pick-a-baby

Here come the worlds of Gattica and Brave New World. The world of "genetic perfection".

The latest development in test tube babies is an embryo screening process nicknamed "pick-a-baby". Couples are now able to have their test tube candidates screened for a growing list of genetic disorders - before insemination. With the human genome project nearing completion we can expect an enormous number of discoveries over genetic traits.

The idea of having healthy, normal children is proving extremely attractive to couples of all backgrounds of fertility.

This intense interest suggests that natural selection could quickly be discarded in favour of genetically engineered embryos... population.

The scheme echoes of Hitler genetic policy only technology advances put it at the top of the cliff instead of the bottom.

Who will police the screening list thus becoming the true designer of future populations?

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5178518%255E13762,00.html

This is leading towards many sci-fi movies which i have seen... The ending is never good.

not to be confused with "kick-the-baby!"

Well technically it is still natural selection, it’s just instead of the long and painful process of allowing the inferior gene traits to die out we simply accelerate the process. Also this could be vitally important to the future of the human race as we no longer have any real natural selection due to the fact that basically everyone gets to breed regardless of who is the ‘fittest’.

"don't kick the baby"

Errr...Robert Heinlein wrote some sci-fi with eugenic themes, in which it actually turned out all good.

I always understood his view to be "it's happening anyway, only lots slower"

Of course, the ppl driving the programmes in his books were always fine, loyal, upstanding and full of integrity...as opposed to scientists

The only thing I think that makes this a bad thing at the moment is the immaturity of our civilisation...let's be clear, I mean the frightening immaturity of the USA's civilisation...if we lived in a vaguely sane society...

Trapper, embryo screening can be used to remove dominant traits as well as recessive. This goes against natural selection.

Of greater consequence is who can really be sure that the contents of the screening list will be limited to disorders when it could feasibly include practically any genetically heredited trait?

Its all about who polices the screening list and what traits they put in it.

Very scary area. eventually the pressure will be so much from insurance companies first, employers etc after that, having a baby "naturally" won't be a viable option. Gattaca will be very much the scenario we will be looking at. To me this is something that needs to be nipped in the bud. There should be strict limits placed on what will be able to be looked for in embryonic testing to ensure designer babies aren't llowed. If we don;t do that we will end up with the alpha- epsilon type scenario of brave new world as those who can afford to truly design their babies will be the elite with those born by natural selection the factory fodder. If you can't see a problem with this, imagine trying to control a section of society relegated to virtual slavery from the day they are born.

Frazzel, but dominant traits have been the downfall of many species. I don't see how whether a gene is dominant or recessive has any effect on natural selection.

Natural selection is 'survival of the fittest' if something makes you fitter than the rest and it causes you to survive where they don't then that is evolution...

Jah, genetic discrimination is already illegal in the work place, I don't see why this technology will cause this to change?

exodus, of course the ending of science fiction movies is never good. If it was would anyone watch the movie?

This is science fact, not science fiction. Science fact has almost always had a good ending in the past so why would things suddenly change now?

A trait outcome that under natural selection might become extinct can instead under genetic screening become a consistent trait outcome. The genetic selection process isn't entirely natural anymore.


"Science fact has almost always had a good ending in the past so why would things suddenly change now? "

The difference between "good" and "bad" is often measured in understanding. History is written by the victors. If the axis won the second world war would we still have the same perception of the Nazis?

trapper - how can natural selection (which is determined by nature) by applied here? Same idea but how do we know that the decisions we are making are beneficial in the long run?

Discrimination of all sorts is illegal, doesn't stop it happening though. If you were genetically chosen by the best experts, why not put it on your CV. Not hard to figure out what would happen over time. Insurance companies could basically do what they wanted under the auspices of reduced risk if they know you're not susceptible to a host of conditions.

justahalf, not really any different than getting your genes tested and putting that on your CV is it?

exodus, dude we are nature. Natural selection happens everyday; "'Why do you like her, when I don't?", "Umm I dunno, I just do.", Ya see our preference dictates our selection, yet we have no control over our preference and hence no control over our selection.

As a side note: I guess your opinion depends on what you believe; Are we 'special', created by god, etc or are we just another animal occuring in the grand scheme of evolution? If you believe the latter then we are just as much 'nature' as any other animal.

On a purely selfish and individual level, if someone could test my foetus, and make sure it was going to be normal and healthy, (without such genetic catastrophes as Down's Syndrome, or heart problems, cystic fibrosis, etc).. then I'd almost certainly take them up on it, given I had the means to do so.

I'd be against selection on looks, intelligence, or gender, but to me, the greater chance of a healthy baby is worth it.

I think we need to face the fact that a designer baby will save you money in the long run... Think of what you'll save in maintenence and upgrades (contact lens, hair dye, plastic surgery, breast implants?, hip replacements, medicines etc etc)

I don't see a problem with tests for things like that tpl (well not major ones anyway). Designer babies goes way beyond that though.

The issue I have is that there is no clear way of defining what disorders should be tested for and what shouldn't. This is because there is no clear distinction between a disorder and an inferiority. The line between the two isnt just blurry you can't even see it. Major ethical dilemma with no clear solution.

Trapper: if I was to bring the idea of "God" into this discussion I would suggest we are talking about part of a much larger effort for humanity to BECOME God.

I'll stick to good old fashion shagging the missus thanks very much!

Its a question of where do you draw the cut off?


Many of the greatest writer and scientists of the world suffered from mental diseases, most of which a predaliction to can be detected by genes, would we get people avoiding these? How do you choose a disease to be wiped out.

I agree strongly with the fact hat we need to start some form of unnatural selection if the human race is to become anything more than a servant to the machines/ medicine that have enabled us to sidestep evolution, but who decided whats good and bad? and JAH has a good point about discrimination too.

Bob... how can we be sure that the genetically inferior won't become slaves to the genetically superior?

Well they aren't currently using random selection, I don't see how this would be any different using non-random selection.

Trapper, I don't think anyone here has suggested that natural selection is either a random process or anything to do with "God".


dictionary.com said:
Natural: "Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned."

How is it that you think the selection process in embryonic screening is "natural"?

I cant be sure fraz thats why i said jah had a good point. Tho it is at the extreme end of the spectrum.

Are we even sure that the genetically inferior aren't already slaves to the genetically superior?

Take, for example, your lifelong checkout operator, or garbage man, versus you typical CEO, or celebrity...?

Does the fact that the genes you get are random make the fact that ysome are non-academic, dyslexic, ugly, chronically big-boned... fair? While others get to be beautiful, clever, successful, driven?

"Take, for example, your lifelong checkout operator, or garbage man, versus you typical CEO, or celebrity...? "

Yesterday's millionaire pop star might be today's door to door salesperson. MC Hammer springs to mind. Today's checkout operator might be tomorrow's CEO of a publicly listed multi national. We should never write off people based on their history or appearance. People are people and anyone's world can change in the blink of an eyelid. No amount of embryonic screening will make anyone immune to this fact.


"Does the fact that the genes you get *APPEAR* random make the fact that ysome are non-academic, dyslexic, ugly, chronically big-boned... fair? "

Albert Einstein suffered from both Dyslexia and Attention Deficit Disorder. These disorders have a huge effect on intellect. Learning to cope with them in childhood encourages growth of IQ. They also encourage use of imagination. Dreaming. If Einstein never had these disorders would he still have come up with the theory of Relativity? Given the answer NO how incredibly different would our world be today!

Dyslexia and ADD were part of what made Einstein who he was. When we consider a disorder we need to include the good with the bad. In embryonic screening we might be able to remove a lot of "bad" but in doing so we might remove more "good" than we even realise. Thats exactly the problem: we just don't know how much "good" would be affected because we are dealing with biological chaos theory!

The EFFECTS of disorders are part of what make us who we are. Who we are affects our success in life.

Here's a link to lists of famous people with a wide range of disorders:
http://www.disabilityresources.org/FAMOUS.html

The fact that they are random means its hard to discriminate against. Once people have a label applied to them it is hard to get past it. If someone was labeled from birth as "better" things they do are more likely to be percieved as intellegent or special ie someone being labeled as disruptive in class or bored with the work load.

Interestingly someone who is labeled as special in much more likely to develop better. Studies (unethical) of kids told that certain traits like blue eyes meant they were dumber or smarter showed a corresponding change in their work and test scores.

The power of belief is psychosomatic.

Bob, in Einstein's case I doubt that he had a label that contributed positively to his intellectual development. The disorders he had were relatively unknown at the time. His "genius" label was applied after his achievements.

To keep Trapper happy I think we should be careful how we use the word "random". Safer words might be "apparently random" due to the fact that science has been unable to prove that any phenomena is completely random.

Although your future may in many ways be mapped out by your parents, you do have a chance to break out of that cycle, even if that chance is small. With designer babies the chance will be even less, perhaps nil, because even if you did have the genes to succeed by chance, you would be labelled as below desihgned babies.

Trapper:

dictionary.com said:
Natural: "Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned."

How is it that you think the selection process in embryonic screening is "natural"?

So the dictionary gives our definition of the word 'natural'? I don't really see how this is relevant... surely we are talking about a concept and not the definition of a ‘word’.

Think about it, human nature is just as much natural as an animals nature. If human nature chooses to do something then how is it any less natural than a dog choosing to chase a cat?


btw: Nuclear decay appears to be random :\

Your definition of "natural selection" clearly encompasses the unnatural. This would suggest that "natural" is no longer the appropriate word for the selection process.

*"appears" is the right word.

(oops I mean "appears" is the right word in the sentence about nuclear decay).

"natural selection" is just the accepted name of the 'survival of the fittest' type evolution theory. Maybe I should have used another name to keep everyone happy...

Think about earth as an alien experiment, the super intelligent aliens mix a few chemicals in a jar and suddenly life. Slowly we evolve changing thru evolution as they watch on gleefully, after a few of their days and a few hundred million of our years ‘man’ appears. Do you think they would suddenly go, "woa, hold on here, those guys are building houses and tinkering with their genes. That is unnatural!" (after all where was the artificial interference?)

Is it really anymore unnatural than a badger building a dam... Or a virus changing a cells DNA?

Trapper, you're considering an observational frame of reference outside of our species. In this sense I agree that it is a natural process and if true objectivity is about such a frame of reference for sake of argument you might be right.

But this does nothing to mute consideration of the moral and ethical issues. Is it right for us to cause the Alpha & Epsilon type division of population?

Science does not consider issues of ethics. This is why universities have ethics committees. Its an important topic for discussion.

Hitler would have been a big supporter of genetic screening.

Hitler's favourite colour might have been blue.

shit that's my favourite colour!

well god damn I'll have to make sure my designer baby's favourite colour gene is preselected to RED.

All sorted now!

here we go now...

supposedly the first human has now been cloned...

"Interestingly someone who is labeled as special is much more likely to develop better."

Placebo effect. Along these lines I suspect also that should a failure occur its effects will be greater than otherwise.

If I had 3 boys and was planning a 4th I would def do this!
I guess it depends on your circumstances.....and It all comes down to choice! Every day our choices become larger......as they have done since the begining of time.......the choice you have is not to make one if you disagree!

hey fruity, bear in mind that choice depends on level of income...

...thus a designer baby ( one which has beauty, intelligence, athletic ability, whatever, all to order ) will be only available to the wealthy, increasing the gap of those with everything, and those with very little.

thus " parents " of such a designer baby ( can we call them the baby's natural parents? ), who before powered by their own gene mix could only pass on their exceptional wealth to advantage their natural, average child, can now pass on exceptional genes as well as exceptional wealth...giving that child one hell of a competitive boost...surely better than most of you reading this could ever hope to give your future children...do you think your future child should be forced to compete with these others on such an unlevel playing field...?

as far as testing for defective genes on your unborn child, i suspect this will become regarded as socially mandatory, for reasons of population growth.

...and i would imagine more penalties will be placed on those parents who are unwilling to test for these defective genes, then give birth to such a child, certainly placement of greater burden for costs of treatment / medical care / physiotherapy / education etc. would be passed on.

I agree with Angela's post but would give emphasis to potential disaster arising from unforeseen mistakes in determining what actually is a defective trait.

Imagine: a few generations from now a slight climate change kills off all designer babies due to the deliberate deselection of an unknowingly critical gene.

Imagine: a few generations from now a slight climate change kills off all natural babies leaving only the designer ones who survived due to a deliberately deselected gene.

Some arguments work both ways you know...

When there is no balance of opinion there is often disaster. To consider only popular opinion is to ask for that disaster.