Designer (Genetically Modified) Babies

boyfalldown said:
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
Click to expand...

And depending on your postcode and age (if it's NHS treatment).
 
boyfalldown said:
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
Click to expand...

I said "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". If you read that as eugenics then we may not be able to discuss this further.
 
viv1969 said:
I don't, hence the words "I suspect".
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Your post read to me like "I suspect" referred to the part about upbringing being responsible but not the "nothing to do with genes" part. The ambiguity of the written sentence, eh? :)

Anyway, rebellious behaviour isn't always a bad thing. A healthy society needs rebels (many throughout history are now hailed as heroes) hence the reason a totalitarian government would probably like the prospect of "breeding it out".
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I said "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". If you read that as eugenics then we may not be able to discuss this further.
Click to expand...


I do. And I can also tell you as someone who has a pretty serious inherited condition being asked by anyone to 'volunteer' not to have kids is actually pretty offensive.i should also explain to you that with the way genetics works no one knowers they'll pass anything on. There is rarely more then a 50% chance of doing so

However I'm sure you just hadnt thought it through. So why is it not ok to discard embryos but ok to ask me to volunteer not to have kids?
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I do. And I can also tell you as someone who has a pretty serious inherited condition being asked by anyone to 'volunteer' not to have kids is actually pretty offensive.i should also explain to you that with the way genetics works no one knowers they'll pass anything on. There is rarely more then a 50% chance of doing so

However I'm sure you just hadnt thought it through. So why is it not ok to discard embryos but ok to ask me to volunteer not to have kids?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're not sure at all, quite far from it in fact. A brief period of reflection would help you understand why I might consider it OK for someone not to start new lives but not to destroy existing ones.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Sorry, but you're not sure at all, quite far from it in fact. A brief period of reflection would help you understand why I might consider it OK for someone not to start new lives but not to destroy existing ones.
Click to expand...


I was being polite. Evidently a courtesy lost on you.

No reflection is needed. But a straight answer would be good. It's also a little too much for you. What you describe is eugenics. Like it or not. Maybe you understand why you're being so offensive. I don't know. Perhaps you don't. I'm not sure what's worse.
 
The problem with all this is, EVENTUALLY it will boil down to money.

If you can't afford the testing, you won't get a permit to breed.
Anyone who has children `accidently` & they have an illness that could have been screened out, won't receive health care or insurance.

As time passes, attitudes to illnesses will change, as will what is an acceptable characteristic trait & eventually we'll all be the same.

They may as well concentrate their efforts into cloning.
 
it's all very well screening for genetic disorders but what happens if the genetic mutation starts with the child ?
the parents could be screened and found to have no genetic disorders but the mutation could start with the new born which is exactly what happened with my youngest daughter Kate she has what's known as a chromosome 10q duplication
no screening would have warned us about it because we ( my wife and I ) don't have the disorder
 
It has got to start somewhere.

I'm all up for this. It's humanity for the good.

Sure there is lots of stuff to be sorted out around it, but let's not use that as excuses for not attempting to eradicate some terrible deceases. And yes we will get it wrong along the way, but let's be informed by that opposed to using it as a further excuse not to eradicate some terrible deceases.
 
cosmicma said:
it's all very well screening for genetic disorders but what happens if the genetic mutation starts with the child ?
the parents could be screened and found to have no genetic disorders but the mutation could start with the new born which is exactly what happened with my youngest daughter Kate she has what's known as a chromosome 10q duplication
no screening would have warned us about it because we ( my wife and I ) don't have the disorder
Click to expand...


I can imagine that makes things very challenging. You have nothing but respect from here.
 
dejongj said:
It has got to start somewhere.

I'm all up for this. It's humanity for the good.

Sure there is lots of stuff to be sorted out around it, but let's not use that as excuses for not attempting to eradicate some terrible deceases. And yes we will get it wrong along the way, but let's be informed by that opposed to using it as a further excuse not to eradicate some terrible deceases.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather we focussed our efforts on ensuring universal access to the 'cures' we already have.
20 children die per minute from currently preventable causes.

Another issue is the economics of it all - research is expensive and funded by en large by the private sector. The private sector are not looking for cures. They focus their efforts on managing conditions - that allows them to secure a revenue stream rather than a one off sale. It's crap, but its true. We need more public funding to counteract this.

And last point from me, we do actually need people to die in order for us to flourish as a species.
 
Furtim said:
Personally, I'd rather we focussed our efforts on ensuring universal access to the 'cures' we already have.
20 children die per minute from currently preventable causes.

Another issue is the economics of it all - research is expensive and funded by en large by the private sector. The private sector are not looking for cures. They focus their efforts on managing conditions - that allows them to secure a revenue stream rather than a one off sale. It's crap, but its true. We need more public funding to counteract this.

And last point from me, we do actually need people to die in order for us to flourish as a species.
Click to expand...
Whilst very admirable and undoubtedly generate a lot of sympathy and likes it isn't a case of either / or. And very different people and research is required to do one versus the other. It is a total red herring which has no relevance to this topic in my opinion. To a similar extend as those argueing they wouldn't exist. No, you still have as much chance of existing and likely with less illness. How that can't be a good thing is beyond me.
 
dejongj said:
How that can't be a good thing is beyond me.
Click to expand...


Its hard to argue that its not a good thing. But to my mind there are lots of issues that need resolution first. Ethically before you consider the science.

Are you offering IVF to everyone? Thats probably the only way to screen embryo.
Or are you offering to screen in early pregnancy? What happens if you won't take screening? Testing itself incurs a risk to the pregnancy. What happens if you obtain a positive result? Offer an abortion? What if someone for whatever reason won't take it??
What of the cost? Screening is expensive. It cost around £10k in very targeted lab tests for me. There were only a few tests. A what point do you say a condition is so rare and screening is to expensive that we won't screen unless there is a reason?
What if screening turns up a condition that can only have come from a parent? How do you deal? or a condition that can only of been inherited from both parents?
 
Last edited:
Absolutely lots of questions, and very valid ones at that. I won't argue against that.

I'd rather we focus on making it happen opposed to using them as excuses why not to.

One thing is certain, we will get it wrong. But that doesn't have to be an issue, it is how we deal with it. Just take a look at our history, it covered in glory of things that have gone wrong. But we learn and get better.
 
Last edited:
I'm personally in favor of this and its pretty cool to be able to do it assuming its actually safe. IIRC the main idea is to prevent diseases like cystic fibrosis that are caused by a recessive allele.
 
POAH said:
I'm personally in favor of this and its pretty cool to be able to do it assuming its actually safe. IIRC the main idea is to prevent diseases like cystic fibrosis that are caused by a recessive allele.
Click to expand...


I agree.
Unfortunately the press use terms such as "designer babies", which is essentially dumbing down the whole complicated ethical and scientific process.
 
One of the things I find a bit alarming that seems to be getting a lot more press is the incidents of certain mutations or defects becoming more common, often linked to woman having children much later in life.
In fact one story I recently read highlighted a woman in her late 30s I think she was 38 deciding to start a family, took over a year for her to get pregnant, she was then offered the standard testing as she was in a high risk category.....

which she refused due to the risks of miscarriage etc.....she now has a downs syndrome baby....

So much as I would say the above is a good idea to weed out disease and mutations. We also need to look at other ways of not going against nature in the first place and delaying childbirth to the point when these risks are quite high.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
In fact one story I recently read highlighted a woman in her late 30s I think she was 38 deciding to start a family, took over a year for her to get pregnant, she was then offered the standard testing as she was in a high risk category..... which she refused due to the risks of miscarriage etc.....she now has a downs syndrome baby....
Click to expand...
She should have done her research. If you don't want the invasive test (and it is very scary), there is a blood test option (the Harmony test) that is non-invasive and has a near-100% detection rate for Downs syndrome.
Not currently available on the NHS (although they are testing it) but available privately.

Wish it had been available for our first born - it saved a lot of worrying the second time around!
 
Mr Bump said:
One of the things I find a bit alarming that seems to be getting a lot more press is the incidents of certain mutations or defects becoming more common, often linked to woman having children much later in life.
In fact one story I recently read highlighted a woman in her late 30s I think she was 38 deciding to start a family, took over a year for her to get pregnant, she was then offered the standard testing as she was in a high risk category.....

which she refused due to the risks of miscarriage etc.....she now has a downs syndrome baby....

So much as I would say the above is a good idea to weed out disease and mutations. We also need to look at other ways of not going against nature in the first place and delaying childbirth to the point when these risks are quite high.
Click to expand...


But that may well of been an educated decision on her part. Just because it seems a negative outcome to you, doesn't mean it is to her. Or her child, who both may well have happy and fulfilled lives.
 
Llamaman said:
She should have done her research. If you don't want the invasive test (and it is very scary), there is a blood test option (the Harmony test) that is non-invasive and has a near-100% detection rate for Downs syndrome.
Not currently available on the NHS (although they are testing it) but available privately.

Wish it had been available for our first born - it saved a lot of worrying the second time around!
Click to expand...

Agreed there are options, however that wasn't the main point of my comment. The main point was by delaying things to this extent the risks are higher. Also what would the woman have done if she had the test and it was positive for downs? Having left starting a family so late her options become very limited indeed.
 
boyfalldown said:
But that may well of been an educated decision on her part. Just because it seems a negative outcome to you, doesn't mean it is to her. Or her child, who both may well have happy and fulfilled lives.
Click to expand...

I am neither here nor there, you are quite correct she made choices and has a result and I am sure she is happy.
My point was by delaying she exposed herself to more risks than for a younger mother.
 
Mr Bump said:
My point was by delaying she exposed herself to more risks than for a younger mother.
Click to expand...


True, but by forcing the issue (and people can have babies till about 50 normally*) don't you run the risk of some sort of utopian control? Of course you could always try to reverse 20-30 years of social change thats forced pregnancies later in life. Good luck there ;)

*which is different from fertility treatments resulting in pregnancy at advanced age, and does need to be questioned
 
boyfalldown said:
True, but by forcing the issue (and people can have babies till about 50 normally*) don't you run the risk of some sort of utopian control? Of course you could always try to reverse 20-30 years of social change thats forced pregnancies later in life. Good luck there ;)

*which is different from fertility treatments resulting in pregnancy at advanced age, and does need to be questioned
Click to expand...

I simply highlighted a point that seems to be unable for discussion amongst the fraternity and is not helping the subject of the OPs post.

If we want healthy babies then we need to stop fighting nature on all fronts.
 
Mr Bump said:
One of the things I find a bit alarming that seems to be getting a lot more press is the incidents of certain mutations or defects becoming more common, often linked to woman having children much later in life.
In fact one story I recently read highlighted a woman in her late 30s I think she was 38 deciding to start a family, took over a year for her to get pregnant, she was then offered the standard testing as she was in a high risk category.....

which she refused due to the risks of miscarriage etc.....she now has a downs syndrome baby....

So much as I would say the above is a good idea to weed out disease and mutations. We also need to look at other ways of not going against nature in the first place and delaying childbirth to the point when these risks are quite high.
Click to expand...

So her child is a defective mutant?
The slightly elevated risk of downs in children born of older mothers has been known for decades.
The judging of the nuchal pad as an indicator is unreliable, and amniocentesis carries risk to both the child and the mother.
 
Mr Bump said:
I simply highlighted a point that seems to be unable for discussion amongst the fraternity and is not helping the subject of the OPs post.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry. I don't understand

Mr Bump said:
If we want healthy babies then we need to stop fighting nature on all fronts.
Click to expand...


Agreed generally. However as the thrust of this thread seems to be weeding out certain genetic traits from us as a species don't you think that in it self runs the very risk of fighting nature?
 
boyfalldown said:
Agreed generally. However as the thrust of this thread seems to be weeding out certain genetic traits from us as a species don't you think that in it self runs the very risk of fighting nature?
Click to expand...
And another one to make *your* brain hurt,
as Hugh rightly says we maybe fighting nature.
Evolution starts with with tiny mutations, anomalies if you like, would we then be putting the future of human race at risk?
 
Cobra said:
And another one to make *your* brain hurt,
as Hugh rightly says we maybe fighting nature.
Evolution starts with with tiny mutations, anomalies if you like, would we then be putting the future of human race at risk?
Click to expand...


That sounds like a conversation best accompanied by lots of beer
 
Cobra said:
And another one to make *your* brain hurt,
as Hugh rightly says we maybe fighting nature.
Evolution starts with with tiny mutations, anomalies if you like, would we then be putting the future of human race at risk?
Click to expand...

Ah yes!!
Imagine if those fishies hadn't got bored and stepped out of the swamp millions of years ago (or in the case of Sheppey, a few weeks :-) )...../ you'd still be getting your gills tickled!! :eek:
 
viv1969 said:
So her child is a defective mutant?
The slightly elevated risk of downs in children born of older mothers has been known for decades.
The judging of the nuchal pad as an indicator is unreliable, and amniocentesis carries risk to both the child and the mother.
Click to expand...

That's a bit harsh calling her child a defective mutant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top