This from today's Guardian newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/15/genetics.health

Quotes:

>Doctors may be allowed to screen human embryos for a gene that causes a rare disease that prompts high cholesterol and an increased risk of heart attacks, it emerged yesterday.>

>The decision may reignite controversy over parents' rights to create "designer babies", as the procedure may also identify a milder form of the disease that is affected by lifestyle and can be treated with drugs.>

Well, if we can abort foetuses that MAY be prone to heart attacks, why not foetuses that MAY develop into adults who are a bit dim or are sexually unattractive or are homosexual?

We cannot reliably screen for propensities to intelligence, sexual attractiveness or homosexuality yet. But one day we shall. Meanwhile the principle of culling undesirable foetuses is becoming entrenched in our law.

Oi ve! It's the thin end of the wedge!

Meanwhile, I find I can reliably screen for intelligence and attractiveness post-utero. Any earlier does seem a little premature for me.

But I think you guys should discuss this seriously and at length.

Steven, although you have jumped from embryo to foetus(8 weeks old) in your question, it remains a pertinent one.

-If by attractiveness we take into account abnormalities like cleft palates,
- By dim those unlikely to attain the mental abilities of say a kindergarten pupil,
- by homosexual... no not going there. It wouldn't be something I'd check for or lose sleep over, but others may and if it disturbs them that much maybe screening is for the best.

In essence yes, I support the ability to screen. The example in your link highlights a disease where the child mightn't get beyond puberty, creating a huge amount of anguish for both parent and child. Who would wish such a scenario on anyone if it were avoidable?

If, as the article suggests, screening is only permited for serious abnormalities then it would be an extreme disservice not to have the option to screen.
I'm guessing the main objection to this will be the "slippery slope" brigade, but really if the ultimate eventuality is more clever/beautiful/healthy(whatever) people and less people suffering then the down side pales in significance.

Amniocentesis testing has been available for many years, for those that want it, to detect foetal abnormalities during pregnancy, and is generally used at or beyond the 14 week stage. Well beyond the embryonic stage

if every baby was born at the best end of the human spectrum, it would be a much better world.

ultimately, we can hope to screen out cancer, diabetes, serial killers, and politicians. and it wouldn't hurt if everyone was beautiful and smart.

getting there is the hard part: a great number of people think mother nature should prevail. so do i if an undemocratic government gets to control births. that's one reason why i'm struggling to lead oz out of the 14th century and into democracy.

It said in the article that they may consider only allow the screening for the more serious type of the disease.

My missus has Cystic Fibrosis and has had a double lung transplant. She can't have children naturally so if we head down that path we'll be going through surrogate. We WILL screen the foetus/s for diseases like CF and whatever else for the sake of the future of the child. Until you've walked in the shoes of someone who's had to deal with a life like that I wouldn't judge.

One shouldn't use words like "designer babies" when referring to screening for potentially fatal diseases.

Would you love a child that was born with some of the diseases out there any less?, of course not. Would you volunteer them for it if you knew the life ahead?.

Screen for serial killers?. Someone can be a sociopath, but not kill. I reckon there might be some 'environmental' factors involved as well buddy.

As SIG has so eloquently put it, there is a valid argument for screening, however, the arguments against include screening for non medical reasons such as male/female which could be used to provide only sons in certain cultures.

I won't pretend to be qualified to give an authorative opinion on what should be allowed / prohibited so all I will offer is that greater minds than mine should find a compromise solution between the two evils of banning screening and allowing unfettered screening and use this as an enforceable guideline for future medical procedures.

And what ever happens keep the church out of it.

Democritus speaks great wisdom... yes.. of course.. keep the 'Church' out of it..and surely you will have great gain.. wonderful advancment..and social victory is assured.

1 kings 22:8
The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, "There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah."

"The king should not say that," Jehoshaphat replied.

So the king of Israel called one of his officials and said, "Bring Micaiah son of Imlah at once."

10 Dressed in their royal robes, the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting on their thrones at the threshing floor by the entrance of the gate of Samaria, with all the prophets prophesying before them. 11 Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: 'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.' "

12 All the other prophets were prophesying the same thing. "Attack Ramoth Gilead and be victorious," they said, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."

13 The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, "Look, as one man the other prophets are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably."

14 But Micaiah said, "As surely as the LORD lives, I can tell him only what the LORD tells me."

15 When he arrived, the king asked him, "Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?"
"Attack and be victorious," he answered, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."

16 The king said to him, "How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD ?

The science and technology of medicine are transforming the treatment of the diseased and the injured, and millions of people owe their health and lives to the dramatic medical innovations of the past few decades.

Some of the new technologies, however, are creating new problems even as they solve old ones. In particular, the new technologies have given doctors and patients a range of difficult life-or-death choices that they did not have even a few years ago.

For example, terminally ill patients can now be kept alive through artificial respiration, intravenous feeding, electronic heart stimulation, mechanical organ substitutes, or even transplants of body parts from other people or animals. Consequently, medical dilemmas frequently become moral and legal ones as well.

In the past if a baby was too premature or defective, or if a seriously ill person was dying, there was little the family doctor could do about it other than to offer comfort.

Today, patients can be hooked up for days, months, or years to machines that sustain their lives, and this step may be taken even if they are in constant pain or even if they are permanently comatose.

Thus, technologies that were intended to save people from unnecessary death may actually have the effect of depriving them of a dignified death.

Physicians are expected to do all they can to sustain life, even in the case of grossly deformed newborn infants who, in the natural order of things, would have no chance of survival for more than a few hours. Frequently, these babies are destined for short lives of extreme pain, suffering, and mental retardation. In practice, some physicians try to keep these infants alive, but others do not; some parents insist that the attempt be made, while others hope that the child will die. Parents and doctors thus become involved in "playing God in the nursery."

I know it's an individual choice, but I would like to know if my child
was going to be destined for a life of extreme pain, suffering, and mental retardation.

Democritus

If the decision to have an abortion remains purely "her choice" how will you restrict or regulate abortions?

It seems to me that soon a woman will be able to have an in utero whole genome scan. If the genome looks a little suspect – perhaps the baby MAY grow into an adult who is a bit dim - she can abort and try again.

In fact soon men may no longer be necessary. See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article3040118.ece

Quote:

Is nature determined to make men extinct? Senior scientists believe that women may evolve as humanity’s sole representatives — and social and political trends are lending weight to their theories. Lois Rogers reports


End Quote

"In fact soon men may no longer be necessary."

Um yes. As long as you define "soon" as in 125,000 years, according to that article.

Not that I'm dissing the article, which was excellent, and brings up many pertinent points, particularly the parlous state of boys' education.

But this forum does seem infected by thin end of the wedge thinking. Start screening for abnormalities (which we already do, by the way) and it's just a slippery slope to eradicating freckles and red hair. (Bit worrying for yours truly.) Let Sikh kids take kirpans to school, and grown-up Muslims will start hijacking planes. Let gay people adopt kids and pedeophiles will increase.

Just out of interest, what is it you people don't trust: democracy, or the people within it? Or, no, don't tell me, is it those evil feminists again?

Boaz_David, way to prove Democritus's point! High five!

Botheration

I think you are rather missing the point of the Times article. Our Y chromosomes may or may not expire in 125,000 years. Long before then males may become redundant because of artificial sperm.

Quote:

"...The technology to produce artificial sperm, or even CREATE OFFSPRING FROM TWO FEMALES, is already in the pipeline;..."

My guess is that within a decade a child will be born that, literally, has no genetic father. She will be the offspring of two females.

I'm not sure what you mean by "thin end of the wedge thinking." I'm simply pointing out what could be some emerging social trends. What this thread has to do with Sikh children carrying kirpans escapes me.

I think the bottom line is that we're taking our evolution into our own hands. If it is possible for Lesbian couples to select for Lesbianism then the future of humankind (womankind?) may well be Lesbian women who reproduce with artificial sperm.

Do the math. Since Lesbian women would not have to "waste" half their pregnancies on males their population will grow faster.

I think the point must be made steven, that the article and premise of this whole thing, embryonic genome screening, does NOT involve abortions.

There is no way in the near future that embryos could be scanned in utero.

What we are talking about here is screening embryos in vitro, as part of IVF treatment. The embryos not chosen for implantation suffer the same fate as embryos that don't get implanted now, none get "aborted". Foetuses are be able to be screened in utero (not embryos) and that another question altogether.

The premise of embryo screening is not a "thin end of the wedge" at all. As for screening for sexual attractiveness and intelligence etc. that's just science fiction, if they were fertilised the normal way (ie egg-sperm), then you would likely have to screen a great many embryos to get what you specifically wanted, as genes are generally randomly assorted from the parents. If people want "designer babies" that have genes that aren't in their own gene pool to begin with, like blue eyes for example when neither parent has the genes for that, then that's another thing again, that would require donors, and usually the only people that would take that option would be people who are sterile and require IVF.

The technology isn't scary, and personally I don't see many people wanting to take the "get pregnant, screen foetus for attractiveness intelligence etc.- abort if not good enough". I can only see that really being an option for the vast majority of people if they carry majorly defective genes (they would be able to find that out much easier before pregnancy), and then they could have the option IVF and pre-implantation screening instead. No abortions, steven. You can argue about the morality of genetic screening all you like, but leave abortion out of it, that's a different kettle of fish.

steven,
On what basis would you seek to restrict or regulate abortion? If it is from a medical expense view, then I would agree that more emphasis should be on prevention, and abortion shouldn't be seen as a convienient remedy.
I'm not convinced that forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy is good for the mother, a resented child or an already highly populated world.

That's exactly what I'm talking about rojo. I believe steven has an interesting point to be made about taking control of our evolution, but totally spoiled it by mentioning abortion. That's a hot issue around these parts and this discussion will likely be totally derailed by it's discussion.

Personally, though steven on the "genetic destiny" issue, I have no problem with people weeding out characteristics or genes they consider undesirable for their child to have. Most people want their child to have some of their genes if possible and so the total genetic diversity is unlikely to diminish. The only genes likely to reduce in frequency are the ones that cause major pathologies, and I honestly don't think they'll be missed.

Fascinating.

There is still, to the best of my knowledge, a religious sect that believes in divine destiny to the point where they refuse medical attention, believing that whatever happens to the patient is "God's will".

This seems to me to be the only possible place from which to attack the increasing use of technology to influence the "outcome" of the gestation of a human being. From anywhere else, it is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Medical interventions can themselves result in unhappy human beings. Who can forget the flood of thalidomide victims back in the '60s? What "rights" did we exercise then, over the fate of those children? Who here would willingly trade their own lives to live as they did?

And if we are prepared to condone medical treatment after the event, but not extend the same principle to prevention of the problem in the first place, is that not a perfect example of double standards?

The Guardian gets all po-faced about "designer babies", as if that is automatically a bad thing. Why is it not a real consideration that this might just be nature's way of providing us with the tools for the survival of the human race itself?

Progress was never created by reactionaries, always by revolutionaries. It seems to me to be a totally valid argument that we should, having been given the intelligence to create the tools for safe and selective procreation, that we implement them as soon as we possibly can.

If the result is fewer, smarter, healthier, more attractive people inhabiting the earth, then that surely can't be all bad.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I see it as becoming compulsory.

Bring it on.

Knowledge is power. Or as Romany would say, "Education, Education, Education!" I firmly believe that the better educated a woman is in preparing for her pregnancy, the better equipt she is to handle it.

Knowing exactly what's happening to her body and why, is vital. Better informed, better prepared. Better result.

With those thoughts in mind, why wouldn't she want to know if the child she's carrying is deformed in any way? If the technology is available, why wouldn't the parents of the child use it?
Then at least they know as to the choices open to them.