Slashdot Mirror
Designer Baby Given Go-ahead
An anonymous reader writes "A couple in the Australian city of Melbourne has been given the legal go ahead to breed a genetically modified 'designer' baby to cure their terminally ill child."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Screened, not modified.
...more people would ask permission to have kids, the world would be a better place.
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
...it's called dating. I screened the genes of my future projeny when I asked my wife to marry me. She was screening for the genes of her children by saying yes to me and not to some other schmuck out there. Geez, you'd think that having children was rocket science or something.
- What happens if this kid's cells don't cure the couple's first kid? That means that they brought a life into the world with the sole intent of curing someone else's life, and it didn't work. Wouldn't that make this kid a failure? How would you like to know that you were concieved to save someone's life and didn't? How would you like to know that you weren't concieved because your parrents wanted a second kid, but because they wanted their first kid to live? It's too bad that their kid is ill, but this is a terrible thing to do to a kid. It's not like they'll be able to hide it from him. It was bad enough when that couple tried to concieve a kid a few years ago for the same reason, but at least they didn't engineer the kid. If your parrents concieved you to save the life of your older sibling, doesn't that clearly imply that they love that other sibling more? What kind of psychological damage will all of this cause to this kid.
- What if this new kid has health problems. Will they have a 3rd kid to save its life? What's the difference, other than they may have caused this kid's problems, as opposed to it just being a chance of genetics.
- What if there is a miscarrige? Wouldn't you still get the cells needed if it was far enough along? Is this then a success or a failure? Someone was concieved so that someone could live, but that first person died and the second person still lived. What does that mean? Was the first person worthless? Why not just have an abortion partway through? Then how could one possibly argue that the kid who was aborted wasn't just a "sack of organs"? What kind of person tries to concieves a child knowing full well that they will kill it if they succede? Yes, I'm against abortion, but this is one of the reasons why.
- If someone kills the new kid before it can save the life of the first kid, is that double homicide? On the one hand, you've doomed the first kid. On the other hand, he's already dead, so can he be killed?
- May I remind you all of "Brave New World", "Gattaca", and such other works of fiction?
- Should we even save the first kids life in the first place? This one is a thought expirament, I'm not proposing this (I'd be dead in such a case). One can easily argue that medical technology has rendered evolution mute on our species, which is probably why the rates of just about everything bad (cancer, obiesity, diabetes, heart disease, asethma, allergies, etc.) have been rising over the last century. Should we be allowed to play god (genetic engineering) to help us play god better (by curing the first kid who should, purely by evolution, not survive)?
- If it's cord cells they're after, why not test the cells from every baby born in a hospital, and ask the parrents of any matching kids if they'll help out by allowing the use of the cord cells. Why even create a second kid?
- What does it teach their first kid that they concieve another just to save his life? Does it teach him that life is sacred? Or does it teach him that kids are more like a commodity, and that he can be replaced. Does this give his life more or less value?
That said, what do you make of this quote in the article? They don't even know if the kid has the illness and THEY ARE DOING ALL OF THIS? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this part ALONE? How do they know that this is the only chance if they don't even know if this kid has this illness?I realize that this post might seem kind of "troll"-y, but these are serious questions? Even if you are "pro-choice" (a misnomer, but that's another issue), would you agree with the abortion in #3? If you think I'm a troll, please reply to this and give me logical arguements why I'm wrong (I'll just assume the "You're an idiot because you suck" posts) instead of modding me down.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
They are going to raise a new perfectly healthy baby, for the purpose of donating the umbilical cord blood to their sick child in order to save his life. So what if they're using IVF to screen out genetically defective embryos? The sole effect of this treatment, when allowed to go ahead, if a benefit to all parties concerned and does harm to no one. (For those of you who believe that the destruction of embryos is immoral because the embryos are people, all I have to say is that one mindless ball of flesh is not any closer to personhood than any other, because the sole characteristic that makes one a person or makes one capable of having a "soul" (if such things exist) is having a mind capable of thought and emotion, which is obviously not a characteristic of anything that has not yet developed any sort of nervous system) But I digress.
The whole slippery slope argument about "Designer Babies" is completely bunk because sliding "down" that slope would be nothing but benefit to mankind. The world would, unquestionably, be a better place if genetically-based diseases were eradicated and people had more of a genetic predisposition to be healthy, fit, and intelligent. So what if the benefit only applies to those who can afford it; the same can be said of ALL expensive medical treatments, and yet we don't see anyone advocating banning chemotherapy for that reason.
One of the other arguments against so-called "Designer Babies" is that genetic screening will, in many cases, be applied very narrowly (for example, to enhance physical attractiveness) neglecting more important things and actually making the person-to-be less healthy overall. So, hypothetically, the technology could be misused in harmful ways. Big deal. Antibiotics have been and are still being misused resulting in the creation of dangerous antibiotic-resistant diseases that are taking a great toll in some areas, such as Russia's problem with MDR Tuberculosis. Nevertheless, that has never been a good reason to ban antibiotics altogether, and this situation is hardly any different. The industry could be regulated to avoid abuses and malpractice, the same way other medical procedures and prescription drugs are handled today. The difference between this and other medical resources that are legal but regulated is grossly insufficient to warrant the double standard of banning genetic screening/improvement altogether.
The third objection to so-called "Designer Babies" is an (IMO irrational) fear, spawned from science fiction, of creating a "super race" of genetically engineered humans, raising the standards for everyone and harming those whose parents couldn't afford the genetic improvement technology. Let me ask you, how is that sort of economic divide any different from the current situation? Rich people can afford to send their students to better schools, and provide them with a more advantageous upbringing in general. This results in a situation where the children of middle class and rich parents have more of a chance to succeed than the children of poor parents, regardless of their innate potential. Does this mean that all private/rich-public schools should be disbanded, and everyone should be condemned to a crappy education and a disadvantaged upbringing? Heck no. That would certainly satisfy the resentment of the poor, without really helping them, but it would harm everyone else. That is analogous to the issue at hand: Banning genetic screening/improvement would simply hold back part of society from improving themselves, without providing and concrete benefit except satisfying paranoia and class envy. Such a ban would do nothing to serve the common good.
To quote James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA's structure, "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
Repeal the DMCA!
Do you think amneocentesis is creepy? Or does it depend on the reason?
People test babies in the womb, and make a choice to end the pregnancy if the baby has severe problems. This may seem creepy to some, but it is accepted medical practice.
People also use the testing to determine the sex of the baby, and make a choice to end the pregnancy. This is often much more objectionable to more people than the first scenario.
We have already had people create children to be organ donors for other children. There were ethical concerns about that as well, but it was determined to be acceptable.
As time goes by, we accept what becomes commonplace. There have been cultures where inter-racial marriage was against the law, on grounds not unsimilar to your feeling "creepy" about testing IVF results before implantation.
IVF itself caused quite a stir. Some wondered whether the first "test-tube" baby would be psychologically damaged by the publicity or the knowledge. On the other hand, this is one kid who can be certain there was no accident.
Consider this: IVF itself usually generates several candidates for implantation, and often not all of them are used. The unused candidates are discarded. But they contain the same cells that the umbilicus carries, and have the same ability to save the first child. Why are the ethicists insisting that a child be carried to term? If two out of three candidates are never implanted in a womb, why implant any? Or is it that once the couple has gone to all of the expense of IVF to save the first child, they might as well implant the candidate, and get the second child they wanted anyway, with a guarantee that it does not suffer from the same problem as the first one? Perhaps it is just two birds with one stone.
I am not forcing my ethics on this couple or any other. Whether I would have made their choice or not is unimportant. But I am glad that I do not have that choice to make. Many of us would bend our ethics to save our only child.
How many of you would donate some umbilical blood to save a sibling, assuming your parents had the foresight to preserve it? Many would donate a kidney, or a lung. It seems unlikely that this child will regret the decision later in life. He was conceived on purpose. Great effort was made to ensure that he did not have genetic problems. The blastocyst that he came from could have been used as it was, instead of being implanted to create him. I don't think this kid will suffer emotional upheaval when he is told about his special circumstances. Is his case any more disturbing than being told you were adopted? Many people get over that.
If this is "playing god", then so is most of medicine. Perhaps playing god is a noble ambition, a better role model than playing first person shooter.
Free book: Science Toys You Can Make
And, as others have noted, calling this a "designer baby" is very misleading. The embryos are created by letting normal sperm and egg cells do their normal thing, only in glassware, and the embryos aren't modified afterwards. The lab work is to decide which embryos would be implanted, so that the resulting child (1) won't have Fanconi anemia, and (2) can be a marrow donor for the sick older sibling. (1) is pretty common now for parents who carry serious genetic diseases and know it.
Screening for genetic disorder is already in place and standard practice in civilised societies. It is common knowledge that the possibility of having a child born with Down's syndrome increases with the age of the mother. Pregnant women over the age of 35 are informed of the increased risk and offered a test. Free of charge. This goes for most western European countries.
Think of this as proper exploitation of available technology and information. No-one is harmed in this specific case, and the parents' concern for their first child speaks well of their ability to love and cherish their coming child, however much screened and whatever the outcome of this. In short, this is a happy situation.
See e.g. the part on general intelligence here.
It is a controversial subject because of social discussions (separate from marxists seeing red when discussing innate mental characteristics).
(Your point is valid for another reason. It is not trivially a good thing to remove "unpopular" features like low intelligence from the gene pool since those features probably have other genetic effects that we might be poorer as humans if they are not in our societies. But if it was my child and I could select for higher intelligence, I would.)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Whenever this topic comes up, I really can't help but think I may never have been born had this been a reality when I was conceived. I believe that one of the defining things that shapes our personalities as sentient creatures is the various maladies we have.
I don't think this is meddling in the work of a God, either. I believe this goes against the very processes of evolution. If we're picking the defining factors for what is good, rather than the environment we exist in, we will stagnate on the evolutionary ladder. Species that can't adapt to their environment tend to fail rather quickly.