Designer Babies

[Lily_Pad]

I just saw on the Today show that scientists have found a way to stop faulty genes in children by transferring the mothers' egg into an egg with healthy DNA - essentially, a third parent.

They stated that this is about safety, not ethics.

What do you think?
Would you go through with the process to ensure your children don't inherit any illnesses?

On the same topic but aesthetically speaking, would you choose your babies gender, eye colour, hair colour etc if you could?

[happyluvy]

now im just going from hear say here - but... in regards to illnesses etc, i have a girlfriend who has a genetic disease in her family which effects the males, im not sure what its actaully called, but all of the males in her fam (dad and brother) are blind. There is a high risk that if she was to have boys they could be blind. She has chosen to go thru this process so that this disease is eliminated. And i think this is great.

However, in regards to hair colour etc, i dont agree with this. :no:

Actaully, I am olive/white skined, and my Dh is dark (south american) skinned, and im so excited as to how our babies will come out :laughing: ( no offense meant to anyone by that comment! )

:wave:

[Lozie]

I dont really like the idea personally, to me it just seems wrong yanno? Fair enough if one cant conceive naturally go and get help but stuffing round with the gene's of the embryo even if it is to stop the faulty genes transferring it is still wrong! I think some of this is going to far.

[amandaw]

I agree with Happyluvy...we have really good mates who have recently finished genetic testing in order to establish whether or not her DH carries the mtutated genetic issue that is prominant in her family...if that was the case, they were going to look into adoption as she wasn't willing to inflict the issue onto and child of hers

In that case I can fully support the scenario - I couldn't imagine the stress you'd go through with at least 10 months of planning and carrying a child, only to feel like you'df put it at risk because of your own/combination genetic make-up

In the case of aesthetics though...I TOTALLY disagree

[SassyMummy]

I would use such a service to ensure my children had no heath problems beginning in the womb...

But do I agree with the use of such technology so people can pick and choose certain physical traits of their children? No, I do not. Except in the case where an illness is likely to be transfered only to a particular gender, I don't agree with choosing gender either.

[happyluvy]

i was just thinking... imagine... JUST IMAGINE... if we could find and eliminate cancer, or alzheimer's, or such diseases from our genes!

:yes: yes please!

[kiki07]

What constitutes an illness/disability?

If a family had the genetic potential to pass on birthmarks that could cover a child's face, and the technology was available to choose to remove this 'gene', or only implant bubs without this 'gene', would it be ok to use the technology?

You can live a long, healthy life with a birthmarks. But for some people, they can cause great psychological distress.

[In the first post, i think you are talking about taking the nucleus (the core) from one egg (that contains the DNA) and placing it into another egg that the nucleus has been removed from. This egg would still have the mitochondrial DNA that lives in the fluid surrounding the nucleus. This is done when a family has a mutation in the mitochondrial DNA, this is only passed down on the maternal side.]

[sweetseven]

I dont think it should be done just for aesthetics, but is understandable for health reasons, however
* if someone is having it done for health reasons, why not take into account their preferred aesthics also?

The problem with that is that it letnds the double standard. Just because their child is at risk of <genetic disorder> they get the option to ensure a <insert aesthetic preference here>. Whereas, because I have no health problems, I am disadvantaged and don't get the opportunity to ensure my child conforms to my ideal.

And it is not just aesthetics people are going to be interested in. Some people will want genes to ensure their child is:
* intelligent and good academically, or
* athletic, and good at sports, or
* beautiful, perfectly proportioned, or
* assertive, and has the personality that lends itself to becoming a leader, or
* creative, with musical or artistic talents, or
* compassionate, with a passive temperament to better get on with others

And the list goes on. Each set of parents will place importance of different characteristics.

[SassyMummy]

Yeah I guess - like that film "Gattaca" with Ethan Hawke.

I dunno, I think checking for and eliminating some health risks is a good thing. Not creating "perfect" humans. Isn't that what Hitler tried to do? It's the same, but with medicine involved.

[sweetseven]

I think it should only be used for significant genetic disorders, such as Huntingtons.

Something minor, such as in my case, bicuspid aortic valve, is probably not worth tampering with. It would've been nice to have been spared the necessity of DD2 undergoing heart surgery as a newborn, and annual checkups with her cardiologist. But I dont think this one abnormality is enough justification to be messing around with genetic engineering.

[Annabella]

I don't really agree with it. I feel horrible saying that and knowing the heartache a lot of people go through with genetic illness etc but I just think it opens too many doors for aesthetic and other stuff.

[kiki07]

I think it should only be used for significant genetic disorders, such as Huntingtons.


Huntington's is a late onset condition, so people can have healthy 'normal' lives for decades before symptoms begin. And a cure or treatment may be found by the time kids born these days are old enough to have symptoms.

This is where it gets tricky, you think that the seriousness of the condition warrants the use of the technology, but other people would say that the person with the huntington gene has many years in which to do amazing things, and therefore using the technology would take this away from the world (because that person would never be born).

I think parents should have assistance to think through the issues, but ultimately it should be up to them and their ethical stance what level of technology they will use or not use.

[belonna]

For genetic disorders I'm all for it. But things like changing eye and hair colour and all the stupidity that is designer babies should be and remain illegal.

[kiki07]

And how many people do you reckon will actually want to go through IVF plus genetic manipulation (which will decrease the number of embryos that make it and are available to implant) in order to change the colour of their child's eyes?

this is a hard road to take when people are trying to stop their kid from having a serious condition, you reckon people are gonna bother do it for hair or eye colour? get real.

[Lily_Pad]

And how many people do you reckon will actually want to go through IVF plus genetic manipulation (which will decrease the number of embryos that make it and are available to implant) in order to change the colour of their child's eyes?

this is a hard road to take when people are trying to stop their kid from having a serious condition, you reckon people are gonna bother do it for hair or eye colour? get real.

I'm not saying people should want to pick and choose the colour of their child's eyes, etc. I'm simply discussing the topic. There's no need to be rude.

[Amara]

I don't agree with it at all. Thankfully it is not available for use in humans. It has only been done in animals.

What a PP was referring to is a different technique altogether.

This technique would mean that the child would have DNA from 3 parents. A legal minefield no doubt.

I wonder if people really would want to use this technology knowing that their child was not 100% created by the mum & dad. Donor cells are involved & therefore there is a third "parent". Before someone suggests it I believe in donor sperm or donor egg as this still results in two biological parents.

[Looshkin]

Considering the society we live in today, I think if offered to the public tomorrow, there would be lots of desire and demand for "designer" babies.

~why bother getting plastic surgery, pick genes to ensure angelinas lips, whoevers currently in fashions boobs, someone else "superior " whatever etc etc ~

With out celebrity, perfection, beautiful obsessed culture I believe it is only taking a step in the wrong direction.

So I have real issues with it.

Partly, I believe we are essentially setting out to halt our own evolution, what if everyone did this and because society is so influential we limited the gene pool by all picking the same sort of genes.. what if we are supposed to evolve via mutation?

I haven't really thought about it much so I'm just going on my gut instinct here and unless I found compelling reasons that these things wouldn't happen, I feel allowing the public to design their offspring genetically is unethical.

But am I just closed minded on this? I dunno.:confused:

[Lily_Pad]

Considering the society we live in today, I think if offered to the public tomorrow, there would be lots of desire and demand for "designer" babies.

~why bother getting plastic surgery, pick genes to ensure angelinas lips, whoevers currently in fashions boobs, someone else "superior " whatever etc etc ~

With out celebrity, perfection, beautiful obsessed culture I believe it is only taking a step in the wrong direction.

So I have real issues with it.

Partly, I believe we are essentially setting out to halt our own evolution, what if everyone did this and because society is so influential we limited the gene pool by all picking the same sort of genes.. what if we are supposed to evolve via mutation?

I haven't really thought about it much so I'm just going on my gut instinct here and unless I found compelling reasons that these things wouldn't happen, I feel allowing the public to design their offspring genetically is unethical.

But am I just closed minded on this? I dunno.:confused:

I feel kind of the same way.

Also, what would happen if the whole world were to eradicate all hereditary diseases? I know that it's very hard to go through with having children when you know your child could be at risk of developing an illness that you have. I've gone through it. But surely that isn't the way the world is meant to work? It just seems like messing with too much to me.

[happyluvy]

i was just thinking... imagine... JUST IMAGINE... if we could find and eliminate cancer, or alzheimer's, or such diseases from our genes!

:yes: yes please!


i just wanna post this again ^^ IMAGINE PPL !! :p

if we are all to scared to open the doors and check out whats inside, then how would we ever know what can happen?


:wave:

[kiki07]

I'm not saying people should want to pick and choose the colour of their child's eyes, etc. I'm simply discussing the topic. There's no need to be rude.

My post was not meant to be rude. When people bring up the idea that parents are going to want to use this technology for reasons such as eye colour, i find their responses quite flippant and believe it takes away from the reasons that these technologies were developed.

Parents who do not have fertility problems, are choosing to undergo all the trials and heartache of assisted reproduction with the extra difficulty of these technologies in order to prevent the passing on of serious conditions.

These will be the vast majority of uses for these technology.

[lovingbeingamum]

I don't really have a firm opinion on this, but I am always suspicious of these new "developments" and how they will be used. I know that if there was a genetic condition that i had that was serious enough to warrant this sort of scientific involvement, then I would probably be more likely to consider adoption - there are millions of unwanted children in the world and I think our government should be putting more resources into making adoption more available and more of a priority - however I wouldn't judge anyone who wanted to go down this road. For diseases anyway, not superficial things.