Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Information on Major Diseases Uncovered
gollum123 writes "A major advance in the genetic understanding behind several of the world's most common diseases is being reported by the BBC. A study tested some 17,000 people to find genetic markers for the various diseases. 'They found new genetic variants for depression, Crohn's disease, coronary heart disease, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 and 2 diabetes. The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) involved 50 leading research groups analyzing the DNA from 2,000 patients for each of the seven conditions and 3,000 healthy volunteers. One of the most exciting finds was a previously unknown gene common to type 1 diabetes and Crohn's disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disorder, suggesting that they share similar biological pathways.' There is also disease by disease data at the BBC."
Can we expect (hope for) laws preventing this information being retrieved or considered when calculating insurance premiums or other times when this may lead to discrimination?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is welcomed news for expecting parents. They can now potentially extract DNA from embryos to determine what diseases they are likely to have. With this technology, they could discard the bad ones and keep the good ones, thus producing healthy children. This may even help thrust forward our next step of evolution.
Imagine a world full of healthy people. The cost of healthcare would reduce greatly, thus allowing us to spend more on education and furthering the advancement of the human race.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Who will have access to this information?
Some people fear that this information will be used to discriminate against disease-prone individuals in vivo...but it's far more likely that the first discrimination will happen long after birth.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Welcome to the brave new world, where everyone has a pre-existing condition.
The good news is, you'll have knowledge that could extend your life or even save it, if you could get treatment.
The bad news is, in countries with profit-based free-market medical insurance, you won't be to afford that get that treatment, because insurance companies will jack up their premiums when they find out about you.
Everyone has seen this coming for decades. Now it's here. I don't think the United States is ready for it.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Abortion was probably a bad example for me to pick because it will, inevitably, cause contention over that and not the larger issue. A poster later put up insurance claims and other forms of discrimination there is no measure to the evil man can do with information evil takes little R&D and comes naturally to us. The benefits you talk about take extensive time to develop and implement.
If I have speeding tickets, and my auto insurance carrier finds out about it, is that discrimination?
Is it to our long-term interests to force insurers to operate in ignorance?
I'm sure that most level-headed people would agree that actually terminating a pregnancy due to very small unfavorable genetic traits such as those you mentioned is completely wrong.
So....why? Doesn't the freedom to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy include the freedom to choose to end it for any reason or no reason at all? If it's wrong to terminate for these reasons, what makes it okay to terminate for other reasons, or no reason at all?
Posting anonymously because I just want you to think about this. I don't want to deal with a flood of flames.
Now this is something I have thought about long and hard (though no hard research to back it up) about. WHat happens when we do get the power to *poof* the bad genes out of existance from an unborn infant? Well, obviously they won't develop "problem A", but what about other factors? For instance, I know that black people in regions of Africa are born with sickle-cell anemia, but this also helps prevent a certain disease commonly transported by insects in the region. How do we know what (if any) other things might depend on that particular gene?
And on that note, someone mentioned that this may well lead us to our next step in evolution -- that may well be true, but shouldn't evolution happen in response to natural factors by nature's invisible hand? Not some doc in a lab? I mean, so many people on Slashdot are keen on letting the "ivisible hand of capitalism" work the market, why shouldn't we let nature decide what is best for us?
I believe this sort of thing was covered with the Asgaard in Stargate SG-1, they died out because they genetically modified their bodies past a certain point where they could no longer reproduce, only extend their own lives. Now, I am not saying there is any scientific basis for something liek that happening, but aren't parables supposed to make you at least think before acting?
I'm reading all the morals police comments here, and I'm quite surprised.
Will someone PLEASE explain to me how the ability to diagnose diseases better and earlier is a BAD thing?
There are numerous eggs and numerous sperm to make numerous children by any couple.
When one of each gets a chance at life, a lot of others don't. One lives, others die. If we leverage genetics and choose zygote X where naturally Y would have gotten, it's a zero-sum morals game. A different one lives. As they're not yet anywhere near development, putting morals on this is akin to calling masturbation genocide. LOTS of potential human beings never get to live. It's the natural order of things. Forcing morals onto this and blaming people for it is nothing short of lunacy.
The other side of the coin is, of course, that a LOT of life-ruining conditions (not only for the affected individual, but quite often for his entire family) are simply side-stepped.
Discarding 41st-week pregnancies due to a disliked color of hair is easily avoidable using legal regulation where otherwise sane laws don't exist (say, laws allowing the mother the first part of her pregnancy to decide whether she is ready to commit and allowing her to abort, yet disallowing non-medically-motivated abortion once a certain reasonable point in the pregnancy is crossed, much like you can't just kill your 3-year-old because you don't want to commit to growing him).
Yet how do these mild, pathetic and trivial-to-overcome "dangers" reason to bash the enabling technology that would save so much grief?
-