass on a serious inherited disease to voluntarily choose not to have have children, and rather to adopt.
Click to expand...


Wow. Throwing an embryo away isn't ok, but you think it's ok for sections of society not to have children 'voluntarily'. Eugenics much?

For your information where one parent may pass on a serious disease you're already offered pre natal screening & IVF should you want it
 
Daysleeper40 said:
It is not the same at all. We are all here by a chance series of events - but you and your wife not meeting by chance is very different to my mum and dad CHOOSING to discard me because I have a genetic mutation. The intention may be to prevent suffering - but it also insinuates that I am not worthy of being born.
Click to expand...

As cobra said, not being here is a brain hurting question, without hitler my grandfather would not have been a pow for 5 years so could easily have met someone else. Think about all those what ifs though... But at the moment you can abort simply because you don't want a child, so we are all at 'risk'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top