Genetically modified human embryo stirs criticism

[DeSwiss]

Source: (AP)

Genetically modified human embryo stirs criticism

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer
Mon May 12, 6:25 PM ET

NEW YORK - News that scientists have for the first time genetically altered a human embryo is drawing fire from some watchdog groups that say it's a step toward creating "designer babies." But an author of the study says the work was focused on stem cells. He notes that the researchers used an abnormal embryo that could never have developed into a baby anyway.

"None of us wants to make designer babies," said Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

The idea of designer babies is that someday, scientists may insert particular genes into embryos to produce babies with desired traits like intelligence or athletic ability. Some people find that notion repugnant, saying it turns children into designed objects, and would create an unequal society where some people are genetically enriched while others would be considered inferior.

The study appears to be the first report of genetically modifying a human embryo. It was presented last fall at a meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, but didn't draw widespread public attention then. The result was reported over the weekend by The Sunday Times of London, which said British authorities highlighted the work in a recent report.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_sc/modified_embryo

---

- Oh well, now they've gone and done it. I can hear the hue and cry already coming from the mountaintops (Colorado Springs). They'll be talking "Frankenbabies" in the Presidential campaign in 3, 2, 1....

Whoa! Wait a minute. Not unless of course, this means that they could make..... Better Christian Soldiers!!!

Awww right!!!!! In that case, send in the Snowflakes....
========================================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

[Alcibiades]

1. Warhammer 40,0000

Uses this as a premise.

We will do this. We will be "enhanced." I just hope they do abetter job of this than nature.

Doubt that very much.

[DeSwiss]

2. I'd have to strain...

...extremely hard just to reach the level of doubting we could do a better job.

- I mean, because Nature has had a lot longer time to mix up the puzzle, than we've had trying to make sense of it.

[seriousstan]

3. I can think of how to screw it up quick.....politicize it.

[DeSwiss]

9. Or even worse....

...politicize it with Repukes running the scam.

- Of course when they screw things up, people lose their lives....

[David__77]

4. There's nothing inherently wrong with genetic engineering.

If we can eliminate many health problems this way, what's the problem?

[matt007]

5. I agree

cancer, MS, all kinds of genetic disorders. If it improves peoples quality of life then do it.

Maybe we can get the cure for AIDS out of Cheney's safe pretty soon too.

[BR_Parkway]

6. Because it won't stop there - some will be trying to give their babies

a "head start" in life - and picking from a menu has some huge ramifications beyond doing something like playing Mozart in the womb.

I never thought that people would seriously do this thing until I read this article -

Designer Genes by Bill McKibben

and in less than seven pages, he scared the crap out of me. I remember sitting in this coffee shop and looking around with the thought "holy shit, I'm looking at the last generation of humans"

I don't believe any technology is inherently good or bad - it's always in how we make use of it. But I do know that we have a huge history of launching new "wonder" drugs and inventions without knowing the full scope of what it will mean down the road (or a corrupt corporation hiding what it knows to get their approvals) Look at Genetically Modified corn.

This is one area that we can legislate before we find out that we've created a problem, instead of trying to shut that barn door afterwards. And I personally think we should.

[rasputin1952]

8. The problem is, all of the laws in the world won't stop some

people from doing this, or anything else. It might reduce the scale, but that's about it. Sort of like the "Stop" sign quandary, the sign is there for a reason, but it can't make people stop, only advise them to do so, after all the sign doesn't reach out and grab each car bringing it to an abrupt halt. Same thing with these possible laws, they won't stop anyone from doing this, it will be an after the effect situation.

Another quandary, what do you do with the modified human that is born? Killing it would be murder, locking it up would be cruelty, denying it human rights would be criminal, the questions are something that have to be looked at long and hard.

Manipulating genes to avoid a life of pain or misery by disease is a noble situation...but there are few in-noble people out there that would use this as a way to produce what "they" wanted, and the problems there are enormous. It cannot be denied that some aspects of humanity have no moral base, and society pays for this time and again.

Like everything else, there is good and bad...we have to make a choice, and it won't be an easy one...:(

[BR_Parkway]

14. No disagreement - my father has diabetes, and other family members

could potentially benefit from this type research as well.

But it would start with a government "designing" super - soldiers, then the rich would want their kids to have all the advantages (as if they don't nearly have that now) and the poor would become simply more cheap, dumb labor to be exploited.

[DeSwiss]

10. My comment wasn't about the genetic engineering....

...but about how the Repukers will play this human embryo research as another "man plays god" argument. Dumbing it down until its meaningless.

There is nothing inherently wrong with any science. The only defect is within ourselves as far as I see it. Unfortunately the worst are those who think they know the mind of a god they can't even prove exists.

- But don't get me started on that one....

[Posteritatis]

18. Considering some of the comments in this thread

I don't think we should be only worrying about the Republicans boiling it down to rhetoric and screaming.

[Thor_MN]

12. Well, if 4 generations after Gene X is removed as garbage, it turns out it confers immunity

a disease that is endemic in some remote, isolated tribe. And then a "reality" show producer flies in, gets infected, flies back to the US...

If it were limited to fixing known defects in individual embryos, I wouldn't have an issue. But the designer baby concept is a path we shouldn't go down.


Would people trust their geneticist to actually use their DNA, go to the expense of sequencing, analysing, fixing - rather than grabbing some Model 47XJ4 DNA off the shelf because the work is already done and it will produce a baby that sort of looks like them and they won't know the difference? If we start removing diversity from the gene pool, we set ourselves up for extinction events.

[Posteritatis]

17. Butbutbutbutkneejerk!

Most of the reactions seem to be stuff along the lines of argument based from games or popular culture (like the rather asinine first comment to this thread), or the even more bullshit "it's unnatural!" line. Squick is not a valid moral compass in the least, but it's kind of hard to tell people who think it is otherwise.

[Zhade]

22. What happens when they decide to "cure" homosexuality?

That's just one potential horror.

[and-justice-for-all]

7. I would like very much to have my 'aging' gene shut off...

designer babies is cool.

[DeSwiss]

11. Well not now!!!!! :-)

Twenty years or so ago, sure.

But hell, who wants to be frozen at 56!?!?!

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[and-justice-for-all]

20. wel I am a happy 33 that looks 23...

[asteroid2003QQ47]

15. Masochist! n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Marching towards the Clone War n/t

[TrogL]

16. Brave New World

Huxley was right.

I suppose Deltas are happy too.

[Igel]

19. " He notes that the researchers used an abnormal embryo that could never have developed into a baby.

And in that quote, "He notes that the researchers used an abnormal embryo that could never have developed into a baby anyway," the researchers and/or reporter show they don't understand much of the problem that some people have with using embryos for research.

Some will be against it on principle, and I doubt all of those will be on the right: Note that 'Frankenbabies' plays not off a RW expression, but one from the other side of the politico-environmental spectrum. "Frankenfoods" is a Green expression. We can call those "principled Luddites", against any technology whose outcome is the least unknown or problematic, whether for religious reasons or because of the "precautionary principle".

But some religiously minded folk will immediately object to the use of an embryo, but don't object to GMOs in general; those are "religiously human-centered Luddites". "It wouldn't have developed into a baby anyway" doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. Would you experiment on a really sick or disabled child, saying, "It wouldn't have developed into an adult"? No, not for the most part (although I'm not sure Singer would agree). Some view embryos as simply the extreme first stages of a baby, pre-birth. Those that accept his logic probably wouldn't care if the baby *could* have developed into a baby, were it in utero and implanted in the uterine wall.

[ben_meyers]

21. What could possibly go wrong

After all nobody worries about GM crops.