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."
Yes,
Perhaps they could screen for the 'first post' gene as well...
Sigh...
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
>Why didn't they do anything else interesting.
They were going to, but they forgot. If only the early Alzheimer's detection had been available a generation sooner...
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
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.
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
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!
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.
It is interesting how two industries that are always well-funded are the porn industry and the military. :)
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'?
Very simply, you can't screen for most human traits. Period. Sorry, go to the back of the line.
Besides the fact that most traits are caused not by one gene, but by the interaction of dozens of genes and the proteins they create, you have to consider that almost all human traits develop in accordance to someone's environment.
Thusly, if Albert Einstein had been raised in an environment where he wasn't exposed to mathematics or the written word until he was 30 years old, he probably wouldn't come across quite as bright as he was. If he had been raised in an environment where he was not exposed to speech-- The so called 'Forbidden Expirement'-- he probably would come across as being pretty retarded.
If Michael Jordan had not had the opportunity to work hard in his youth and become athletic, he probably wouldn't be the sports superstar he is today. He couldn't just 'develop' those traits and skills later in life.
Say you're an intelligent but pudgy software engineer/couch potato type and you actually manage to get the doctors to screen embryos and sperm most likely to create an athletic individual. If the child created may have a better chance of becoming atheltic, but if he follows his parents example, he will probably be just as pudgy.
Now the one trait that you *can* screen for is gender, mostly because the relationship between X and Y chromosomes has been fairly well observed even if the science behind all the related protein interactions has not been fully plumbed yet.
This raises some scary possibilities, especially in parts of the world where reproduction is controlled by government (China) or families are encouraged to have male children. (Quite a bit of the world, actually.) Having a gender imbalance will do a number on women's rights.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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 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!
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/
By the same token, who are we to say that your (say) twelve year old daughter's next ovum wonn't contain the best genetic material on the planet?
You're letter her *not* have sex? How dare you waste such potentially valuable genetic material? The second she gets gives birth to her first baby, make sure her boyfriend starts going for number 2. One of her fifteen kids might be the next Beethoven, after all.
I realize I'm being inflammatory, but I'm making a serious point. Every menstrual cycle wastes an egg. Every ejaculation wastes billions of sperm. I don't see a whole lot of difference between wasting them a few seconds before conception and wasting them a few seconds later.
(Yes, yes, I know that some people believe that a single cell can somehow possess an invisible, incorporeal, supernatural entity which they term a 'soul', but that theory is every bit as plausible as saying that the zygote possesses an invisible super-powerful wombat. They might, but considering there's absolutely no evidence in favor of it...)
And we *are* focusing our efforts on curing AIDs and cancer. Solving these problems does not require every single human on the planet to devote 100% of his or her effort to their solutions. That's a pretty inefficient way to operate. For that matter, what are you doing here on Slashdot? Why aren't you working on something more important?
The human race multitasks. Nobody complained about Linus Torvalds writing the Linux kernel instead of working on a cure for cancer. Why are you complaining about fertility doctors working on this rather than a cure for cancer?
I'm sure a lot of people will be pissed off by my opinions, but at least we can all agree on one thing. Super-powerful wombats would be *damned* cool.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
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.
---
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.
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
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)
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
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
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.
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-)