British first as baby born free of cancer gene

And the great eugenics revolution begins, for better or for worse.

Great news. The sooner people stop equating natural with good and artificial with bad the better.

Velanarris -- remember, your only human and worthy of human rights, IF you are considered valuable. Downs children are routinely euthinized before birth already.

Velanarris -- remember, your only human and worthy of human rights, IF you are considered valuable. Downs children are routinely euthinized before birth already.

True, however, what happens when we move from Down Syndrome to hair color, eye color, strength, height, skin color, etc.

It's a question of how do we apply ethics to the practice of genetic selection rather than do we apply the practice of genetic selection.

Instead of avoiding the tough questions, this development will force society to come to terms with its own values on what it means to be human.

As long they use for preventing children to be born with defective genes (the ones that are terribly crippling, specially) I am OK with the procedures. I would support any program that would eradicate genes related to cancer, down syndrome, dwarfism, physical defects, heart diseases, neurovegetative diseases, etc. Why not? Science should be used for the benefit of people. I am concerning also with its use for much less noble reasons.

Two words: unintended consequences. Why haven't these things been eliminated already by evolutionary processes?

I am of the tentative opinion that cancers and various syndromes are the result of DNA's malleability, which is necessary for innovation. It makes sense that DNA as a molecular structure is at a midpoint between stability and instability so as to allow for easy evolution while preventing too much change at one time. That allowance for random innovation is part of what makes evolution so powerful; engineers aren't quite as creative. If we eliminate this variation we limit potential biological progress as a species.

I am not saying that engineering isn't more advantageous, but no doubt our biological diversity will decrease, and that *will* have unintended consequences.

Gattaca , the movie, here we come....

"a society driven by liberal eugenics.[2][3]

Children of the middle and upper classes are selected through preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.

A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as valids while those conceived by traditional means are derisively known as faith births, god children and in-valids.

While genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, in practice it is easy to profile one's genotype resulting in the Valids qualifying for professional employment while the In-Valids who are susceptible to disease are relegated to menial jobs."

http://en.wikiped.../Gattaca

Two words: unintended consequences. Why haven't these things been eliminated already by evolutionary processes?

I am of the tentative opinion that cancers and various syndromes are the result of DNA's malleability, which is necessary for innovation. It makes sense that DNA as a molecular structure is at a midpoint between stability and instability so as to allow for easy evolution while preventing too much change at one time. That allowance for random innovation is part of what makes evolution so powerful; engineers aren't quite as creative. If we eliminate this variation we limit potential biological progress as a species.

I am not saying that engineering isn't more advantageous, but no doubt our biological diversity will decrease, and that *will* have unintended consequences.

Thales, great point. If mankind was engineered in such a method even a single disease could wipe us out.

In regards to evolution not weeding these things out remember that mankind enjoys a far longer lifespan than it used to and most procreation occurs long before these particular genes ever take a role in the organism.

If you reproduce at age 30 and succumb to lung cancer at age 31 then the lung cancer had no effect on your ability to reproduce and therefore will continue down your genetic line. If you reproduce at 30 and die of lung cancer at age 10, then lung cancer would weed itself out. Medical science has almost removed us from evolution in a way as now we can defeat the things that would have led to our downfall.

I'm nearsighted, and not just a little bit. Without glasses or contacts I can't see 5 feet in front of me. In terms of evolutionary man, I'm dinner in the jungle. Well good for me and my lineage, we have understanding of optical distortion and with a little scientific help, I can see well enough to live.

It's interesting that some science is pointing to mankind's evolution being the result of a genetic disease that affected primates resulting in weaker jaw muscles and a mishapen skull. This gave rise to variations with differing brain sizes and ability etc. Effectively, we're a physically "retarded" monkey if this theory is correct.

Two words: unintended consequences. Why haven't these things been eliminated already by evolutionary processes?

Because dying at an age old enough to have raised children and early enough to not become a burden to your family's resources isn't a serious evolutionary disadvantage.

The only real advantage to this kind of therapy is that it will increase our collective scientific knowledge regarding these types of therapies. The problem seems to arise in that the evolutionary machinery is being hijacked, in that "survivability" is being artificially extended for individuals that may not necessarily improve the genetic pool. Clearly if humans are to survive we will have to employ these types of artificial therapies to improve the genetic results of our technological society.

Now, if we could only genetically engineer humans that are immune to religion....

RE: The complexity and evolution of cancer genes!


I thought this PGD case against the faulty BRCA 1 gene, has been a bit too optimistic:

"This little girl will not face the spectre of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life," [so] said Paul Serhal, head of the Assisted Conception Unit at UCL Hospital. And,

"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," he said.

From understanding the full complexity and evolution of any cancer genes in our body, I would remain cautious; and continue to monitor how this girl would develop into adulthood and be still free of any other cancer genes -- genes that might have had not expressed during her initial PGD screening!?

Best wishes, Mong 1/9/9usct2:37p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iunive...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ).

I am glad I will not be around to hear this little girl died of cancer at age 65. Maybe the real cause and cure will have been discovered by then!

our species is dead eventually anyways, just as all species are. With that being said, I'm all for genetic manipulation...its coming, in time, and we will create far better humans than nature did one day...I'd put money on it.

Getting rid of genes that cause disablities Im not against. Killing unborn human babies who have disabilities is just as evil as killing them after they are born.

Please anyone who is for killing unborn babies because they are not perfect, please go up the the next downs syndrom child, or child with cancer, or any other birth defect, and tell them that they arnt valuable, and they should have been killed before they were born. I want to see if you have guts enough to tell these children and their parents exactly what you think.

A society driven by liberal eugenics is an evil society. Those that promote it are promoting evil.

I guarantee this will have even more disastrous consequences. Stay tuned.

I plan to select for 150 IQ, red-haired, green-eyed kids with immune systems that will likely let the kid live past 120.

I don't see what's everyones problem with this? As long as procedures are for silencing dangerous genes or promoting beneficial ones there's no problem with it whatsoever. There should be government funded GM packages available for every fetus just like there are vaccines now. It might even include IQ raising. Looking at many people nowadays a general 20 points wouldn't hurt. It just has to be kept equally available to everyone. Rich people getting extras is a really bad thought.

Choosing your children's hair color is a different matter, but I don't see why even that should be regarded as generally bad. Besides if he doesn't like it he can just paint it later :P

This isn't pure genetic engineering because the genes aren't physically removed or altered. Instead, the egg is artificially fertilized with pre-selected naturally produced sperm that doesn't contain the gene by chance.

I don't think that people should be very concerned by this.

i have a child with cancer, and I still believe that if a fetus is going to become a baby that has major problems, and its known, it should be terminated at any time. to me, while in the belly still, at least until it could be born and survive on its own, a baby is nothing but a parasite. erradicating the possibility of their miserable upcoming life is actually a good thing if they are going to have major problems. in fact, i think anyone, from fetus level to old ancient adult level, if they are incapable of ever contributing anything good to society or our species, even in the smallest way, should be terminated as well. wasting oxygen, space, and resources better used on contributors.
I could not imagine my life without any of my children in it, but if I could go back with what I know now, I would have to seriously seriously think about convincing my wife to terminate the pregnancy. I WILL SAY THOUGH, THE CHANCES ARE, I WOULD WISH TO SEE HIM AGAIN AND WOULD NOT PUSH HER TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY IN THE END. Like I said, I couldn't imagine life without him :)

If I had the chance to allow for the potential that he could have never gotten Leukemia, then I would have jumped all over it like white on rice.

oh and btw, no offense is meant to anyone with children with problems (or even if you yourself have the problems). I am just stating my opinion, and I do understand where you're coming from (the stress and confusion factor especially)
i give credit to any parent who has to deal with a child with a serious illness or abnormality. us parents having to deal with that really do desserve rewards, and instead, all we get is empty bank accounts and emotional pain.
Hats off to all of you :)