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."

Comments

Re:all they did was screen for alzheimers?

[gorillasoft]

Why didn't they do anything else interesting. If you are going to screen for something, why not go all out?

Read the article - her family had a history of very early alzheimers, where they would be in the full stages of it by age 40. This was an attempt to prevent the 50% likelihood of the offspring having alzheimers by age 40 as well.

Abortion still involved...

[kbonin]

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.

Sickle-Cell Anemia

[the phantom]

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.

Speaking as a parent

[prisoner-of-enigma]

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?