17 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

Methods are already available now for screening embryos in vitro for the potential risk to the offspring of someday developing cancers. The choice of these parents was to give birth to a child after discarding all the ones that possessed high risk genes. Yes folks this is eugenics and exactly what the Vatican recently denounced but aside from the classic arguments over treating zygotes as humans; what is really wrong about this?

This is not about selecting for blond hair and blue eyes or even sex selection but it is just the beginning of the truly positive options that might soon be available.

http://www.cnn.com/2...=rss_topstories

'Cancer-free' baby born in London

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The first child in Britain known to have been screened as an embryo to ensure she did not carry a cancer gene was born Friday, a spokesman for University College London told CNN. Genetic screening allows lab-fertilized embryos to be tested for genes likely to lead to later health problems.

The baby girl is the first child in Britain known to have been screened as an embryo to ensure she did not carry a gene linked to breast and ovarian cancer. She was screened in a lab, days after conception, for the BRCA-1 gene. People with the gene have a 50-80 percent chance of developing breast or ovarian cancer in their lifetimes.

British newspapers have dubbed the girl the "cancer-free" baby.

"This little girl will not face the spectre of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life," said Paul Serhal, a consultant at University College London Hospital and Medical Director of the Assisted Conception Unit.

"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations." (excerpt)

[abolitionist]

Methods are already available now for screening embryos in vitro for the potential risk to the offspring of someday developing cancers. The choice of these parents was to give birth to a child after discarding all the ones that possessed high risk genes. Yes folks this is eugenics and exactly what the Vatican recently denounced but aside from the classic arguments over treating zygotes as humans; what is really wrong about this?

This is not about selecting for blond hair and blue eyes or even sex selection but it is just the beginning of the truly positive options that might soon be available.

http://www.cnn.com/2...=rss_topstories

'Cancer-free' baby born in London

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The first child in Britain known to have been screened as an embryo to ensure she did not carry a cancer gene was born Friday, a spokesman for University College London told CNN. Genetic screening allows lab-fertilized embryos to be tested for genes likely to lead to later health problems.

The baby girl is the first child in Britain known to have been screened as an embryo to ensure she did not carry a gene linked to breast and ovarian cancer. She was screened in a lab, days after conception, for the BRCA-1 gene. People with the gene have a 50-80 percent chance of developing breast or ovarian cancer in their lifetimes.

British newspapers have dubbed the girl the "cancer-free" baby.

"This little girl will not face the spectre of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life," said Paul Serhal, a consultant at University College London Hospital and Medical Director of the Assisted Conception Unit.

"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations." (excerpt)

this is wonderful, pretty soon we should be able to make these practices mandatory for all procreation (at least beginning with developed countries)

[niner]

She's certainly not "Cancer-free", as the newspaper headline proclaimed. Not even cancer resistant, although that's a better term. She's just "normal" in the sense of not having the BRCA gene. She could still get all manner of cancer, including breast cancer.

That said, this is great. So what if someone wants to call it "Eugenics"? I'd like to hear the argument against it. I think the only one I've ever heard that has a shred of merit is that people with existing genetic defects would be further marginalized and stigmatized. I suppose there's something to that, although I think it's overstated. Anyway, that may have a shred of merit, but only a shred; not enough to sentence billions to a sub-optimal life.

[Johan Pietro]

As someone who lost his mother, aunt, and grandmother to BRCA2-related cancers, I applaud this and hope it finds widespread adoption 

[Danail Bulgaria]

How about if your mother was diagnosed before birth, and was aborted, and you even didn't existed today, hugh?

[Johan Pietro]

Would have saved us all a lot of suffering.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Alright. It is not too late to save your suffering - simply shot yourself in the head.

[corb]

You know I'd just like to ask - what exactly were they going to do if the embryo had the gene?
Because she would still grow up a strong healthy girl (if that's her only problem) in an age when cancer would be more easily treated.

Would you kill your child just because there's a greater chance it will develop a cancer at some point in it's life?

 

Screening for genes that translate to immediate disabilities I understand that. There is merit to terminating a pregnancy like that.

And I'd be ok with screening for genes that don't translate to an immediate danger if we had gene therapies, but killing our kids because they have a gene - no. That's fucked up. That's Nazi Germany fucked up.

If we start terminating pregnancy for that the question is what would it escalate too? Terminating pregnancy because the kid would gain weight more easily? Terminating pregnancy for hair loss?

This is basically the opening of Pandora's box.

 

And I'd have to agree with seivtcho, if you're that concerned about suffering, considering the only thing they could've done to the embryo is an abortion, if you do get an untreatable cancer you're always free to terminate your own life. That at least has a degree of ethics and morals in it.

[orion602]

Maybe im mistaken but as i understand it, it was in vitro fertilization and selection. There was no abortion, only selection followed by disposing of unwanted embryos, Which I think is normal practice during in-vitro fertilization - best 1-2-3 looking embryos are chosen and implanted. What was different is the way of selection - in this case based on one gene variant.

 

But true,  the fact that the selection against 1 problematic  BRCA gene variant (just one of many genes increasing risk of developing brest cancer later in life) might not be necessary.  Thanks to progress in next 30-40 years from now it may become non-issue, as we hope.

 

Nevertheless, the girl will probably be happy with her parents choice and have one thing less to worry about. I  doubt she will complain.

[niner]

Maybe im mistaken but as i understand it, it was in vitro fertilization and selection. There was no abortion, only selection followed by disposing of unwanted embryos, Which I think is normal practice during in-vitro fertilization - best 1-2-3 looking embryos are chosen and implanted. What was different is the way of selection - in this case based on one gene variant.

 

 

You are not mistaken.  Seivtcho and corb are mistaken, and unfortunately turned this thread into an anti-abortion diatribe.  This has nothing to do with abortion, unless one considers not implanting excess embryos to be tantamount to abortion.  If that's the case, I suggest people with such beliefs arrange for their wives, girlfriends, sisters or mothers (or themselves, if they are female) to immediately get implanted with one or more of the countless excess embryos that are currently in cold storage.

[corb]

That's your interpretation of what I said. If you read my post you'll see I'm not concerned with abortion in general.
I'm terrified by the scientist in the article, he's implying having the gene is a valid reason to abort - he says something like "we're doing this so parents don't have to abort 3 weeks into the pregnancy, we'll lower the abortion rate".

And that's the problem. Why would the parents do that with a child that's perfectly fine besides this one genetic mutation, which doesn't translate to any immediate and potentially depending on science in the future - no danger for the child at all?

 

Every mother has the right to decide if she aborts a pregnancy or not, fair enough. But slight genetic abnormalities being equaled to severe debilitations is what's bothering me a lot.

 

The whole thing goes back to the "good gene/bad gene" thread, sure there are bad genes but treating a person as an invalid because he has a bad gene is quite the leap for me, I can't agree with this, sorry.

[Danail Bulgaria]

In my short experience while living in this world, I noticed something strange. Those, who posses some sort of imperfection dream about killing out all of their kind in a long evolutionary process. Hitler, for example thought, that the arian race is the superior of all, and dreamed the world to be governed by tall blond people. Hitler himself was the opposite - short with black hair. Same can be said for Goebbels, even "ugly" can be added to the equasion. They made a very strong propaganda machine, that was explaining why degenrates such as them both have to be turned into fertiliser for the rise of the beautiful, tall, blond people. Many genetically imapred people are doing their best to insure, that their genetics will be lost, and thus through their children and future generations to ensure, that the humanity will not have the burden of their own genes. In this topic Johan Pietro is a classical example of how the genetically impared protest against the opportunity for their genome to be abolished from the evolution. He is ready even to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the humanity, as he understands it. niner is very strong for the anti - cancer gene eugenetics, which makes me think, that he has at least some suspicions about genetical cancer death relatives in his family. It seems, that the eugenetics is highly misunderstood, and it is the dream of the imperfected, while the healthy people are doing their best to stop them from self-removing their genetics from the world. In my family we don't have genetic breast cancer, or even not have any genetic cancer. My grand mother is 96 in good health for her age, and her grandfather died in 110 years of age, not from cancer. And as a matter of fact, I din't liked the idea of self-eugenetics for the breast cancer mutants. Furthermore, the more imperfected is someone, the higher is his/her dream of eugenising himsef/herself. This makes me to ask in my mind the scientific question "why". For example I started to think why to stop self-eugenetics, since the mutants do it against themselfs and in accordance to their will? Why I and corb have to give points against it. Lets simply salut Johan Pietro and niner for their choice to vanish in the human genetic tree. After all, some day their future generation will tickle some cancer gene in the genetics of our future generation.

[Johan Pietro]

While your genes may be robust, seivtcho, your thinking is vitiated. Then again, you're in Eastern Europe, so what do I expect?

[Danail Bulgaria]

While your genetics is vitiatet, Johan Pietro, so is your thinking. But you're not in Eastern Europe, so what do I expect?

[Johan Pietro]

Your reading of history gives a clear picture of the kind of person you are. Eastern Europe is an intellectual cesspool. What does your region offer the world? Dyspeptic Ciorans and coke-addled Zizeks? And your country? Persecution of the Romani, regressive LGBT policies, execrable systems for handling the most vulnerable populations, and human trafficking. May you live a long life in that hell hole.  

 

[niner]

 niner is very strong for the anti - cancer gene eugenetics, which makes me think, that he has at least some suspicions about genetical cancer death relatives in his family. It seems, that the eugenetics is highly misunderstood, and it is the dream of the imperfected, while the healthy people are doing their best to stop them from self-removing their genetics from the world. In my family we don't have genetic breast cancer, or even not have any genetic cancer. My grand mother is 96 in good health for her age, and her grandfather died in 110 years of age, not from cancer. And as a matter of fact, I din't liked the idea of self-eugenetics for the breast cancer mutants. Furthermore, the more imperfected is someone, the higher is his/her dream of eugenising himsef/herself. This makes me to ask in my mind the scientific question "why". For example I started to think why to stop self-eugenetics, since the mutants do it against themselfs and in accordance to their will? Why I and corb have to give points against it. Lets simply salut Johan Pietro and niner for their choice to vanish in the human genetic tree. After all, some day their future generation will tickle some cancer gene in the genetics of our future generation.

 

Wow.  You have this entirely wrong.  There is no genetic cancer in my family.  My goal is to end human suffering.  Your goal seems to be to preserve human suffering, as long as it doesn't happen in your own genetically fortunate family.

[GhostBuster]

Personally I have no ethical objections against harvesting an unequicocally harmful gene out of gene pool. But who knows all the things what the genes that are "risk factors" (in our current man made evolutionary environment) for cancer do. If they exist and they are not "gene errors" it is logical to assume that they have served an evolutionally useful purpose at some point.

Edited by GhostBuster, 19 December 2014 - 01:04 PM.

[DePaw]

I hate when people throw the ward eugenics round like it's a bad thing. Legal abortions and gay rights have a eugenic effect too!