Slashdot Mirror
Designer Babies, Version 1.0
Stickerboy writes: "A 30 year-old woman in Chicago gave birth to a pre-pregnancy genetically screened and selected baby 17 months ago, which is being reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association today. Doctors at the Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago took 23 eggs from her, screened the eggs for a gene that causes an early form of Alzheimer's, and then fertilized and implanted the eggs back in her womb. Shades of the movie Gattaca - this is a good specific development, but the start of a very controversial trend. Read more about it in the Washington Post or read the abstract in JAMA."
Why didn't they do anything else interesting. If you are going to screen for something, why not go all out?
-- Adam
get all the best parts of Cowboy Neal in my baby?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
They should made a terminator babe with metal as bones, that'd be sweet.
"you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
My wife and I are actually quite young, and I'm trying to persuade her to wait until Science advances to the point that we can select the gender and fitness level of our child. I've always wanted an athletic young son, and considering the irreplacable amount of money and time it takes to raise a child, this only makes sense.
I'm forwarding her this article now; perhaps this will convince her I'm not such a dreamer after all.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
I think we can sum up the solution to this debate relatively easily:
Babies free from disease == Good
Babies who look like Arnold Schwartzenegger and Maria Shriver == Bad
-Sean
you lose, sorry!!!
-- Adam
If only they could screen for the Trolling gene. Troll Free /. in 50 years?
Have the genes determining breast size been discovered yet?
The world could only benefit from the female part of the population being exceedingly buxom and the male part never needing to wear bras.
--t
That interesting, and surely helped the woman. But I wonder what else can be found at this pre-screening stage.
Not only the diseases, but when (and if) we can pre-screen for intelligence, strenght, certain characteristics, won't we be creating a 'super human-race'?
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
All doctors did was select an unaltered embryo that had a better chance of developing into a healthy adult. They didn't change the embryo in any way, nor did they give any advantage to the mother or embryo.
Some doctors encourage people who are at risk of genetically transmitted diseases to have their unborn fetuses screened for those same diseases so that they have the option of aborting early in the pregnancy.
This merely takes that practice a step further, while eliminating the controversy of abortion.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I can see the corn you had for lunch yesterday.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Think of all the famous people who made great contributions to humanity who wouldn't have even been born if we do this nonsense widely in the future!
Maybe the reason that if there is intelligent life out there among the stars that they haven't found us is because they all genetically engineer themselves into extinction? Afterall, we couldn't leave something important like reproduction up to natural selection and chance, could we? But I'm undoubtedly a just troll for not jumping on the latest biotech bandwagon.
Even St. Thomas Aquinas can't object to this. The discarded eggs were not fertilized. Of course, he might have been upset that he missed out on the fun part...
Believe nothing -- Buddha
Natural evolution (random genetic drift/mutation generation of species and natural selection for survival) works but only up to the point of reproduction - the bad things that happen (like old timers disease) AFTER reproduction don't get weeded out but are passed down from generation to generation of sufferers. Things like this would be helpful to improving the quality of life AFTER childbearing, which is becoming the biggest part of life, in the developed world anyway.
Of course, anytime humanity plays God, there room for abuse and evil (breeding sex slaves, mercerary warriors, etc).
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
There are two potential uses of genetic screening before giving birth, in my opinion.
1) Screen for potentially harmful diseases, such as Alzheimer's, and prevent them.
2) Test for other traits such as height and eye color, etc.
#1 is OK in my opinion, since it simply tries to prevent a person from having genetic conditions for their entire lives. #2 would be terrible if used, though, and could just create a bunch of Michael Jordans as babies. It does not save people's lives, it simply makes everyone else worse off in comparison, and is the type of thing used in Gattaca.
I think that designer babies are ok as far as eliminating disease but could hurt genetic diversity and cause genetic elitism if used to try to get the perfect baby.
From the article:
"Without the screening, the newborn would have faced fifty-fifty odds of becoming hopelessly senile by the time she was 40."
This is a terrible thing. I am really sorry to hear that this *might* happen by the time she/he is 40.
Well, IMO, this goes against natural selection. Weaknesses are inherent in all forms of life. And in this case, the weakness is basically being forced out of the child. I don't think this is a good thing, and here is why...
What happens when the governments start screening every child that is born for any inherent form of "weakness"? Will those children never receive the chance to live? Will they be branded "inferior"? This has the potential to be an extremely bad thing.
If you want a child so badly, lady, go ADOPT ONE.
There are literally thousands of unwanted children out there that need and want a family.
What is so wrong about going this route as opposed to paying thousands for a procedure like this? You help a child already alive, and more importantly, you give that child a chance to have a better life, and that is what it's all about.
of course, this is my opinion, and I am sure I will be slammed most heartily....
*cracks open a beer and waits*
Sent from your iPad.
I have a form of autism called Asperger's syndrome. I prefer having the skills/ abilities associated with the condition rather than be *normal*. If this form of genetic selection were allowed to continue for other types of conditions it would lead to a far less diverse society. People with Asperger's are often called geeks, nerds, eccentric etc - but are resposible for a lot of inventions purely because they decided to think differently. Anyway I agree with selection for physical illnesses but not for mental ones. Lots of famous people in history managed perfectly well even with what would be considered today a mental illness. Einstein had Asperger's syndrome, Winston Churchill was manic depressive.
Okay, two immediate thoughts come to mind with relation to this.
/smart/ and /strong/ and /useful/. Not pretty.
First off, with the way that human mating works nowadays, there really isn't much evolutionary motivation. You date people who you find attractive for whatever damn fool reason you have rather than for the purpose of creating healthy offspring. I, for instance, tend to prefer dating women who find fat, bearded computer geeks attractive. That's not an evolutionarily sound move on my part, but that's not going to make me dump my lovely girlfriend. So this development makes it possible for Humans to actually take control of evolution and start breeding out diseases and infirmaties.
However, the problem that immediately comes to mind is something that dog breeders have found over the years. People started breeding for certain traits such as soft coat, ears that are floppy in exactly the right way, short tails, etc. While this makes for very pretty dogs, it leads to the problem that the average Dalmation, far from rescuing its brethren from Cruella DeVille, could just barely rescue itself from a small, wet paper sack. And that's only if it had 100 other dogs helping it. And the wet paper sack also had food in it that they wanted to get to. And maybe was perforated. Which is why sheepdog owners are, last I heard (which was, admittedly, years ago), fighting tooth and nail to keep their breed out of competition. They raise sheepdogs to be
The point I'm trying to make is that genetically manipulating which kids we have to screen for diseases is fine by me, but I'd hate to live in a future where people start screening their reproductive cells so that they only have pretty babies. They'll probably be able to play games with Dalmations on the same intellectual level.
--AC
I question the very concept here. I wholeheartedly support eliminating these diseases, but I don't think we, as a society, have the ethical and moral strength to resist the inevitable temptation to abuse this(in fact, there are cases of it already happening). A person's worth is intrinsic, not based on their physical condition. Look at Stephen Hawking or Helen Keller. Imagine if they had been screened, and eliminated.
Until we progress beyond the point of treating "personal responsibility" like a four letter word, we are simply too immature to play with these toys.
Creedo
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
>implanted the eggs back in her womb.
So, they put more than one baby inside her and one was born. I notice the submitter describes this as 'good'. Eugenics is BAD - yes even trendy 21st century Smart Eugenics. The inconvenient die for the sake of the Master Race.
There was one which was part of the The Genomic Revolution at the The American Muesum of Natural History where a couple chose thier baby based on its ability to provide a necessary blood or marrow transplant to thier already born daughter that really struck me. Interesting but somewhat scary stuff.
Government is the abdication of your responsibility to a faceless bureaucracy. Anarchy(absence of government)is the a
Sure, this is a good thing for the kid, but is it ethical for a doc to help a woman who's likely to be senile by the time her kids are in elementary school overcome such disadvantages and give birth, by any means?
Well, guess it's her choice, bad though it may be. Just 10 years ago she might've just gotten a hysterectomy, adopted, and moved on. Personally, I just don't understand the NEED to have your own kids. In a world where needy kids need to be adopted, it strikes me as more than a little self-centered to see high-tech IVF methods as NEEDED so you can have YOUR baby.
It's like the sow in the midwest that had 7 kids, half of them retarded. They weren't a sign from God, sweetie. The infertility was the sign from God. Whatever though. Do what you like. Just don't ever expect my insurance payments to cover it.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Finally we start down the road to the Singularity. I give it another 40 years till humans no longer exist. As I see it this (and the creation of AI) is the only way for our civilization to continue to grow without killing ourselves.
Anail Nathrock Uthvass Bethudd Dochiel Dienve
By the time such a kid figures out what slashdot is, Last Post will have long since been archived.
I want to see genetic engineering just take off crazy and unregulated. Seriously, there are enough of us here, that the only way we'll REALLY fuck up is if we keep going the way we are.
I want to see athletes engineered to run 25 miles an hour for hours on end.
I want to see people with IQ's off any scale.
Hell, I want to see decathalons with supped up athletes where half the contestants explode before the end.
Bring it on, I like it and we need it. Fuck all you Naysayers in your nice comfortable existence.
I have to say this is one area of technology I'm a little bit uncomfortable with. But then again, my family doesn't have a history of any genetic diseases.
I think it's going to be a *long* time before we can screen for things like intelligence, the genetics behind such traits is too complex for the forseeable future. There is no geek gene.
As long as this stays within the realm of selecting against life-threatening genes, I don't see too much of a problem.
I'd also like to know why so much effort is spent on reproductive medicine for rich nations with near zero population growth and near zero infant mortality. couldn't our resources be better spent helping out the rest of the world control their populations, and improving the (shamefully poor) infant health services in those regions?
I know it comes down to money, but still...
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
1) Screen for potentially harmful diseases, such as Alzheimer's, and prevent them.
2) Test for other traits such as height and eye color, etc.
This is a rather trivial example, methinks. What about "conditions" that are more ambiguous? Like abnormal height? Should we screen for anyone taller or shorter than "average"? And if so, who determines that average? What about average IQ? Will your doctor say "I won't provide prenatal care for or deliver babies that have an IQ less than X, because 20 years down the line I'll be liable for lawsuit when that kid sues me for not making him smarter"
Like the subject line says, 'where do you draw the line?' I'm glad i'm not the judge who'll eventually have to rule on this one...
I live in Ohio. Not just any Ohio, but THE Ohio; small town Ohio. It's really where the action is if you enjoy entertaining functions such as fish fries, tractor pulls, buggy races, or generally drinking yourself to death because the alternative is existing in a world where absolutely nothing happens.
make him your foe
You go on, but your point is pretty incoherent. Let me address several of your points: 1. This is the best type of natural selection. You say it "goes against" it, but this is the most aggressive type of weeding out bad genes. I can assume you mean that "naturla forces" should decide which traits are bad and not the parents, but you don't explicitely say this. 2. The issue here isn't government intervention. What if the governemnt waited for children to be born and *then* killed "undesireable" ones? It's a pretty stupid postulation, since it's simply not happening. 3. Adoption. There's a huge difference between being infertile, and potentailly passing a debilitating disease onto a child. Yes, there are many children up for adoption. But that doesn't mean someone wanting to have a biological child can't. Anyways, wouldn't adopting be going against natural selection in a MAJOR way? Some things to think about...
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
OK, if we're in a situation of sorting through a bunch of eggs/sperm and trying to pick the 'best' one, then it may not seem like a big deal. A child is going to be born, the parents aren't going to change, we're just trying to tilt the table a bit as to one gene or another.
Imagine that someone had gone to Stephen Hawking's parents and said 'well, you have a gene that makes your children more likely to have ALS (an admittedly terrible disease to have), maybe we should screen your eggs/sperm and filter that out'. Given that Hawking's gift of scientific understanding is so rare, could you assume that this would have no effect ?
I know if I was about to become a parent and genetic testing told me my child would either have a terrible disease I would be horrified by the prospect...but I don't know that this is any way a 'right' thing to be doing. Think about Hawking, that's all I have to say.
(Yes, I know, 'God does not play dice')
I wonder if this same group will throw a tantrum if people start screening for the gene that causes deafness.
I dunno about you, but I don't release a version 1.0 until I test the completed product for deficiencies. So, we probably won't be hitting 1.0 for at least 20 years (post-puberty functions have to be checked into).
In other words, right around the same time Mozilla and OpenOffice hit it!
...(well, actually, it's a whole series, but the first book is the best) is Nancy Kress's "Beggars in Spain". It's a very entertaining and thought-provoking story about what might happen when genetic modification for socially-desirable traits becomes more widespread (i.e., available to the wealthy).
While I myself would love the ability to survive without sleep (Kress's example) as well as perfect hearing and eyesight, genetic engineering to create more "desirable" children has the potential to make the current divide between the rich and poor seem microscopic in comparison to the gap that will emerge once the rich can create "ideal" children with a fair degree of accuracy.
Genetic tweaking of offspring will have to be made available to everyone, rich or poor, otherwise class warfare won't be just a matter of politics.
Tig
So the mother has an ailment which means by the time she is 40 she will become senile. The child will just be 10 years old at that point. How is a senile mother supposed to raise a 10 year old child? Once again selfishness of the parent seems to have won out over long term best interests for the child.
Many people seem to think that this is the first time preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) had been used. I will quote from the first paragraph of the JAMA article to clear this up:
According to the most recent review, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been applied to at least 50 different genetic conditions in more than 3000 clinical cycles. In addition to traditional indications, similar to those in prenatal diagnosis, PGD was performed for an increasing number of new indications, such as late-onset disorders with genetic predisposition and HLA testing combined with PGD for preexisting single-gene disorders. These conditions have never been an indication for prenatal diagnosis because of potential pregnancy termination, which is highly controversial if performed for genetic predisposition alone. With the introduction of PGD, it has become possible to avoid the transfer of the embryos carrying the genes that predispose a person to common disorders, thereby establishing only potentially healthy pregnancies and overcoming important ethical issues in connection with selective abortions.
Basically, it says that PGD has been used for predispositions to diseases that come later in life before. This is just the first time it is being used for this particular disease.
The thing that possibly makes it more controversial is that not all of the people with the genetic mutation they "weeded out" go on to develop Alzheimer's, for reasons that are unclear. So maybe they trashed some perfectly OK embryos?
According to the article, 23 eggs were screened for the disease. Of those, 15 were fertilized. Of 15 resulting embryos, 4 were transferred to the uterus. Of the 4, 1 was term.
That is 14 discarded embryos for 1 term pregnancy for a mother who will have Alzheimers by the time her kid is in middle school.
What a wonderful story. Really warms the heart.
sig is
Adoption isn't as easy as you think.
Try and adopt a healthy, White baby and you can expect to wait in line for years. And even then you better be a straight, financially stable, heterosexual couple, otherwise, forget it.
Now, if you want a Black or Asian child, homegrown or imported, there are plenty to be had.
But people don't seem to want those kind...
Moderators: This should be modded down as Offtopic, even though it isn't, really. Troll or Flamebait doesn't apply because what I said is completely true, and you know it.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Just using that phrase "designer babies" determines the conclusion. Put out a poll...
"are you in favor of designer babies" - no
"should potential parents with inheritable diseases have the right to pre-screen their embryos for those diseases" - yes
Then we get the "look at all the wonderful cripples like Hawkins etc...." argument. Well, the foetuses you discard have at least as much chance of turning out well as the ones you keep. There are plenty of great humans who have nasty genetic diseases, but we have no way of telling what geniuses we've missed because the lack of screening meant some doomed half-wit runt got born instead.
And while I'm ranting... Gattaca wasn't that scary. I'm in favor of a world where more people look like Uma Thurman.
Anyway, I better quit before I start proposing full scale eugenics and saying "just because Hitler gave it a bad name doesn't mean it's wrong, after all, if his policies had been implemented Hitler would never have been born in the first place..." that would ruin any credibility I have. Oh shit, too late, just kidding, but I do have a gut reaction against the "this is what nazi's wanted = bad". Decent roads and punctual transport would get discarded too with those arguments.
Personally, I have more faith in nature combining things in the right way than a bunch of fuckwit genetic engineers. But, I don't think it's fair to tell people "it's illegal for you to try and avoid having a child who dies early - I'm not comfortable with that". You know what - nobody asked you to be comfortable with it, it's none of your business.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
you suck bitchdyhwoe
... insurance companies start charging more for people who were not prescreened. They could do this under the (admittedly reasonable) pretext that prescreened people are less likely to develop unexpected illnesses down the road.
Health care is already expensive, and this would most hurt exactly the same people who can't *afford* prescreening.
Also, it scares me to think that rich people will be weeding out bad genes while poor people continue to get sick. The social implications are frightening.
That said, I do think this sort of screening is a good idea. Any chance to reduce suffering in the world is a good thing. We just need to be *very* careful about how we apply it.
Shades of Gattaca, indeed.
Ain't no nigger like the one I shot!
Yeaziah! Biatche!
I am into the copy and paste.
Yeah, yeah, the gentic superclass of the wealthy. Big deal, they're already a superclass in terms of quality of life and survival due to simple wealth. And remember, they're still confined to the leash of their personal genetics.
We don't know nearly as much about genetic impact on traits and development as we sometimes like to pretend. It's highly likely that more devlopment occurs in the womb than many people acknowledge - pure environment, and the kind that is hard to account for in the kinds of population studies that end up defining our assumptions about what traits are genetic.
"It's against evolution and/or natural selection!" It's amazing, I've heard it a million times and it still makes me laugh. No baby, it is Evolution AND natural selection if anything is. Evolution occurs on a time scale that, whatever we may say, defies our attempts to truly understand the consequences of our present actions. There's no such thing as a bad or good adaptation in it: some individuals pass on their genetics and some don't: end ah' fuckin' story.
In the Gattaca world I probably wouldn't exist, what with the bad eyesight and predisposition for substance abuse and all the rest. I'll be passing on my genes anyway if I have anything to say about it, the old-fashioned way, thank you very much, and another fucked up kid will come into this world. I'll put mine up against a superbaby any day.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I think being able to adjust ourselves genetically is a good thing on average. We just have to be careful that we dont:
1) Decrease the overall genetic diversity of the population. ie. Mass produced specific genes are probably a bad idea.
2) Create people that can't mate with "normal" humans.
As long as (2) applies we are adding to the gene pool, and it think there are enough people having kids the natural way out there that (1) will be very difficult to make happen (gene-implanting virus epidemics aside).
The possibility exists that a modification could be made that ends up having bad consequences for the recipient decades later. This is the nature of reality. The risk means that people will think twice before doing it, which should provide some handy negative feedback. You have to consider the probabilities.
Would I be willing to make this choice for my offspring? Yes. I indirectly make this choice by picking a mate anyway. I won't make a choice carelessly, and I would only do it if I saw real benefit for my kids. Many choices you make in your lifetime have a significant impact on those around you. It's the nature of life, rather than the nature of this particular problem.
For those that would point out that my children would bear the lifelong burden of my choices, I agree and say "So what?". It would be one of many such choices, and I feel no moral qualms about making them. It is my responsibility to do so.
Just to be clear, I know we are currently in the "remove things we know to be bad" stage rather than the "designer water-breathing" gene stage. I'm just looking ahead a bit.
I find most of the complaints against this sort of thing to be in the gut-feeling-looking-for-a-pseudo-logical-argument category. The remainder have so far made points that haven't convinced me.
---
... washed down the sink? Unless we learn respect for life, we will all suffer the consequences.
we do not know enough about the genetic code to determine what is and isn't a weakness in the long term gene pool. this is very dangerous for the species. or at least any of the species rich enough to pay for such procedures... hmm.. this problem may correct itself.
This is a "what if" question. But basically, it should be noted many of the problems/diseases we screen for are considered weaknesses in the context of our society. What if part of the overall strength as a species is the good and the bad put together?
To word it differently, what if we mistakenly classifly a positive as a negative based on our perception of it, and then breed that out of ourselves (long term, given a gattica-like future)? And what if our environment changed such that a former weakness is now a strength?
That being said, I'm all for screening for some of those nasty problems out there. I just hope someone is looking at the "big picture."
While the Post article states:
"He used molecular tests to identify which eggs were free of the genetic mutation, fertilized them with her husband's sperm and transferred four of the resulting embryos to her uterus."
the JAMA abstract (which is likely correct) states:
"Analysis undertaken in 1999-2000 of DNA for the V717L mutation (valine to leucine substitution at codon 717) in the APP gene in the first and second polar bodies, obtained by sequential sampling of oocytes following in vitro fertilization, to preselect and transfer back to the patient only the embryos that resulted from mutation-free oocytes."
This means that fertilized eggs were destroyed, which meets most definitions of abortion.
You are arguing for the preservation of "bad" genes in the name of natural selection? You seem to be at cross-purposes. Natural Selection is all about removing "bad" genes from the gene pool. This gene is sneaky in that it does not adversely affect the individual until after prime reproductive years. Your upset that we've outsmarted the sneaky gene, and are removing it from the pool(at least one instance of it anyway.) I think the poster correctly identifies this as a good outcome, that portents an ominous future. Adopting and raising other people's children is nice, but from a biological standpoint, it's not "what it's all about" We're wired to spread our genes, and promote their development, altruism can override this(and that is certainly admirable), but ultimately we live to preserve our genes, not a stranger's.
My other sig is extremely clever...
I am getting sick of people using movies as an example of why something is good/bad. Gattaca, while a fine film is not useful in evaulating this kind of ethical dilemma. In fact, I would argue that Gattaca was less about the dangers of genetic manipulation an more a movie about ability of the human spirit to overcome adversity, especially artifical social barriers. The device could have been a racial caste system, poverty, or anything along those lines. They just happened to choose genetic engineering because it is topical.
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
Just like Animal Mother said in Full Metal Jacket:
"... thank god for the Sickle Cell"
The real difficulty you're going to have is that the number of usable gametes you're going to get falls exponentially with the number of chromosomes you're trying to select for. After you get to four or five traits you've got a choice: either you're going to have to be able to pick individual chromosomes and build custom nuclei, or you're going to have to select a "best-of-N" instead of a pure optimum. The "best-of-N" preserves large elements of chance.
This is still not bad. If it gives parents a shot at having a child who'll do best in their environment, or allows parents the knowledge that their child will do best if they provide a certain environment, it's all for the better. The same tests which show what environmental influences are best will help children who aren't specifically selected for certain traits to get the best out of what they've got. This is coming whether you want it or not; the technology is essential to tell what drugs will benefit individuals and what side effects they might have, and the other knowledge will follow behind it. Soon we are going to have the knowledge once reserved to deities, whether we want it or not; we had better be prepared to act on it humanely.Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
What really irritated me about a lot of the reporting of the stories was the so called "ethical problems" implied by a women who might not be around in full mental-state for daughter's teen years. One idiotic commentator at the end of one article wondered, "...if having children was an absolute right in the light of the situation." Good question to ask, but how many idiots out their have kids in messed up situations??? 70 year old fathers, crack-addicted welfare mothers, the Yates psychotic-muderer and so forth. The only reason the "mainstream" press and its fellow-travellers point the finger at this women is because she used genetic screening-if they wondered if a crack addicted mother should have a right to have a child, everyone would be howling about civil liberties and the implied racisim.
That being said-it is a concern that she chose to have a biological daughter. The child's life probably won't be optimum. But then again, what about lesbians having children? Or people that don't get themselves tested for life-threatening diseases that there's a family history for? And so forth. It all smells of rank hypocrisy and pious finger-pointing obscuring the real moral issues presented, because the woman's decision has ramifications about the choices that everyday people make, not just those who use genetic screening.
NO gods, NO governments, NO [OPTION]....
Hi geniuses,
don't give in to a slippery slope argument.
screening for diseases is completely different than adding super-powers. And besides, what is
so bad about super-powers anyway?
I invoke Godwins Law.
Slashdot is now dead.
--
E_NOSIG
Yeah, it's really easy to talk all about the ethics of this when you aren't affected. But if you were able to live life with Tourette's Syndrome (or any of the many conditions that are much worse), then your point of view changes DRAMATICALLY.
Now the monster is out of control!
I think all of us agree that the government shouldn't be force a manditory DNA screening for everybody, and to be honest I don't really see that happening in my lifetime. I would pray for the poor SOB politician who even decided to bring something like this to the floor.
However, I can see screening becoming more and more popular for those who choose not to procreate naturally (having sex) to gain the benefits of potentially avoiding a limiting precondition.
You wrote:
What happens when the governments start screening every child that is born for any inherent form of "weakness"? Will those children never receive the chance to live? Will they be branded "inferior"? This has the potential to be an extremely bad thing.
As far as your scenerio is concerned:
* Why do you mention screening of children *after* fertilization when we're talking about screening eggs *before* conception even takes place?
* What value would it be to the government to screen children for weaknesses after the fact if you can't change it?
* Why do you conclude that screening before conception will result in manditory DNA screening?
* If a child is intentified to have a "weakness", how is this a potentially bad thing?
* Wouldn't discrimination laws apply to genetic predispositions?
* Wouldn't intentifying the weakness allow health professionals to make provisions for that child?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
God. Slashdot. Typical clueless headline writing.
Wake up, guys. Doctors have been screening for genetic diseases for years. Remember the big Tay-Sachs screening? The difference here is that it's a disease that won't show up until adulthood. Up to now they've only done lethal childhood diseases.
Don't ask me why people are getting in such an uproar over that. Yes, I agree it wasn't necessarily a good idea to have a kid when you're going to go gaga in about ten years (he said tactfully). But as for the genetic engineering aspects, don't look for Gattaca anytime soon. Picking out one gene that causes a disease and selecting the gametes with the undamaged version, sure. Trying to select things like strength or smarts, or designing entirely new traits, not anytime soon.
Now I'm no Scientist (upper S), but "helping" natural selection seems like a pretty dangerous idea.
How do we know that a "bad" gene isn't a "good" gene under different circumstances? i.e. Sickle-cell anemia offering resistance to malaria.
I haven't been actively involved in mapping out the Human Genome, but I'm pretty certain that we don't know what all of the genes and combinations mean just yet.
What if the next few generations carefully weed out genes that cause moles and 300 years from now a mutant Neue Spanish Flu comes along and BAM! the entire human race is gone due to an inability to synthesize protiens that could have only been generated from the now-extinct genes?
An extreme case, indeed, but you get the picture
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
Lets recap some of the big concerns.
1. Insurance companies not insuring norms. (I hate the term, but it fits)
2. Low-income families cannot afford screenings, genetic divide.
3. Normal People replaced in the workforce, 2-3 generations from implementation.
4. Screenings will filter out "Genius" and "Artists"
5. Unseen effects after multiple generations of "Altered" humans.
6. Altered humans breed for specific tasks.
7. Rights for Altered and Normal humans.
8. Social interactions between enhanced/altered humans.
9. Economic benefits for enhanced/altered humans.
I think if we could have 3 rules/laws, there would be no worries.
1. DNA Privacy laws.
2. DNA Discrimination laws.
3. Free screening and genetic altering.
Would really be a bitch that my kids cannot get into college, or find work because I could not afford these screenings. They are denied life/health insurance, or any other things we become accustomed to in our daily life. While there are some DAMN good uses for this, this is a very fundamental change to our existance. We need to have basic protections put in place.
Or maybe, we are all over-reacting?
-
Wisdom sets bounds even to knowledge. - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
Since we've all but eliminated natural selection (do you think people with poor eyesight, mental handicaps or crippling physical defects would get a chance to reproduce 500 years ago?) this is a great idea. We need something in place to eliminate the weak from the gene pool.
Waaa waaaa I'm sure all the liberals are saying. But that takes away someone's right to reproduce! I think that whomever thinks this is a bad idea has forgotten where we really come from - where weak genes are removed from the mix by natural selection.
However - I don't think filtering people based on non-threatening characteristics is a good idea. We don't want everyone having to choose from babies #1-50(http://www.scifi.com/twizone/season5.html - Number 12 looks just like you) however we really need to think as society about our genetic future. Even simple things like eyesight are progressing - people with poor eyesight are not at the disadvantage they would have been a few hundred years ago. I'm all for this idea.
And really, what if we start letting people choose how their kids look? Who cares? People are going to whine that this is going to create another class of people - but I say make it open to anyone who can afford it - it's no different than being able to afford better schools or whatever for your kids.
Of course, somebody is going to complain that this is discriminatory because of (insert trait that you think makes you a minority here).
STFU
max inglis
Why does it make a difference if homosexuality is genetic or not? That is something I just can't understand. For example, there are theories that it can be genetically beneficial to not get any offspring under some circumstances and rather help rise your nephews.
I don't believe in that one. But what makes a gene that is against the norm a defect? Extreme intelligens is against the norm. Is that too a defect?
Steel is actually weaker than the material that makes up our bones.
Hell I wish they would've had this around before I was born.. I could have an 9" penis instead of the damn 18" one I am cursed with now.
Seriously though, I would do anything to guarantee that my child never has to suffer some illness just because it is in the old gene pool. Ie.. cancer, diabetes.
Although it would be cool to build an army of super soldiers bent on world domination too.
Ohhh, your a naughty little birdy...
How is scientific screening any different then just being picky about who you mate with?
I think we put too much hype on something that we have been doing for years already.
I mean how often do you want to actively mate with homely and sick people?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Imagine it's your kid. Imagine your little girl got a form of cancer that could've been screened for.
One of the leading theories of human evolution is that we developed our inteligence specifically because of our "weakness" in relation to other species in our environment.
Evolution is not soley based on elimiation of "bad" genes, it is also based on adaptation and compensation relative to one's environment. For instance, gills on a fish make it live, gills on a giraffe make it.... one messed up giraffe.
Maybe screening your baby did something good, maybe it prevented some good things. Maybe it did both (good for the baby now, but bad for humanity in 1000 years). Nobody knows, and things that may seem weak now may turn out to be great benifits.
I don't have much of a problem with messing with peoples gene in and of itself, I just think nature knows how to do it better.
1. Insurance companies not insuring norms. (I hate the term, but it fits)
I addressed this in another post-but you might be looking at separate insurance companies in the future. The fact is also, if genetic screening is $$$, the parents already paid a lot of money and it makes some sense their kids would pay a lower premium since costs have been front-loaded.
2. Low-income families cannot afford screenings, genetic divide.
Of course there'll be a genetic divide, resources are scarce. Low income families also can't afford good prenatal care-so there's already a life long divide. But the people this might harm the most are those with super good genes, since their advantage over the middle-class normal genes people will be decreased.
3. Normal People replaced in the workforce, 2-3 generations from implementation.
Same arguments made about computers and possible AI-but no one is talking about a Butlerian Jihad
4. Screenings will filter out "Genius" and "Artists"
Most eggs are wasted anyhow. Though perhaps you have something if some deleterious traits are correlated with genius. On the other hand, some of the greatest artistic periods were during periods of squalor and inequality (Athenian Democracy, the Rennaisance), while the US hasn't produced much more in the past 20 years aside from pop-culture, so does that mean we should go back toward what was in the past??? I mean, if great art is contingent on extreme manic-depressive tedencies, should we make sure there are manic depressives around so we can enjoy their art???
5. Unseen effects after multiple generations of "Altered" humans.
This is the same argument eugenicists make about "dysgenics" and "bad breeding." Not saying if you or they are correct, but it's the same argument.
6. Altered humans breed for specific tasks.
70% of female PhDs in physics marry other physics PhDs. The fact is that this sort of thing is more and more common.
7. Rights for Altered and Normal humans.
8. Social interactions between enhanced/altered humans.
9. Economic benefits for enhanced/altered humans.
???
NO gods, NO governments, NO [OPTION]....
Basically, I completely agree with your post, however, there is a slight factual error, namely that Sickle-Cell Anemia is caused by an "unlikely mutation." Let us say that the gene that causes Sickle-Cell Anemia (SCA) is S, and that the lack of that gene is A. Any given person gets one allele (the varient of the gene that causes or does not cause SCA) from each of their parents, with the four following genotypes:
AA, no expression of SCA
SS, complete expression of SCA
AS or SA, partial expression of SCA
In other words, you do not get full-blown SCA unless you inherit the S allele from both parents. However, if you inherit the S allele from only one parent, then you are affected by SCA to some extent. Generally, there are enough healthy cells in the body to prevent the partial expression from being a problem. In addition, blood cells affected by SCA are virtually immune to Malaria, thus people with a partial expression of the gene are less likely to get Malaria.
In regions where Malaria is a problem, natural selection favors a parial expression of the gene. Those born without it die of Malaria and those born with the full expression of the gene die of SCA.
In fact the gene that causes SCA is not that rare, as you state, it is quite common in Malarial regions. There are as many people born in those regions with SCA as not. It is not rare, and is not caused by an "unlikely mutation." SCA is rather uncommon in regions where Malaria is not a problem and there are few breeding people from Malarial regions (i.e. the "Western World"), but (to beat a dead horse) it is quite common in regions where Malaria is also a common problem.
However, the rest of your comment is right on.
Rhapsody in Numbers
I, for instance, tend to prefer dating women who find fat, bearded computer geeks attractive. That's not an evolutionarily sound move on my part,
sure it is. Your "selfish genes" want to propagate. They do not care about the evolutionary good of the entire gene population; they just want to help themselves. Your genes know that their/your only chance of reproducing is to date women with like fat, bearded people.
cpeterso
She should consider having NO children and helping humanity voluntarily make itself extinct. We have done far too much damage to this planet already.
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
cpeterso
From all the post I saw "insightful" in this part of the thread you are comparing weakness (socially, musculatur, and so on) to an illness which are totally different. Most of the weakness you are speaking of, are anyway at the top of the gaussian defining the population. This means that despite yourself or your acquiantance seeing it as a weakness from a biological point of view you are a "normal" person. Now when we are speaking of a biological weakness, those are bad protein mainly, working less effictively or not at all. Example of true "weakness" in genome (which are also illness at an early or late life stage) : Myopathie, The alzeihmer described in the article, many degenerative illness... As for adopting instead of having your own children, why the hell do you think parents try to have recourse (like my sister) to very expensive , painfull, hard to follow fertility treatment and operation ? They could as easily adopt. maybe you are forgetting the psychological aspect and difference between having your "own" children and adopting one ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Natural selection is still going strong. Currently it selects for sexual characteristics. Humans today have tits and dicks too large for pre-clothing hunting. Clothing is thought to have been invented 70-50,000 years ago.
Women still go for jocks, stature, earning power, and intelligence, so these will be pushed too.
Speaking as a parent who's about to have a baby girl added to our family, I have to ask a very pointed question to those who oppose any sort of genetic "screening". If you have a child, would you not do practically anything on this earth to prevent that child from having to suffer from diabetes, Alzheimer's, or hundreds of other genetically-linked diseases? If you have a child and answer "no", then perhaps you ought to take a good, long look at your child and imagine him/her hooked up to machines, wasting away in a hospital bed. It can happen. It does happen. I hope it never happens to myself, my wife, or any of my children.
We have it within our power now to take a preventative stance towards genetically transmitted diseases. Undoubtedly this system will be abused, as any system can and is abused, but are not the gains worth it? Early last year I lost both grandparents, both of which suffered long bouts of Alzheimer's. It was horrific to watch as the people who I knew and loved forgot who I was, who they were, and regressed to an infantile state. I would not wish that on my worst enemy. If I can prevent my great grandchildren from one day viewing my children in a similar manner, I'm all for it.
Are we playing God? That depends on how radical you want to be about this. I firmly believe that we've been given cognitive abilities that have lead to the discovery of genetics. If God didn't want us tinkering with ourselves, why does he allow us to do so? I'd also love for someone to find some good biblical references that say we shouldn't be doing this.
And, yes, I've seen Gattaca. I know what the consequences of genetic "super babies" might be, but that's just it -- what it MIGHT be. Here's a solution: if you want it, you should be able to have it. If you don't, don't. Your choice. That is what freedom is about, after all? Choice?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I have no problem as long as they screen for ignorance and stupidity :)
All your base pair are belong to us!
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
This is no more playing God than deciding whether to have a child or not in the first place. If Hawking's parents had not had children, then he would not have contributed to science. All our choices have consequences we cannot foresee, not just the ones that use fancy new science. Get over it, and try to make the best, most ethical choices you can.
That said, there may be other good arguments against gene screening. But this one just doesn't hold water.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
There are alot of posts here supporting Natural Selection with an almost religious zeal (some irony in that). What is so great about natural selection? OK, so its been the dominant form of evolution on earth for a few Billion years. Things change. Its ironic that people are arguing that Natural Selection needs PROTECTION from science.
The whole idea behind natural selection is to let biological organisms compete to determine which is best suited to survive. If Natural Selection is so great then the organisms that it produces should have better long term chances of survival than those produced by Scientific Determinism. If not, then by its own principles Natural Selection should face extinction.
A very long time ago, Robert A Heinlein wrote a book, Beyond this Horizon, where superior babies were produced by screening the entire parental genomes to pick out the best combinations. It's like this, on a much larger scale. No genetic modifications, no splicing in foreign genes, just picking out the best eggs and sperm. That's a whole lot less likely to cause unintended consequences than tossing in new genes, and if the genome was well enough understood, it should be good enough to nearly eliminate double-digit IQ's, chronically ill, and the genetically criminal within a couple of generations.
There were "control naturals", people whose ancestors had never used this genetic filtering. They received a governmental stipend to compensate for their disadvantage. Heinlein never really discussed _why_ they existed, perhaps he thought it was too obvious. Sometimes those genes you would normally filter out might turn out to be strongly advantageous in different circumstances -- heterozygotes for sickle cell anemia are virtually immune to malaria, for instance.
Finally, note that this book is the most utopian of all Heinlein's work, and the most boring. A perfect society is one where "interesting" things don't happen to people, so getting a story out of an almost perfect society is difficult... 8-)
Dog breeders have never been able to tinker with the genetic code, though they likely soon will.
If you wanted a dog to have spots, for example, you chose two dogs that had the size/color/pattern of spots you were looking for and bred them. Poor eyesight or hip problems came later. You got the bad with the good.
Now they might be able to get healthy dogs that look exactly as they wish. Best of both worlds.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
When you say that something is intended you imply that it is intended by someone. Who is that?
You cannot mean god. I am sure that every child that is born is according to his will and he equips them as he likes.
Genes don't intend anything at all, even if you can get that impression from some popular scientific litterature. If it never arised anything new there would be no evolution.
Like the four arms. If it really was beneficial it would be an evolutionary advantage and from the genes point of view it would be something good. (I know that I in some way make the same mistake mentioned above when I talk about the genes point of view, it's just so practical to express it that way).
Maybe in 30 years it will be very popular to be homosexual. They might hate you for fixing them.
Even that noble goal is a slippery slope to tread. What diseases do we screen for? Cancer? Diabetes? Sickle Cell? ADD? Psoriosis? Dandruff? Halitosis?
Dandrif? Nonsense. There's no way you could possibly screen out dandruff! Dandrif is a disease against which we are powerless. It is only when we put our faith in a power greater than ourselves, such as Head and Shoulders, that we have the strength to overcome it. Yes my friends, there is hope. But you will not find it through such worldly means.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Right.. What's next?? Women, mandated by law to get pregnant each time they ovulate, so as to not deprive that egg of it's chance at life?? What a cruel fate for a potential child, so be soaked up by a tampon... How inhuman!!
Or better yet, picture this: Late evening, quiet suburban neighborhood.. Suddenly a SWAT team bursts through a second story bedroom window, laser targetting dots panning around the room.. A voice booms outside: "EM Emalb!! Put the sock down son!! Step away from the semen, and for God's sake, don't wipe your hands!! That's a potential human you've got there!!"
Depriving unfertilized eggs of the chance for life?? Get real!!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
One thing a lot of /.ers seem to overlook here is the fact that they weren't 'screening embryos for Alzheimer's'. Designing a baby means taking a bunch of fertilized embryos, finding one that suits your wants/needs, and killing the rest. It's the equivalent to getting pregnant just so you can have an abortion.
Some people are saying that hey, if they want to, why not? Hey, lets create a bunch of almost-humans, find the one in 100 that has the red-hair trait and kill the other 99.
I think a lot of people should have a problem with this
Have you thought about what you're looking at today?
I don't care what anyone else says, this is bitchen. Healthy babies rule!
Hopefully they won't stop researching into treating early Alzheimers at this point.
It's amazing but how could this be tested in in men? There's a lot of swimmers to select from.
...if you aren't "playing god", you aren't yet fully human.
What is a human? A human is a rational ape. A human who choses to demphasize their rationality and live like an ape, are they a human? Barely if at all. But a human who stretches what they are into what they could be by means of the science that is rooted in disciplned, non-self-decieving thought, they acheve the pinnacle of humanity precisely when they gain the power to move by rational choice and deliberate action beyond the old form of what was human.
Thus do I welcome all advances in the science of germline eugenic creation of post-humans.
"...fuckwit genetic engineers..."
I would wager there are no "fuckwit genetic engineers". In fact, I'll bet they are quite intelligent. More so than you or me.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Don't forget backlash - imagine paying megabucks for your perfect child only to have them hated and feared because they're different, or an abomination against god. Imagine children screened for disease suffering the same fate because of people abusing the technology.
And no, we are not over-reacting. Are there any big advances that haven't had negative side effects which weren't predicted? Even penicillin (the most beneficial advance I can think of) has been responsible for the evolution of super-bacteria and allergies in humans.
Obviously, screening for genetic diseases is good. Healthy people are, all other things being equal, better than unhealthy people. The "Steven Hawking" argument holds no water because there is not nor ever will be a screening test for who will make brilliant scientific discoveries. It could be the runt of the fallopian tubes but it could just as easily be the favored cell. Moreover, screening for other characteristics, wereit possible, would also be good. Remember, a person is not their body. The body is nothing more than a machine they use to interact with the world. The person inside the body's existence is largely determined by upbringing, social interactions, memories, education, creatvity (as opposed to intelligence), environment and the choices they make of their ow free will. None of the things that really define a person can be screened for because they are determined after birth. Might as well give the person a better machine to pilot. Genetic diversity will still exist because designer babies will only be available to those well off financially. For most of the world, it won't even be an issue. Even in this country, there will be both people who refuse to have any part of it due to their beliefs and people who have children the old fashioned way because they like to have sex. If a plague comes around, there will be plenty of genetically-accidental humans around that if there is an immunity gene then mankind will survive. There's even a good chance that designer babies would be no more than a fad that passes when the first generation of supermen matures and find that it has not solved all their problems. Playing God is also not an issue here because if God had not wanted us to become mechanics he would never have given us the opposable thumbs to pick up tools.
The only comment I want to make on this is that Michael Jordan didn't start playing basketball until high school. No doubt, he did other athletics prior to that, but obviously nature vs. nuture is a sticky argument indeed.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Let's talk about engineering addictions, like alcoholism. Alcoholism and other addictions are obsessive traits. Being a workoholic is very similar to being an alcoholic, except that it is socially acceptable. How many of the great advances in science and medicene were the result of some divine intervention, of the proverbal light-bulb idea? And how many were the result of grueling days, weeks and years of hard work? What I'm saying is that many of the great advances in science and medicene were the products of people who were genetically predisposed to obsessive personalities. Many of our great works of literature were written or composed by people who have obsessive personalities. Stephen King, Edgar Allen Poe and Ernest Hemingway are examples of this. There are personality traits that can lead a person either to greatness or to absolutely crash and burn in adulthood. Engineering these traits out is not necessarily a good thing.
...if they are also in the buisness of pharmaceuticals. Imagine bringing your flawless-chromosome baby into the world, courtesy of Progeny-Corp, only to learn thay they have contracted a normally-rare disease once they hit adolescence. Is there a cure?
Sure, but Progeny-Corp is the only company that sells it. Sure, such a thing would be horribly unethical, but that has never stopped big pharmaceutical companies before.
Green-voting, republican-registered, socialist-libertarian.
Gee thats fucking original...
That make it so all the people that are "special" enough here to hate windows can be made to have the ability to suck on thar own cock?
It sure is nice to think of all those people who would never have been selected as mates simply because one of their chromosomes caused a physical abnormality that will now be given a chance.
Before you condemn the practice, consider that it's only a matter of degree between this and deciding whom to marry. Unless you think people should be paired at random, you've already decided there's an amount of this that is acceptable. The only questions are, do we draw the line, and who gets to decide where we draw it?
-- I come from a very long line of families with children.
The Article in the Washington Post states that eggs were screened. However, the JAMA article says that it was embryos. Hmm, any takers on which source is more reliable? There is a huge difference.
I can't help but think that PGD is just bad science. Is PGD by definition, embryonic screening? Even if we could screen eggs alone, is the process itself safe for the subject egg were to be chosen for fertilization? What about the sociological impact of selective conception? It seems to me that scientists in general are disconnected from the moral implications of the work that they do. Perhaps this is a result of the amount of time and effort required to understand extremely complex systems. The resulting affect being to strengthen ones own opinions on a matter at the exclusion of others. Little time is there for consideration of factors that are unrealized, or perhaps even unknowable within the limitations of human comprehension. This is why it's extremely important to involve others in the debate -- religious and societal sources having no small part. Unfortunately when this fails, we all have to live with the consequences, some of which can be catastrophic.
It's all too easy and simplistic to say "If we change this gene, we can prevent such and such from happening" or "We can live without this particular human characteristic or disease". But the fact of the matter is that even if we could say this with some degree of certainty, there remain unanswered questions on the implications of doing so. Even if we were just screening eggs, the consequences could have grave sociological impacts. In the case mentioned, we might unintentionally end up creating sociological imbalance in personality, physique, sex, intellect, temperament, etc...
One might well argue that the sociological impact arising from pre-conception screening would be small if such screens resulted in the prevention of a very small number of very serious diseases. Perhaps this would be valid, and something we as a society could handle given the potential benefit for the pre-conceived. However, what concerns me is that such screening could be abused, especially in the highly insular medical and scientific bodies of today. I think we need some serious analysis, debate, and importantly, legislation on this issues like this ASAP to prevent abuses from taking place.
Imagine insisting on having a "pure" unscreened child, and then the child sues you for their genetically inherited cancer.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
By the time the kids are 40 , stem cell technology or genetic engenering or some other technology will have cured alzheimer anyway . That is if not technofobes and ludities , like a few of the people posting here , or some other leftovers from the spanich inqisition come in to power .
...oh wait , i forgot ashcroft and buch alredy are in power .
There was a story just the other day here about a healthy "multi-generational space travel" needing only 160 people. Do you really think that that genetic diversity is going to be threatened by a few billion people designing babies??
I also find it funny that people who use evolution as a reason NOT to have "designer" babies. News flash: Evolution doesn't go away just because we have brains, it just changes. If human's "over-design" themselves, nature will take care of it's own. We are and always will be part of nature.
Has anyone wondered how much this procedure costs? Who paid for it? Will this child's health insurance be cheaper by virtue of the fact that there is a "guarantee" that they will not develop alzheimers? It this becomes widespread we might be seeing:
;)
--Rich potential parents paying for screening, and getting better heathinsurance rates for thier children.
--Poor parents giving birth to high risk children, who can't be insured, or couldn't afford health insurance because of the increased premiums.
--Research into curing these illnesses being neglected or forgotten, since all of the patients that could pay for treatment will have been born without the gene that causes the disease. The disease being "erradicated" from the population that "matters"
--Lastly, by filtering out genes from the gene pool,we run nthe risk of elimiating the flexibility of the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Remember, the gene that causes sicle cell anemia, also provides some protection against malaria. If only the beautiful people are born, the wealth of "ugly" genes will be lost, and mankind's destruction will be only one disease or environmental change away.
Besides, isn't it more fun to make the baby the old way?
Socialist health care
...sickle cell anemia. In some parts of the world - I don't remember why exactly - sickle cell anemia is actually a genetic advantage...hence selection against people without that trait, and eventually a high distribution of people who have it.
IIRC this is in the same ballpark as what the Nazi party did with the Hitler youth.. i.e. blond hair blue eyes only kind of thing.. maybe not to the extreemes but it's a start.. where is the end? I personally have problems i'd like to have been born without i.e. athsma, alergies, baldness at a young age but they are the things that make me ..well me. I've never been against abortion and there may be things that this world could do without. things that are truly life threatening to the child but if you think your child will have Alzheimer's i think you should just not have a child. and as far as abortion goes..think before you act is the best policy.(read:birth control)
Just Limin' Mon
Human beings get a lot of their character and their life paths from their environment, not their genetics. It starts with the infantile environment that they are raised in.
How do you think the wealthy raise their kids? I'll bet that they don't plunk them down in front of a TV set nearly as often as the poor fuckers on the other side of the tracks.
So we've already got generational transfer of characteristics. Buffy learns to relate to authority in a completely different way than Lawanda. Buffy learns different attitudes about school, and so on. Who's more likely to have a lot of power and money when they are 35? And do you think that Lawanda gets the shaft because she's genetically inferior, or do you think that Lawanda would do just as well as Buffy if they got switched at birth?
Is it nature or nurture? I think for humans operating in a human society, it's about 10% nature, 30% nurture, and 60% the choices that you make yourself.
Well, I guess it could be worse, I could be working at McDonald's. Wait, I've done that before, and I was responsible for mopping the floors and stuff too. Doh!
Where was that said in Fight Club? It doesn't ring a bell. A deleted scene, maybe?
Dyolf Knip
It is a sticky subject... and one not many of the posters here seem to gather.
Most human traits are defined by a combination of the two. This is evident in the 'athletic build but lazy' scenario I laid out. My father is a guard at a government facility. He works out ever day in order to stay in terrorist-proof shape for his job. He is lean, mean, and at nearly 50, could beat most comers in a street brawl.
I have the exact same build as my father, but I've always been significantly more sedentary, preferring to write, make art... other sit-down stuff. I try to watch my diet but probably eat more fat and cholesterol than I should. I could still use to lose a few pounds.
We have very similiar builds, my father and I, but he has done strenuous work since he was a child whereas I have not. If I were to work damn hard for the next two and a half decades, I *might* be able to approach the kind of shape he is in at 50, but never quite make the same levels he does.
The argument for mental tasks is a little more clear cut. It's been evidenced by data collected in a few of the more famous child abuse cases that children who are isolate, not exposed to language at all (spoken or sign), slowly lose the ability to use language until about age 14 when they will probably never speak (or sign) coherently. They lose the ability to develop many higher reasoning skills at the same time. Even if a person has an affinity for language, if their brain is put in a vacuum like this, nature determines the outcome.
The most famous case of this kind of depravtion is the 'Genie' story. In 1970 young girl of about 13 was found chained to a toilet in her grandparent's back room. She had had little or no experience with anything other than that room her entire life. (Outraged? If I remember correctly, the grandparents were sent away for a very long time) Despite the fact that her family had *no* history of mental illness or retardation, Genie displayed all the symptoms of either severe mental retardation, autism, or brain damage simply because her brain had nothing to develop against like any kid who hadn't suffered that kind of abuse.
Amoung her other problems, Genie couldn't... and still can't... speak coherently despite intensive tutoring and help. She lost that ability due to the poor environment.
Nature does have a siginificant role to play in determining our traits. The world around us affects us in so many myriad ways that it should not be discounted as so many of the posters replying to this have stated.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Here. Read and be enlightened.
Zodiac Survey
I am glad to note that someone else notice the appearance of Agent Elrond:
Mister Baggins... you lead two lives. In one, you are Frodo Baggins, an unassuming little hobbit. In the other, you are the Ringbearer. One of these lives has no future...
Rhapsody in Numbers
I really do not respect black-and-white worldview.
For example, without going into whether homosexuality is evil at all.. It can be good for the community from evolutionary point of view. You have non-childbearing healthy women and non-fathering healthy men who are *not* using majority of their energy and time for raising children.. That energy is probably going somewhere else, don't you think?
In any case, as other poster already noted, there are far more bisexuals than there are homosexuals. Majority of bisexuals just happen to develop either hetero- or homosexual identity so they appear either straight or bent socially.
For my closing line, I'm going to have another evolutionary argument. If homo- and bisexuality was bad for the survival of species, any species, it would've been evolved out of existence millions of years ago. Instead it's almost universal and more common than any single hereditary disease.
It may be bad for the invidual genes which will not propagate, but it might very well be good for all the others.
Perhaps we need to take what nature gives us. Often a lot of satisfaction comes from some of the things we often view as negative. Dark very often helps us appreciate light. I think trying to eliminate every possible negativity, every inconvenience, discomfort, and so on only contributes towards the modern trend of taking more and more simple things for granted, especially good health.
The first thing I thought when I saw this was that it was referring to beany babies and cabbage patch dolls. The original designer babies!
I think the government should offer to do this to people for free. This way rich people wont end up with a huge evolutionary advantage over poor people, something that would make it even more difficult for the poor people to become rich.
Why is it, on Slashdot, that when I get moderated as both insightful AND flamebait, that flamebait is what get's shown next to the post?
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
There seems to be an implicit assumption in several posts that if you could in fact choose, say, your childs hair/eye color, that everyone would tend towards some sort of blond/blue-eyed homogeneity. But consider the world of purebred dog shows. There are several hundred dog breeds, and people seem to love a huge variety of beasts. I have a Boston Terrier with bulgy wonky eyes that several of my friends have called the ugliest dog in the world, yet of course, I think he's quite handsome. I'm not so sure that if we could choose superficial traits that we'd all go the same route. I'm light-complected, but if I could choose, I might choose somewhat darker skin for my child, partly for aesthetic reasons, but also so they would be more protected from skin cancer. And then, just as the fashion world shifts radically over time, one could imagine that people might make choices that buck the norm so their children might be noticed and not swallowed up in a crowd. Sort of like naming your daughter 'Moon Unit.' ;)
just pointing out some reasons why i don't think this is the greatest idea. Evolution depends on three things 1. Mutations 2. large genetic pool 3. recombinant reproductive practices one more thing...when humans began to move bipedally the problems associated with bipedal locomotion weren't weeded out. we were given longer and differently shaped legs.
That back in the 70's there was a papal decree against organ transplants? Organ transplants at the time were very contraversial! Of course I am uncomfterble with some of the posibilities of gene therapy, any thinking person will be that. However, we have to balance that with the need to help people who are sick, and in real need.