Reply With Quote
So, once again, if you're rich not only do your kids start out with all those benefits, but you can keep trying embryos until you find one that's perfect. Marvelous.
http://singularityhub.com/2009/02/25...ere-they-come/
Long before Watson and Crick famously uncovered the structure of DNA in 1953, people envisioned with both horror and hope a day when babies could be custom designed — free of inherited disease, yet equipped with superior genes for good looks, intelligence, athleticism, and more. Now the beginnings of that day have finally come.
designer_baby_babies
The Fertility Ins utes recently stunned the fertility community by being the first company to boldly offer couples the opportunity to screen their embryos not only for diseases and gender, but also for completely benign characteristics such as eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Fertility Ins utes proudly claims this is just the tip of the iceberg, and plans to offer almost any conceivable customization as science makes them available. Even as couples from across the globe are flocking in droves to pay the company their life’s savings for a custom baby, opponents are vilifying the company for shattering moral and ethical boundaries. Like it or not, the era of designer babies is officially here and there is no going back.
For decades now a technology called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, has enabled In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) clinics to screen embryos for more than 100 potentially debilitating and often deadly diseases before the embryo is implanted into the mother. A medical revolution has thus unfolded, enabling literally tens of thousands of couples and their babies to sidestep some of the world’s most terrifying diseases.
Take the case of Cindy and John Whitley. Their first child died at the age of 9 months from a deadly genetic disorder called spinal muscular atrophy. Genetic analysis uncovered that the Whitley’s statistically had a 1 in 4 chance of creating a child with spinal muscular atrophy each time they conceived. Unwilling to risk having another child with the deadly disorder, the Whitley’s used PGD to conceive three children, all healthy.
Yet PGD allows scientists to screen embryos for much more than just genetic diseases, and therein lies the promise - and the peril - of designer babies.
Gender was the first major genetic trait beyond genetic disease to be widely manipulated through PGD. The Fertility Ins utes is a leader in the field, claiming nearly 100% success in providing couples with a baby of a predetermined gender. Completely healthy and fertile couples from all over the world are coming to The Fertility Ins utes everyday to confront the risk, the expense, and the discomfort of conceiving their baby in a test tube, all for the ability to choose the sex of their baby.
Gender selection is a big business. Dr. Steinberg, Director at The Fertility Ins utes, claims that they are performing on the order of 10 gender selection fertilizations every week, each for a fee of $18,400. Although In Vitro Fertilizations were originally designed to help parents that were unable to conceive children naturally, Steinberg says that a staggering 70% of their clients have absolutely no difficulty conceiving children, coming to the Ins ute purely for opportunity to choose the sex of their baby.
Now, in the latest twist in the march towards designer babies, The Fertility Ins utes says they will soon be able to offer couples the ability to screen their embryos for eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Ins ute cannot change the DNA of the donating couple — if neither the mother nor the father has genes for green eyes, for example, then the Ins ute cannot give them a baby with green eyes. Yet within the constraints inherent in the DNA of the donating couple, The Fertility Ins ute is willing to screen embryos for these traits. The Fertility Ins ute wants to offer several other customizations, and many more are sure to be released in the coming years as the science behind screening for them is developed.
In many countries around the world PGD is heavily regulated and designer babies are strictly out of the question. Yet in a strange paradox, even as the United States is one of the world’s most regulated nations in several areas of medical research and development, PGD is completely legal and unregulated in the United States. Hence, even as the United States is hindered by regulation in areas such as stem cell research, the country seems poised to be a world leader in the designer baby revolution.
At the moment, The Fertility Ins utes carries the mantle as the company at the forefront of this revolution, and as such they are a lightning rod for the praise and adoration, but also the bitter and severe anger, of those on both sides of this great moral debate.
The genie is officially out of the bottle, in fact it probably has been for a long time. There is no stopping the designer baby revolution. Even as some countries try to clamp down on it, others will allow it. Progress, if we call it that, will continue unabated. A similar phenomenon has unfolded with embryonic stem cell research in recent years. Even as the Bush administration almost completely strangled US investment and research in this promising field, other countries invested heavily and advances continued.
A new generation of genetically enhanced designer babies is inevitable in the coming decades. Yet for those of us that are merely “normal”, do not despair. Even as we are outmatched by the next generation genetically, a host of new technologies from chip implants to gene therapy may allow us to keep up, allowing us to enhance ourselves in equally transformative ways. The future will indeed be interesting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not to sure how I feel about this.
So, once again, if you're rich not only do your kids start out with all those benefits, but you can keep trying embryos until you find one that's perfect. Marvelous.
I thought Brad and Angelina already had designer babies.
i don't see the problem with this
is someone going to about morality and that we should just accept imperfections and diseases in natural birth?
cry me a river. there is nothing wrong with this.
Nobody is perfect. I've accepted your imperfections.
i don't really see why having a large penis is an imperfection. you didn't just 'accept' me, you seemed to enjoy it
I wouldn't do it.
of course not. you are stuck believing in fairy tales about some man in the sky watching over us.
What!?!? You've been "blessed"? And you said you don't believe in God.
I'll stick to my faith and you can stick it....well, never mind.
does 'blessed' mean I was the recipient of DNA that has some genetic information that made my penis large ?
adult version of santa claus.
be good and you will get a nice gift, you can go to heaven.
but if you are a bad little boy, oh, coal for you in .
Santa was good to me last year.
Hey, what ever works for you.
The concern is less about diseases and disabilities (though there is indeed that concern, since it would/could serve to further marginalize a segment of the population that is seen as "wrong") and more about the blurring of lines/slippery slope into more of a Eugenics philosophy.
Terminating pregnancies that are likely to result in cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome could lead to terminating fetuses that are prone to fatness, or sexuality (if biological factors are ever determined/located), or that are intersex, or are too tall, or that have brown eyes, or are too darkly complected, and on and on.
Eugenics was a popular movement in the early 20th century. However, once Hitler adopted the idea, it got a bad reputation. Like all things, messages can be corrupted and twisted to fit their ideals. You can't simply discredit the whole idea because of extreme possibilities.
Think about it -
A human population that is born free of disease and disabilities. If a parent wants to go a step further and want their child to be free of obesity and have blonde hair and blue eyes, so what?
I know some people are suckers for what I believe to be silly moral ideologies. The human population is better off with a population of healthy humans.... and to take it a step further, it's better for the emotional health and overall well-being of the human to also be attractive. Ask Brad Pitt if he hates his life.
Is it not better for the economy of a nation to have less dependents?
Is it not better for the family of a child born with a horrible disease/disfigurement?
Is it not better for the overall health of the human gene pool?
Is it not better for the life of the affected individual to live a healthy life?
What exactly is the problem with a parent wanting their child to be cured of a genetic pre-disposition to obesity? That is a POSITIVE thing, to remove it.
A population of extremely attractive human beings? Where do I sign up?
There are so many positives that can come of this.
The only obstacle is yourself and your childish ideas of morality. These are changes done to people BEFORE they are even born.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 02-26-2009 at 07:03 PM.
Eugenics is an active movement. Obviously, the Hitler associations have greatly reduced its credibility amongst most rational individuals, but that doesn't mean that everyone has completely abandoned the idea.
And, while I can agree that there are benefits to a certain amount of genetic engineering (not from the point of view that I agree with it, but I can comprehend the desire) for the parents and children involved, I believe that it can have a negative effect on the rest of the population. There is an extensive history in this country of labeling various facets of iden y -- race, dis/ability, sexuality, gender, etc. -- as being a concrete, biological difference or deficiency and then using that supposed deficiency as a justification for various social injustices. Many Jim Crow laws were based on the "science" that showed black people to be genetically/inherently incapable of performing the tasks and duties of a human being, for example. These beliefs were also at the core of many anti-immigration laws, anti-miscegenation laws, anti-gay legislation, the justification for denying women voting rights... and I could keep going. If we proceed with genetic engineering and start to label various disabilities, physical traits, orientations, or bodies types as a biological defect, what message does that send to the (already stigmatized) members of our community currently living with those characteristics? How would that do anything but make them an even bigger target of inequality and marginalization?
It sounds great to think of it in terms of eradicating disease and unnecessary pain and suffering, but it's an idea that is very strongly tied to a whole lot of really icky American history.
Yes yes, I realize that but I believe this country is past those days of ignorance. The country, as a majority, does not even accept sexuality, but there is very little discrimination against gays. We have become a truly accepting society, like it or not. This country has come a long way.
We have nothing to fear regarding those issues.
If a parent wants their child to have blonde hair instead of black hair, blue eyes instead of brown, so what?
I'd say it's for the positive. I am a somewhat tall dark and handsome guy, but I would have loved to be born with a Brad Pitt face.
To respond: it's not, there is, it's not, and we haven't.
You have a pessimistic outlook on the country. I feel we have come a long way.
Good response... well written...
I guess some people have not seen GATTACA yet...
What I will never understand in discussions like this is how people go out of their ways to be in denial about human nature. The term slippery slope was invented for a reason.
Humans, as a race, have a tendency to progress towards one extreme or the other, over time. This goes for just about anything. Just look at this cracked ass country of ours.
That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that this will lead to a Gattaca type reality. Why the would you want to have a normal child, when 75% of the population is making their male children super tall, super handsome, and super smart, their female children with serena williams athleticism and adrianna lima looks? They will not be able to compete on any functional level. They will, in a way, be useless. And theres no doubt in my mind, over time, more and more people will do this, because it goes back to the compe ive nature of man, and our innate tendency to progress towards an extreme.
I am undecided. Why wouldn't I want my child to get my healthiest, most athletic, most attractive, and smartest genes?
But one thing I am sure of, because I have spent alot of time thinking about this: If you have ANY remote concept of a God and a soul, then you have to say that these babies will necessarily be without a soul. They will be soulless people. They will have a code of life flowing through their beings that will have been sequenced and ordered by a mortal creature. If DNA is the code of life, god's language, that follows that their sense of being, that inner self, or their 'soul' will actually be something else. Similar, but different.
Also, its very interesting that this is going to start on the up-and-up around the same time that actual cyborg-like human enhancements are becoming a reality. Merging computer-like programs with our brains, and artificially enhancing just about anything in our bodies, is well on the way as well.
I'd say you have a pessimistic view of your own face.
Natural selection works because of genetic variability within a population. Directional artificial selection would only hurt our species in the long run.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
