[KalFour]

And, I don't know that your church would be wrong for trying to stop it, either.

excon

Who said anything about a church? I'm just trying to get some ideas out here.

[templelane]

Ruby about your ugly GM child. I read a phlosophy once that is everyon ewas perfect then ugly would become beautiful. This would be because they would be the most unusual.

Hi Firm long time no see! You saud that genetically modifying people might not work because it would upset the flow of everything- you are right about a lot of situations however it can be done. Mice are genetially modified all the time. Check out Super Mouse!

[inthebox]

Hello Christians:

Let's get to it. Pretty soon, we'll be able to design our children. I know you Christians think we shouldn't do that. But we ARE going to do that, and I wanna know how you're going to stop it.

excon

Go right ahead - this christian is not stopping anyone.

But remember this, when you modify your baby to have say blond hair and blue eyes and it is inserted into its genome - how do you know what side effects go along with that ?
Are you going to sue when that gene is linked or associated with say low IQ or muscle weakness.

Besides there is already gene manipulation that benefits humans:
Recombinant insulin
Thrombolytics
To name a few.

The ethical question is :does the baby have a choice or say in the matter? They already do not have the choice whether to live or die.


For example, say that same child grew up and wanted red hair and green eyes - can they sue their parents?


We already try to modify ourselves
- atheletes on steroids
- fake breasts
- dyed hair
- piercings
- gastric bypass

etc...

Unfortunantly we all know of the potential complications, and does that that really change who you are or what matters like character or integrity?



So go ahead, play god,. but remember that God created each one of us uniquely for Him , He sees what we truly are, and loves us despite that.






Grace and Peace

[NeedKarma]

The ethical question is :does the baby have a choice or say in the matter? They already do not have the choice whether to live or die.

This argument can also be used for baptism. Jus' saying.

[inthebox]

I was not referring to baptism but about abortion.

[NeedKarma]

I know but don't forget to apply that argument everywhere - a 2 month old should never be baptised because he has no say in the matter.

[inthebox]

NK



You view water on a baby [ Baptism to believers ] the same as a baby in the womb being killed/ electively terminated / not being allowed to live?

[peggyhill]

I have also read NeXt. It was a fascinating book. Personally, I would never try to genetically modify my kid. But, with technology advancing all the time, I wouldn't be surprised if that is an option someday.

I read that there is a sperm bank in Europe which only takes donations from blond-haired, blue-eyed men in order for women to have a baby with those characteristics. I can't remember where it was located. So, I wouldn't be surprised if someday there are some people who would be willing to genetically modify their kids to look a certain way. Personally, I think I'm against it, unless it was to get rid of a certain bad gene, like the breast cancer gene or something.

[NeedKarma]

You view water on a baby [ Baptism to believers ] the same as a baby in the womb being killed/ electively terminated / not being allowed to live?

I'm not making judgements on anything, I'm just showing you how you're a typical pick-and-choose religious type who applies an argument to stuff you don't like and ignores it for stuff you like.

[RubyPitbull]

I read that there is a sperm bank in Europe which only takes donations from blond-haired, blue-eyed men in order for women to have a baby with those characteristics. I can't remember where it was located.

Germany? LOL! Genetic control was Hitler's dream. When I first saw excon's post, that was what went through my mind. I wondered what would prevent another nutjob from exploiting the capability and using it for his own nefarious purposes.

[ordinaryguy]

My bio clock is a tickin' and the eggs are already close to be being not just hard boiled, but rubbery.

You da bomb, Ruby!

But seriously folks.

I am against the idea of changing people to be 'enhanced' but is there as much of a moral dilemma in preventing carriers of horrendous genetic diseases form passing them on? My bet is this will most probably be the first steps into this territory. Suppose you just 'fixed' a genetic coding error in an egg or sperm before implantation and prevented a lifetime of suffering for that child?

It would be hard to argue that for a single-gene (I think?) disease like Huntington's, we shouldn't fix it if we have the ability to do so, but even there, how would it actually be done? Would the carrier parent's egg or sperm have to be "fixed" before fertilization, or could a partially developed fetus or a newborn baby or a pre-pubescent child or a fully mature adult be fixed? Or would a "fix" be accomplished, not by replacing or repairing the defective gene, but by somehow ensuring that it wouldn't be "expressed" even though it's present?

For those of you who are interested in a non-religious and practical level discussion of current genetic research and its implications for evolutionary theory and animal breeding, check out this thread.

[jillianleab]

Germany? LOL! Genetic control was Hitler's dream. When I first saw Excon's post, that was what went through my mind. I wondered what would prevent another nutjob from exploiting the capability and using it for his own nefarious purposes.

I think that for the time being, Hitler and his memory will be what prevents that sort of thing from happening. Since we still have people who lived through WWII, fought in it, grew up during it, grew up in it's aftermath, I sort of think those memories will prevent the designing of a child (at least with respect to hair color and eye color).

I can see genes being modified to eliminate disease, but I think using it for hair/eye color is further off. Not that I don't think there are people who would do it, but I think the ethical aspects of it are more questionable. I mean, there's a direct benefit to not having the genes for some debilitating disease; what's the benefit to being a redhead? Ability to rapidly sunburn??

[RubyPitbull]

Jillian, I wish I could believe that the scientific community that is working on this will forever use the technology only for altruistic purposes. Right now, that may be the purpose. But, as time goes on, when the practical use becomes more prevalent and common place, more people become involved in this field, we all know that there are always some people who either cannot help themselves if enough money is thrown in their direction or feel that there is a need for a different application. As long as there are people like Hitler that are born into this world, there will always be people who can and will be manipulated by them, or simply agree with their less than ethical ideologies.

[jillianleab]

I agree, Ruby, I think the technology will be developed I'm just not so sure it will be used. Gene modification is a big ethical debate to begin with, and scientists have a better chance at getting it accepted if they are modifying the "bad" genes. In the quest to take knowledge further they will figure out ways to keep going and do more, but I think the ethics of society will step in and prevent it from going too far.

Or maybe I'm in an oddly optimistic mood! :)

[excon]

but I think the ethics of society will step in and prevent it from going too far....Or maybe I'm in an oddly optimistic mood! :)

Hello jillian:

I'll opt for maybe. I'm not so optimistic. You could even call me a pessimist.

What's the difference between removing a gene that prevents a particular disease, from inserting one that makes you resistant to all disease? What's the difference between removing a gene that causes downs syndrome, from inserting a gene that makes you smarter?

If I had the money, I'd want the best for my child.. Wouldn't you? What IS the best?

I don't have the answers to these questions - only more questions.

excon

[jillianleab]

I don't have the answers either, only speculation, really.

I think the problem will be a rich man/poor man; I would want the best for my kid too, and if I could afford it, I would want my kid to have the "smart gene" inserted (provided it doesn't cause toes to grow on his head or whatever). But what of the people who can't afford it? It brings on a bigger class division, and I think that is where the ethics come in. Does that mean it will never happen? Well, never is a long time...

But you also get the rich man/poor man problem with disease gene modification, unless it's affordable or free to all. It's not "fair" only the rich get to protect their kids from down's while the poor have to chance it out. Again, it brings on a bigger class division.

I don't have the answers either, I don't think anyone does.

But on to your original question, I think a lot of religious groups, not just Christians will rally against gene modification, as they might equate it to "playing god". And we all know how much influence religious groups have on politics. So the technology might be possible, but it probably won't get federal funding, and if it's developed in another country, it would be outlawed here. Look at stem cell research... but that's another thread. :)

[templelane]

removing a gene that causes downs syndrome,

Just for accuracy Down's syndrome is trisomy 21 i.e. there are three chromosome 21s. It is caused by the egg not dividing properly. So you couldn't remove the gene. I get what you were saying though :)

I'm going to have a nose at the posts I've missed before I add anymore comments!

[templelane]

It would be hard to argue that for a single-gene (I think?) disease like Huntington's, we shouldn't fix it if we have the ability to do so, but even there, how would it actually be done? Would the carrier parent's egg or sperm have to be "fixed" before fertilization, or could a partially developed fetus or a newborn baby or a pre-pubescent child or a fully mature adult be fixed? Or would a "fix" be accomplished, not by replacing or repairing the defective gene, but by somehow ensuring that it wouldn't be "expressed" even though it's present?

You ask the best questions!

This is the whole debate on manipulating soma - body cells like in gene therapy of gamete cells- egg and sperm cells. You could alter the whole person when they are an egg and this would be passed down forevermore or you could just 'fix' something wrong in an adult with their consent. I think many people woud find the latter more ethically acceptable.

It would be much easier to manipulate a fertilised egg than an entire person. In mouse genetics it is usually the early fertilised egg that is manipulated (the blastocyst) by a process known as homologous recombination- swapping similar pieces of DNA. Here is a great site I used when revising this stuff last year which explains how this is done. Gene Knockout by Targeted Disruption

Mice are used because they have a short breeding and life cycle, their genome is known and they are easy and cheap to keep. However there is no reason why the techniques described could not be extended to humans.

This situation is closer than we think. I think the main things that will delay 'designer babies' is not politics or objectors but the rate we breed- it'll take ages to know if it works/ which genes are important for what. Yes we have animal models but would you change a gene in your child that made a mouse smarter? Who would want their kids to be the guinea pigs for an untested technology?

[michealb]

I don't think embryo modification will happen. I think they will figure out how to modify the genes in adults before embryo modification is wide spread. Once adults can be modified embryo modification will be a non issue, since they will get the better genes from their parents. Of course the there might be some patent problems from the company that gave you the gene in the first place and your illegal copy of it.

[KalFour]

You could alter the whole person when they are an egg and this would be passed down forevermore...

Troublesome genetic abnormalities occur as a result of a mutation. Although the mutation is generally able to be passed to the next generation, the previous generation doesn't have to have had it. So while the number of people with a certain targeted genetic abnormality would be decreased, screening and genetic enhancement would have to continue indefinitely in order to prevent it from reoccurring. Perfect people couldn't possibly have their genes passed down forevermore. Evolution would take over, and mutations would continue to make people with both stronger and weaker traits.
Also, as mentioned above, things like downs syndrome (which has nothing to do with the parents genetic coding) would still be just as prevalent as before.

Kal