First UK "Designer Baby"

[Martin]

this was reported in the London Times

http://www.physorg.com/news66717645.html

May 13, 2006

 

"A British woman has become the first in the country to conceive a "designer baby" selected specifically to avoid an inherited cancer, The Times said Saturday.

 

The woman, who was not identified, used controversial genetic screening technology to ensure she does not pass on to her child the condition retinoblastoma, an hereditary form of eye cancer from which she suffers.

 

Doctors tested embryos created by the woman and her partner using in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) methods for the cancer gene. Only unaffected embryos were implanted in her womb, the newspaper said.

 

It suggested the woman's pregnancy would increase controversy over the procedure -- pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) -- because critics say it involves destroying otherwise healthy embryos whose conditions are treatable...

[Dr. Dalek]

Things people do like this always seem to be a conundrum to me. I always find myself saying "That makes sense" then wondering if it is moral.

It suggested the woman's pregnancy would increase controversy over the procedure -- pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) -- because critics say it involves destroying otherwise healthy embryos whose conditions are treatable...

This overlaps on abortion because some of the embryos are being destroyed, my opinion on abortion has always been undecided, what does anyone else think?

[Martin]

..what does anyone else think?

what I think is mainly that I thank heavens for that moment of doubt and indecision when one is NOT absolutely certain but can see it both ways

 

regards Doc

[Severian]

It's hardly a designer baby. Normally in IVF more than one embryo is made, and the (usually) two healthiest are implanted. The rest are thrown away. This is simply an alternative quantification of 'healthiest' by screening for inheritable diseases.

 

This is just another example of the British press blowing things out of all proportion.

[Martin]

It's hardly a designer baby. Normally in IVF more than one embryo is made' date=' and the (usually) two healthiest are implanted. The rest are thrown away. This is simply an alternative quantification of 'healthiest' by screening for inheritable diseases.

 

This is just another example of the British press blowing things out of all proportion.[/quote']

 

I think your comment on the British press is quite justified. I was a bit surprised myself that they called it "designer".

 

I suppose that after heritable diseases the next step would be to define as "healthiest" the embryo that has a gene for looks or intelligence which the parents particularly want, and throw the rest away.

 

but by then the shock value of the tag "designer" may have worn off.

[AzurePhoenix]

I know I was baffled when this "designer" baby just turned out to be a simple screened selection. If they keep this degree of overreaction the first real designer-baby is gonna be spun off in the headlines as "Geneticists Engineer Lab-Grown Monstrosity!!!" Mind you, the child will simply have been "cured" of a congenital heart-murmer or some such thing, but whatever.

[Martin]

I know I was baffled when this "designer" baby just turned out to be a simple screened selection. If they keep this degree of overreaction the first real designer-baby is gonna be spun off in the headlines as "Geneticists Engineer Lab-Grown Monstrosity[/i']!!!" Mind you, the child will simply have been "cured" of a congenital heart-murmer or some such thing, but whatever.

 

that is one take on it. or you could say that the overstatement desensitizes the public so that by the time some couple takes steps to ensure that the husband's good tap dancing ability is passed on the press will report it on page 3 and the public will say "ho hum"

[Severian]

I suppose that after heritable diseases the next step would be to define as "healthiest" the embryo that has a gene for looks or intelligence which the parents particularly want' date=' and throw the rest away.

[/quote']

 

That is a very valid point. I think we have to be careful in distinguishing between real health problems (as in this case) and aesthetic choices.

 

The most obvious example would be what would happen if we ever found a 'gay gene'?

[Dr. Dalek]

The process described in the text makes sense to me for one reason. Normally in nature an organism produces far more young than can possibly survive, thus the most genetically and/or physically fit will survive. Where as we humans save all of our young through medical science. This leads to the gene pool being filled with strains that would be unfit to survive however . . .

 

That is a very valid point. I think we have to be careful in distinguishing between real health problems (as in this case) and aesthetic choices.

 

The most obvious example would be what would happen if we ever found a 'gay gene'?

. . what if some one in a Dictatorship, or a Nazi like regime instituted this process on a massive scale, almost like pre-birth racial cleansing. Genocide with a scalpel and a stethoscope?

[Severian]

I don't think it even has to be an evil dictator. If the average person is asked before conception "Do you want your child to be homosexual or hetrosexual?" they will pick hetro. Its only natural because then they will be more likely to have grandchildren. Or if they are asked "Do you want your son to look like Brad Pit or Homer Simpson?", which do you think they would choose? In these cases, the availability of choice will be enough to lead to eugenics.

[Dr. Dalek]

I don't think it even has to be an evil dictator. If the average person is asked before conception "Do you want your child to be homosexual or hetrosexual?" they will pick hetro. Its only natural because then they will be more likely to have grandchildren. Or if they are asked "Do you want your son to look like Brad Pit or Homer Simpson?", which do you think they would choose? In these cases, the availability of choice will be enough to lead to eugenics.

Too true.

Though the positive aspects of this methodology, we'll call it "In Vitro Selection", are too great to be ignored. There is a question in my mind as to the morality of "IVS", but if it can be done somebody will do it (and someone already has) . You might agree with the statement that this sort of thing cannot be left to itself, someone, some experts with some athority must be brought together to discus it.

 

Perhaps someone, such as a government body or an association of Doctors should be called upon to address this issue. Experts who are asked to ponder the morality of "In Vitro Selection" and other questions such as "What should the limits of "IVS" be?" and "Who should enforce them” and most of all “Who can be TRUSTED in enforcing such thing?”

[Dr. Dalek]

Say that could be a good member project!

[SmallIsPower]

Absolutely ---- there are so many ethics issues that come with advanced science. I just wish we'd overcome some of our agressive and greedy impulses before we reached this point.

[Martin]

I just wish we'd overcome some of our agressive and greedy impulses before we reached this point.

 

maybe they can be eliminated genetically by IVS

[Dr. Dalek]

maybe they can be eliminated genetically by IVS

 

Then again is it ethical to use IVS to control a populations psychology? Aggressive and greedy impulses have many bad implications in modern society, then again as evolution has it, we may have those things for a reason. Mucking around with human nature may be done with good intentions, but

WARNING CLICHE AHAED!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Callipygous]

awesome!

 

certainly a slippery slope, but i think this is more of a good than an evil.

 

 

 

 

PS. i would like to note that just because you brits can figure out how to make an "H" sound doesnt mean you can butcher grammar with things like this: "an hereditary"

what next? "an hole"?

[Dak]

in english(UK), the correct pronunciation of 'honour' is 'onour'; because the 'h' isn't pronounced, it is said -- and written -- with an 'an' as opposed to an 'a': 'an honour'.

 

'hotel' used to be the same, which is why you'll occasionally see 'an hotel', although -- as the 'h' is now pronounced -- it should be both spoken and written as 'a hotel'.

 

as for 'an hereditary'... i dont believe this has ever been correctly pronounced 'ereditary', so id guess it's actually a result of the author speaking slangy and not pronounsing his 'aiches': if he pronounces it 'ereditary, he's likely to spell it 'an hereditary'.

 

Similarly, i tend to say an 'otel, or an 'ole, and so might accidentally wright an hotel, or even an hole.

 

as for the baby: what's the difference between choosing it so that it didn't have a heart condition, or for it's hair colour...

 

i can never descide wether this kind of eugenics would be justified or not. I mean, there's alot to say that eugenics of any kind are inadvisable, but then if it weren't for medical intervention, the owners of alot of these alleles may not even make it to reproduction age, so would stuff like this just be countering other eugenic-esque things that we have inadvertantly been doing?

[Callipygous]

honor has a silent H here too. hereditary does not.

 

as for the baby: what's the difference between choosing it so that it didn't have a heart condition' date=' or for it's hair colour...

 

i can never descide wether this kind of eugenics would be justified or not. I mean, there's alot to say that eugenics of any kind are inadvisable, but then if it weren't for medical intervention, the owners of alot of these alleles may not even make it to reproduction age, so would stuff like this just be countering other eugenic-esque things that we have inadvertantly been doing?[/quote']

 

 

i think the difference between saving a child from a fatal disease and changing its hair color is a very clear difference.

 

the direction these discussions usually go is, "where do you draw the line?" and to that i have no answer.

 

thats why i said its definately a slippery slope. i think most people would agree there is a point at which you should just leave something up to nature, however, this is definately not it.

 

keep saving the babies from cancer!

[Severian]

honor has a silent H here too. hereditary does not.

 

English really doesn't have rules, since it is defined by what people speak and write - not by a rulebook. However, the etymology is such that words originating from French did not have their initial 'h' pronounced (e.g. hotel) but words originating from German did (e.g. hair). Whether the 'h' was pronounced or not is what determines whether we use 'a' or 'an' in modern written English. So we should have 'a hair' but 'an hotel'.

 

Hereditary has a French origin, so it is 'an hereditary' (ie. it was originally pronounced without the 'h').

[Dak]

interesting. ya learn something every day

 

 

i think the difference between saving a child from a fatal disease and changing its hair color is a very clear difference.

 

it wasn't my intention to say that there wasnt an ethical difference or anything like that -- more that, reguardless of the motivation, artificially selecting against a trait is eugenics, which has numerous disadvantages

[Callipygous]

thats all well and good, but saying it doesnt have a rule book is garbage. every language is based on the ones before it, all the way back to grunting. just because enlish is based on others doesnt mean it doesnt have rules.

 

hereditary is currently pronounced with the H thoroughly intact.

[Royston]

thats all well and good' date=' but saying it doesnt have a rule book is garbage. every language is based on the ones before it, all the way back to grunting. just because enlish is based on others doesnt mean it doesnt have rules.

 

hereditary is currently pronounced with the H thoroughly intact.[/quote']

 

There are no strict rules for using 'a' or 'an' before h despite the French origin of the word, or how it sounds. I learnt this in GCSE English...12 years ago ! Both are perfectly acceptable i.e. a hereditary and an hereditary are both fine. You can't say an hair, for the reason Severian pointed out.

 

Sorry for going off topic.

[Dr. Dalek]

thats all well and good' date=' but saying it doesnt have a rule book is garbage. every language is based on the ones before it, all the way back to grunting. just because enlish is based on others doesnt mean it doesnt have rules.

 

hereditary is currently pronounced with the H thoroughly intact.[/quote']

 

You misspelled English, and doesn’t is supposed to have an apostrophe.

Now get back to ethics, I've had to put up with plenty of these forums changing topics!

[Callipygous]

You misspelled English' date=' and doesn’t is supposed to have an apostrophe.

Now get back to ethics, I've had to put up with plenty of these forums changing topics![/quote']

 

and i dont use the shift key either...

 

theres a pretty big difference between laziness and typos, and using "an" when your supposed to use "a". (whether or not weve decided its acceptable in this case is irrelevant, as my complaint was before we discussed it)

 

aside from all that, my poor grammar doesnt excuse the use of poor grammar elsewhere. i run into this kind of crap argument pretty much constantly on the gaming forums. if we were there id put this a lot more bluntly, but that sort of language is more frowned upon here.

 

and finally, i know were going off topic, but either leave the moderating to the mods or do it in a way that doesnt involve acting like your in charge.

 

id add in more thoughts about ethics at this point, but i feel i pretty well summed up my thoughts before in saying that it definately has a potential for going to far, but we arent there yet.

[Dr. Dalek]

and i dont use the shift key either...

 

theres a pretty big difference between laziness and typos' date=' and using "an" when your supposed to use "a". (whether or not weve decided its acceptable in this case is irrelevant, as my complaint was before we discussed it)

 

aside from all that, my poor grammar doesnt excuse the use of poor grammar elsewhere. i run into this kind of crap argument pretty much constantly on the gaming forums. if we were there id put this a lot more bluntly, but that sort of language is more frowned upon here.

 

and finally, i know were going off topic, but either leave the moderating to the mods or do it in a way that doesnt involve acting like your in charge.

 

id add in more thoughts about ethics at this point, but i feel i pretty well summed up my thoughts before in saying that it definately has a potential for going to far, but we arent there yet.[/quote']

 

Alright I'll come back when we get back to ethics.