Designer babies

[Pendaric]

Should parents be able to pre-determine the characteristics of their children?

From determining eye colour, to determining sex, to tweaking genes to allow for strength, intelligence, looks or anything else you can think of, is it something that we should be able to play with?

How about things like testing for Downs Syndrome, and then selecting against it? Or cancer, or anything else that could be considered undesirable? For example, from the Wikipedia article on eugenics:

A similar screening policy (including prenatal screening and abortion) intended to reduce the incidence of thalassemia exists in both jurisdictions on the island of Cyprus. Since the program's implementation in the 1970s, it has reduced the ratio of children born with the hereditary blood disease from 1 out of every 158 births to almost zero. Tests for the gene are compulsory for both partners, prior to church wedding

We have a lot more technical ability to carry out eugenics than we did in the past. Is it something we should or shouldn't do?

[Jobar]

Like so many questions involving our burgeoning technology, this one has been frequently explored in science fiction. My own favorite is a series of books written by Nancy Kress, beginning with the novella Beggars In Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_in_Spain), written in 1991. What if geneticists discovered the gene which made sleep necessary for mammals- and how to inactivate it, so that children so modified never needed to sleep? And what if this change had the totally unpredicted effect of boosting the immune system, and thereby increasing life span by some unknown but large percentage?

Kress' vision isn't at all optimistic; she has a very large percentage of "normals" reacting to the Sleepless as inhuman monsters, and many advocating their genocide.

But, perhaps that response would be limited to genetic *enhancements*. For programs which tried to screen out genetic defects, resulting in fewer children born with such defects, I think we would see widespread support- with the obvious exceptions of staunch Catholics and anti-abortion advocates. I know I would vote for such programs to be publicly funded, because of the long-term savings to society.

[Free in Freeport]

No joke here, I swear this is 100% true.

My sister and her husband were unable to conceive naturally. So, she looked into options, including adoption, surrogate parenthood, etc. She offered me $10,000 to get pregnant, and allow her to adopt the child. She offered my sister-in-law $15,000.

The reason for the $5000 discrepancy?

My sister-in-law and her children have lighter blonde hair than my daughter and me.

U huh.

[LoneWolf]

The idea of designing your kids creeps me out a bit but I think it is inevitable and I can't find anything inherently wrong with it.

[Febble]

I'm all for screening against known genetic diseases.

I don't think there's much point in screening stuff IN though, because most desirable traits are likely to be polygeneic and at least partly non-heritable.

[Christina]

I'm all for screening against known genetic diseases.


And then do what with that knowledge? Personally I wouldn't have children and risk passing it on and if my parents had known and aborted the fetus that would eventually become me there would be no me to know or mind anyway. A lot of women won't have abortions and I'd be far more worried about their kids who have now been identified as having a disorder and a pre-existing condition right out of the womb. Insurance companies will love that part. I really do worry about the time period between identifying and detecting the genes involved in the disorder and being able to use that knowledge to do anything useful for the people suffering from it.

[David B]

There might be a danger of unintended consequences.

I wonder if certain traits like ASD, bipolarity, schizophrenia....are, while crippling in extreme cases, also associated with such hard to define concepts as creativity and intelligence.

David

[Christina]

Personally I think that our world we be a much blander and uninteresting place if all of us that were different disappeared but that generally isn't the sentiment I hear expressed. John Nash was schizophrenic along with any number of other brilliant people and the list of bipolar artists, authors and political leaders is very long. I don't think that the world would be a better place without those kinds of people.

[Febble]

I'm all for screening against known genetic diseases.


And then do what with that knowledge? Personally I wouldn't have children and risk passing it on and if my parents had known and aborted the fetus that would eventually become me there would be no me to know or mind anyway. A lot of women won't have abortions and I'd be far more worried about their kids who have now been identified as having a disorder and a pre-existing condition right out of the womb. Insurance companies will love that part. I really do worry about the time period between identifying and detecting the genes involved in the disorder and being able to use that knowledge to do anything useful for the people suffering from it.


screening of embryos pre-implantation; screening of foetuses, with the option of abortion.

I'm thinking of things where a single gene is known to be causal, like PKU, or Huntington's.

Not bipolar.

[Christina]

Does being able to identify the gene in more straightforward conditions mean that we're able to correct it yet? I'd have the same concern for any condition that was identifiable but not curable.

[Pendaric]

It strikes me that if a child is born with a condition, for all the parents may still love the child as a unique individual they will often invest massive time, effort, money and emotional heartache in trying to deal with or eradicate the condition.

Surely it would be better for all concerned if pre-emptive steps are taken to ensure that the child that comes in to being does not suffer from a condition in the first place?

[Christina]

I have no disagreement with that other than that many people still wouldn't abort a child even with a known genetic disorder.

[Pendaric]

That's fair enough. I'm talking about parents who want to plan ahead, not a compulsory thing.

Although to take it a step further - if it was obvious that the parents would not be able to support a child who was going to be born with a condition and the state would have to bear the cost, should the state have a right to insist that the pregnancy didn't go ahead, or that some sort of manipulation was done to ensure that the child was healthy? Pre-selecting which embryo to use or something like that (I'm not a science bod, so I'm unsure of the actual techniques that could be used)?

In an age of limited government resources, thousands spent supporting a disabled child is thousands that doesn't get spent elsewhere. When it could easily be arranged that a fully healthy child is born instead, isn't it better for society if that is the path actively followed?

[Febble]

I have no disagreement with that other than that many people still wouldn't abort a child even with a known genetic disorder.

No, and I would hate to see too much pressure placed on parents, especially if there is some doubt as the severity of the condition, or the probability of having it at all not all that high.

But I get angry when the disabled lobby start laying down the law about abortion. A disabled adult isn't a foetus.

[Christina]

I wouldn't want to see anyone coerced or pressured into having or not having an abortion but I can't get behind that argument. I'd be furious at the suggestion that I should be killed because I'm already here and have a life but that's not comparable to having an abortion.

[munnki]

In a sense the precursors in human mating rituals (by which I mean the processes and tests that we call 'dating' and 'relations' or 'scoring') are a form of designing babies - although when you've just drank six pints of Wifebeater and are trying to hear what the blonde with the probable low-IQ but nice tits is saying through the runner-up from The X Factor's voice which is blaring through the low-end-only speakers positioned right by your head and wondering if the connie machine in the bathroom will only have ridiculous flavoured Johnnies left by the time she decides you're Mr Right-Now (as opposed to Mr Right) or if you'll have to shag her by taking out a Swiss Knife on the inflatable sheep which, by then, will be the only thing left in the dispenser - it doesn't necessarily seem that way.

[Matty]

lol. but yeah, you aint wrong. we do phenotype selection every time we look at possible "mates" and even if its subconscious.


in our local pub the "eewwww" dobber flavour was a toss up between lager and lime, and chicken curry.
obviously it was a fucking classy local. :)

(I dont actually get the point anyway. has any one ever actually had a gobble with a dobber on, and why?
The only time i ever knew a pack of those get bought was as a joke present or when all the normal ones , as you say, had gone.)

[Zygote]

Does being able to identify the gene in more straightforward conditions mean that we're able to correct it yet? I'd have the same concern for any condition that was identifiable but not curable.

Single gene conditions have the possibility of being corrected especially as gene therapy (using viruses to insert a functioning copy of the gene into cells) becomes more readily available. So they wouldn't necessarily be grounds for termination.

IIRC, there is a possible environmental factor in schizophrenia (month of birth seems to be a positive correlation) so genetic screening wouldn't necessarily be an effective tool for predicting.

[Zygote]

But I get angry when the disabled lobby start laying down the law about abortion. A disabled adult isn't a foetus.

My hackles come up at the argument that there have been great people who might have been aborted, leaving the world without their benefits or that abortion is the same as eliminating someone who already exists. It's used by the pro-lifers to try to discredit any reason for abortion.

Every child should be a wanted child, period, full stop.

The decision to abort or not, IMO, needs to stay with the mother, regardless of whether the condition is potentially treatable. Abortion is not something that someone does lightly and someone who is even considering continuing a pregnancy is going to be emotionally invested in every pregnancy.

If someone has reservations about their ability to care lovingly and thoroughly for a child enough to give up their hopes and dreams for that pregnancy and go back to the drawing board and try again, also with no guarantees, they have my full support to terminate that pregnancy.

If someone chooses to continue a pregnancy even though there is a genetic condition that will require state support, the decision still lies with the parents. In a civilized country, the population as a whole helps bear the burden of those who are less able to cope. If the pregnancy doesn't terminate on its own and the parents are unwilling to terminate intentionally, the state is no worse off than if there had been no testing available. Best to leave it there.

[Zygote]

Personally I think that our world we be a much blander and uninteresting place if all of us that were different disappeared but that generally isn't the sentiment I hear expressed. John Nash was schizophrenic along with any number of other brilliant people and the list of bipolar artists, authors and political leaders is very long. I don't think that the world would be a better place without those kinds of people.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it? (I'm thinking of what kind of babies people would "wish" to have.)

Imagine a world where people can choose traits for their children. When I do, I always end up with a world where people of little imagination have created a designer population of bland, attractive, ordinary people. In that world, the "wild born" would be looked on askance, but when I play it out in my head, the wild born are the group that produces the hero whose creativity and outside the box thinking saves the day.

Even when designer babies become available, some people will always choose the old fashioned way, either by choice or by accident.

[LoneWolf]

has any one ever actually had a gobble with a dobber on, and why?

Perhaps I am suffering from a case of being too American, but I haven't a clue what you just said, Matty.

[Pendaric]

has any one ever actually had a gobble with a dobber on, and why?

Perhaps I am suffering from a case of being too American, but I haven't a clue what you just said, Matty.

It translates as 'has any one ever actually had a blow job whilst wearing a condom'.

[lpetrich]

There might be a danger of unintended consequences.

I wonder if certain traits like ASD, bipolarity, schizophrenia....are, while crippling in extreme cases, also associated with such hard to define concepts as creativity and intelligence.
There's long been speculation about a link between creativity and mental illness, though the perception of such a link may be an artifact induced by similarity of behavior. I think that as we understand more about mental illnesses, we may be in a position to test whether very creative people tend to have subclinical cases of certain mental illnesses.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, we have autism and Asperger's syndrome, and what is sometimes called "geek syndrome". A nice feature of Asperger's syndrome is that "Aspies" are sometimes capable of mastering very arcane technical subjects and putting that mastery to work -- technical fields may have disproportionate numbers of Aspies. However, such abilities are not universal features of Aspies; I recall an Aspie stating that he is bad at math.