Designer Babies - the beginning

[john5746]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29489602/

 

What do you think? Too far already? Not even close to where we want to be?

[John Cuthber]

Well, I think the answer is right there in that report.

"But as the Wall Street Journal reported in February, the demand is out there:

In a recent U.S. survey of 999 people who sought genetic counseling, a majority said they supported prenatal genetic tests for the elimination of certain serious diseases. The survey found that 56% supported using them to counter blindness and 75% for mental retardation.

More provocatively, about 10% of respondents said they would want genetic testing for athletic ability, while another 10% voted for improved height. Nearly 13% backed the approach to select for superior intelligence, according to the survey conducted by researchers at the New York University School of Medicine."

 

Roughly 90% of the people think this is a bad idea.

Things that are that unpopular tend to get made illegal.

Also, if 10% think it's a good idea and (made up number alert) only 1% can afford it then it's 99.9% irrelevant.

[GDG]

Sorry, but 10% of a survey sample saying they want something is not the same as 90% saying it is a bad idea. You could easily have 50% saying "not sure", and 35% saying "I don't understand the question".

[Mokele]

Wait, how can there be a majority approval for those who sought genetic counseling, but 90% disapproval? If the 90% from a different study? If so, what study, what sample size, and what questions?

[John Cuthber]

Sorry, but 10% of a survey sample saying they want something is not the same as 90% saying it is a bad idea. You could easily have 50% saying "not sure", and 35% saying "I don't understand the question".

 

True, but we don't have that data.

[Mr Skeptic]

Not far enough

[SkepticLance]

Society's attitudes change over time. It does not necessarily matter how much support it has now. More important is ten years, twenty, fifty from now, when the technology is much more accessible and much cheaper.

 

I recall how artifical insemination of humans was treated in the 1960's when it was first mooted. My memory suggests massive disapproval. However, here it is. Common. And no-one gives a damn any more. And nor should they. The result is just a baby. If the baby is healthy, and loved, that is what matters.

 

Personally I think it is fine to choose babies that are tall, or athletic, or beautiful, or intelligent. Surveys show that such people live better and happier lives that those who are short, physically incompetent, ugly or stupid. In my opinion, it is perfectly responsible - even wise - to give your child the best start in life if that option is available.

 

My concern would run more to those who have bizarre tastes. For example ; in many animal experiments, a jellyfish gene has been inserted that makes the animal glow green. Imagine some nutter wanting that for their child! I would favour legislation that makes genetic insertion, or genetic selection restricted to those features that occur naturally in the human population, to avoid such bizarre choices, which would blight the life of the poor child bearing them.

[Psycho]

 

Personally I think it is fine to choose babies that are tall, or athletic, or beautiful, or intelligent. Surveys show that such people live better and happier lives that those who are short, physically incompetent, ugly or stupid. In my opinion, it is perfectly responsible - even wise - to give your child the best start in life if that option is available.

Apart from that inevitably limiting the gene pool and skewing the sex ratio.

 

I am personally not in favour of genetic alteration or selection unless the change is going to cause an undue detrimental effect on the persons life and that really doesn't include not being able to reach the can at the back of the top shelf at the supermarket.

 

If anything it would just cause greater distress to the people who hadn't had the genetic alterations if it came common place.

[SkepticLance]

Psycho

That distress is already there.

 

Today, the genetic selection is purely by chance, depending on your parents' genes. In the future, it will not be the random nature of genetic parentage, but the deliberate choices made by parents. At the end of the day, in either situation, there are children who become "the beautiful people" who live full happy lives, and there are the unfortunates who live miserable lives, where they feel put down by those who were more fortunate.

 

If anything, in the future with gene selection possible, the percentage of "beautiful people" will increase and the number of those who are made miserable by lousy genes will diminish. A net increase in happiness, and a net reduction in misery.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just a thought. Some genes don't work too well together, such as having several genes that each increase the chance of heart disease. I've also heard that "alpha" males tend to have poor daughters, but good sons. Some genes (especially recessive genes) aren't all that good in general -- but we may want to keep them around just in case, since they are good in certain circumstances. Designer babies will allow greater control over our offspring, and this should give an advantage to those who aren't afraid to use new technology. It also allows us to apply artificial selection to humans in a completely voluntary manner.