a new super race?

[rosieglo]

Re the article in the guardian about the baby that was successfully screened for the breast cancer gene and the controversy about 'designer babies' - what's the fuss? I'm thinking that breeding out illness and disabilty is a great thing. Improving intelligence also; hopefully the smarter the future generations are the more likely they will find ways to halt our destruction of the planet and stop fighting. What's wrong with wanting fitter, stronger, cleverer and healthier children? And I think it is so wrong for a deaf or blind parent to actively seek out a way to pass their disability on, I cannot begin to understand how they could want to deprive their child of the ability to hear music or see the world around them.
hmmn - for me it's a pretty straight forward matter.

Cote

We don't know what the end result will be. We probably won't find out as it reality, as it won't be eradicated due to the expense of world wide screening and abortion and/or embryo selection. The likely consequences of eradication of mutated alleles responsible for breast cancer are loss of some of the ways that DNA can be repaired and loss of diversity in alleles responsible for embryonic development, as the mutated genes that cause breast cancer also control these functions. The embryonic development is less of a concern than DNA repair, as we need diversity in genes for DNA repair, as human impacts on the environment are constantly throwing up new substances that damage our DNA.

I wasn't comparing smallpox to breast cancer; small pox is totally different as it a virus. Smallpox would have to go through 1000s of mutations in order to re-emerge in human populations and so there are unlikely to be similar eradication events in the future of known viruses.

Agree Riven. Screening and aborting would not be acceptable or seen as straightforward and non-traumatic to many women.

amber - thanks very much for posting that article - very interesting and shows that the research into testosterone etc was never geared towards pre-natal testing.

We disagree at the very beginning - embryo is not a person and hence discarding one and choosing another for implantation is not "killing".

abort implies a foetus, not a pre-implantation embryo. Did you mean screen and not implant?

Thanks for the link amber - I suspected SBC's words had been twisted. Many of the big UK researchers only work with HFA but show a lot of respect towards individuals on the spectrum. I thought the reporting sounded at odds with what I've actually heard them say (although I've heard less from SBC than others, and never spoken to him directly, so I thought he may have said something similar- nice to know he didn't).

Actually, genetic screening is done DAYS after fertilisation. No heartbeat. No nervous system. Just a cluster of cells.

I used the words used by other posters here who were claiming this screening procedure was "screen and abort".

By the way you can very well abort an embryo, since that is what it is called until the end of 8th week.

CoteDAzur on Mon 19-Jan-09 17:32:27
"You could screen and abort, then love the child without the cancer gene just as much as you would have loved the hypothetical child with the cancer gene.

What exactly is the dilemma?

If you didn't have an uncle who has cancer, you would have one who doesn't have cancer. You would love this uncle as much as the one you have now. You don't know any other uncle, so there would be no dilemma a la "I love my uncle even though he has cancer, he is such a lovely person and contributes to society etc"

Well, one problem is that you would not just eradicate the undesirable quality of the cancer gene: any desirable quality that went with that gene would also be systematically eradicated.

If you screened for autism, then humanity would lost all the benefits that go with the autistic gene too, and maybe we cannot afford this.

I don't think this is the only reason though. I also think a society where we deliberately try to eradicate all genetic differences does run into the risk of becoming a harsh and intolerant society.

People already get accused of being 'selfish' for having a child with DS. What a crock.

In many ways I can't think of a problem with screening out early onset cancer - but these tests would be screening out individuals. I don't really want to live in a society that does that.

It does set a precedent, and I have no doubt that my son would be screened out given half a chance. A real him is 100 times better than a hypothetical that never had the chance of life.

all right, becoming more of a harsh and intolerant society. And I keep posting on those threads.

Its all about being perfect, isn't it?

In a "perfect" world, there'd be no disability, everyone would be slim and pretty/handsome, with perfect teeth, etc etc etc.

Only it wouldn't be a perfect world, would it?

"What's wrong with wanting fitter, stronger, cleverer and healthier children?"

I love mine just the way they are.

If you screen DNA, you'll find that the vast majority of us carry genes that give us a higher risk of developing certain diseases. Lots of conditions- e.g. certain cancers- that were once thought to have no hereditary factor are now recognised as being linked to a 'faulty' gene. In seeking to eliminate one
(known) risk you could find, as research moves on, that you have inadvertently increased the child's chances of contracting a different illness.

I don't want a world of 'perfection'. The people who make the biggest impact on the world in science, art etc. are often 'different', whether it's a poet
with manic depression or a physicist with Aspergers. Eliminating differences, far from
creating a 'master race' would stifle creativity.

OK, slightly different, but did anyone see this "dabbling in nature" story a few days ago?

"It seemed like a good idea at the time: Remove all the feral cats from a famous Australian island to save the native seabirds.

But the decision to eradicate the felines from Macquarie island allowed the rabbit population to explode and, in turn, destroy much of its fragile vegetation that birds depend on for cover, researchers said Tuesday.

Removing the cats from Macquarie "caused environmental devastation" that will cost authorities 24 million Australian dollars ($16.2 million) to remedy"

Wow. Have just read the entire thread and some of the ignorant, bigoted and frankly unpleasant attitudes on it astound me.

In reality, the whole idea is completely flawed and unworkable.

Let?s say you could screen out all the cancer genes and the disability genes and the huntingtons genes and the other genes that are connected to life-threatening illnesses. Genetic screening is something that has to be done pre implantation, so in order to have genetic screening you would have to have IVF.

So, in a typical IVF cycle you would have say, ten embrios. So you screen them. Two of them have the breast cancer gene, so you get rid of those. Then two more don?t have the breastcancer gene but they have the diabetes gene, so you get rid of them. Then you move on to the next two, and they have the downs syndrome gene, so you get rid of them. Now you have only 4 embrios left. So on to the next two. And they have the dementia gene, so you get rid of them. Now you have only two embrios left. You screen for all the aforementioned genes and find that there are no defects, until you get to the glaucoma gene. Damn, those embrios will have to go too. Now there are no embrios left and so no IVF will occur, until the perspective parent can produce another lot for you to start the process all over again.

Apart from the fact that there simply are not the resources available to do all this screening, the fact is that having a child would become considerably harder, and more expensive (bearing in mind the average ivf cycle costs about £5000, and I?m sure screening on top of that would cost more, and has a success rate of approximately 30%) and the majority of people would surely carry at least one defective gene, so chances of people actually being able to have a ?perfect? baby would be tiny.

If you went down the ?screen and abort? route how far would you be prepared to go? Have abortions until you got a perfect baby? Bearing in mind that having a termination can actually affect your fertility, so you could have a termination for say, breast cancer, and then end up infertile and unable to have a baby at all.

I will not entertain the notion of iradicating disability. No-one chooses to have a disabled child, but once that child is born that doesn?t mean they would choose for them not to be the child they are.

I am blind. I have been since birth. That is my life, and I don?t think it is limited by my disability. And if someone offered me the chance to see I honestly don?t think that I would accept it. It is only a disability to the people who cannot understand how they would cope in the same situation. To me it is not a disability, because I?ve never known any different. No I wouldn?t choose for my children to be blind, but if my ds had been born VI then I think I?m actually the best person to deal with that.

As for disabilities such as severe autism, unless you live with it daily how can you possibly know what it?s like, for the person or the parent? We make judgements on other people?s lives based on our own perceptions. And generally we are not qualified to do so.

wannaBe, well said.

What do you about genetic illnesses that are not "screenable"? Do you stop those parents having children?

What about the cases where there is no family history, but a spontaneous mutation results in a devastating condition?

Do you cull them later on?

And what about those "accidents" that are not genetic or congenital? Do you cull them later on too?

Where does your idea of perfecting humanity for the good of the planet stop?

I have a friend, 3 of whose children have an awful genetic disease which will kill them by the time they are about 25. Meanwhile, they will suffer gradual loss of movement, numerous painful, long and dangerous operations. I've no doubt my friend and her dh would much prefer that those 3 kids don't have what they do have, but I KNOW that they would not be without their 3, no matter what.

In truth, they are all pretty wonderful kids - I know the eldest best, she's incredibly talented, funny, witty and intelligent. She's the sort of person who lights up a room just by walking (well, nearly!) into it. I know the world is a nicer place, while she's in it. She enjoys her life, and deals with the problems with a sort of wry humour that is gobsmacking. Of course, she's rather be 'normal', but she's having a good time anyway.

Of course, Hitler would have got rid of her in the womb and we'd never have known what we'd missed, and the world would be a poorer place.

Getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. It is a long way to go from trying to screen for a baby free of breast cancer gene to "a society where we deliberately try to eradicate all genetic differences".

Myees, but why do we have to eradicate the breast cancer gene? My friend will die prematurely from breast cancer. But she has lived a rich and useful and worthwhile life for 40 odd years before cancer struck. Why would that not be worth having, just because it's going to come to an end? All our lives are going to come to an end sooner or later. Does that make them not worth having?

Besides, what counts as a premature death changes over time. Her death would not have been considered unnaturally premature a few 100 years earlier. It is perfectly possible that I carry some gene or other which will kill me at 85. Which is not a problem with today's life expectancy. But what if life expectancy changes to 115? Will we have to start screening for more things? Just because everyone has to have the same length of life?

Cory I agree. From what I understand too the breast cancer gene they can screen for is only responsible for 10% of breast cancer cases anyay....

The OP did not just mention breast cancer; she also wanted children to be cleverer, and for them to be fitter and stronger. Wanting children to be cleverer through genetics does not suggest to me that this is just about eradicating cancer; it is about selecting children that are better than normal children and discouraging the birth of the rest.

I am hoping that nobody on this thread actually believes we should be selecting some sort of super race. I cannot see that this is anything more than a hideous, dystopian, fascist nightmare, and I cannot imagine why a thread that mentions genetic selection of fitter, cleverer children in the opening post has not been condemned by everyone on here.

I have just read that extract about Ashley the pillow angel girl. Whilst agreeing that the name "pillow angel" is vile and suggests that teh parents may have slightly screwed motives, I do not automatically disagree with thier decision. She has the mental age of a 3 month baby and I can therefore see that menstruating and any pregnancy should she be sexually abused would be very difficult to put it miildly. If the parents also need to carry her around and care for her as they would a 3 month old baby to have her grow into a fully grown woman would also be very difficult.

I think - very tentaively I may say I support the parents in having her womb removed but I don't think i support them - even as I typed the last para my view shifted - in keeping her small. that part does seem obscene as she would then have the face of a woman ( say at 26) but in a child's body. On a pure kindness basis though I cannot see what is wrong with preventing menstruation and pregnancy in a child/woman with a 3 month old baby mental age?

I stand ready to be corrected btw as this is an issue on which I am generally on the other side of the fence and belive firmly in a diverse society - am horrified at the idea of genetic selection ( other than to screen out killer diseases like breast cancer etc) , don't support euthensia etc. It just seems to me that this course of action may have been in these particular circumstances. Have to say I wouldn't suport it if girl had mental age of 12 yr old i.e. able to feel and understand more.