Parliament says yes to three-person babies

[crazy canuck]

The slope is that terrible things will go down like we will only want affable, smart, tall, blond, thin blue eyed heterosexual cisgendered children.

I don't think you really have to get that extreme.  For example, what about genetic manipulation that would remove "problems" like dyslexia or other learning disabilities.  That sort of change would completely change who one of my children is and has become.  Frankly it has turned out to be a significant boon for him that he is able to think about the world differently from the rest of "normal" people.  It was also a lot of hard work on his part to adapt to the challenges it presents but he has also reaped the benefits of all that hard work. 

[garbon]

I'm going to back up out of this.

[dps]

The slope is that terrible things will go down like we will only want affable, smart, tall, blond, thin blue eyed heterosexual cisgendered children.

Isn't that already true, for the most part?  It's just that up till now, parents had to settle for what they could get.

[garbon]

The slope is that terrible things will go down like we will only want affable, smart, tall, blond, thin blue eyed heterosexual cisgendered children.

Isn't that already true, for the most part?

No?

[dps]

The slope is that terrible things will go down like we will only want affable, smart, tall, blond, thin blue eyed heterosexual cisgendered children.

Isn't that already true, for the most part?

No?

Uhm, maybe.  I'm pretty sure almost every parent wants the first 2, at least.

[garbon]

Well sure.

[DontSayBanana]

I'm just surprised that he's getting so shrill about it- usually, Sheilbh is one of the more even-keeled posters, if prone to some funny theories now and again.  Guess everybody's got a button to push.

Shiv isn't getting shrill about it at all.  

I agree.  He hasn't been able to articulate the reasons for his position yet, but he hasn't been shrill.

Fair enough.  Guess he's not the only one with articulation problems the past couple days.

[The Minsky Moment]

I get that argument that making some manipulation with the genetic material in the egg or the initial embryonic stage, some potential being that might have come into being will be modified an in effect replaced by a new potential being.  But by the same token, by not doing the manipulations, the second potential being does not come into being.  It's not clear why potential being 1 should have priority a priori in all cases.  In this particular case where the intervention is designed to eliminate a very serious risk of a fatal condition, I don't see a big ethical objection. 

[crazy canuck]

I get that argument that making some manipulation with the genetic material in the egg or the initial embryonic stage, some potential being that might have come into being will be modified an in effect replaced by a new potential being.  But by the same token, by not doing the manipulations, the second potential being does not come into being.  It's not clear why potential being 1 should have priority a priori in all cases.  In this particular case where the intervention is designed to eliminate a very serious risk of a fatal condition, I don't see a big ethical objection.

I tend to agree.  But I am also concerned that the next "bright line" will be crossed for similar reasons.  ie why should potential being 1 have priority where the intervention is to eliminate unwanted risk of adverse condition x.

Put it this way, if there was certainty that no further genetic manipulation would ever occur I would probably support this.   But I think that is naïve.

[grumbler]

I think that you have to judge cases on their merits.  You can't decide that "if I was sure this person would never commit a crime in the future, I'd acquit based on the evidence of this case.  But I think that is naive."

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and the flipside in this instance is that a woman (with said condition) will give birth to an unhealthy child that will likely die. "Thanks, mom, for avoiding modern science?"

Again I'll come to this later, because it's late and I'm tired

But the flipside is not having a biological child - assuming pre-natal screening, DNA tests and abortion are available. I don't think there's necessarily a right to have a biological child that overrides all other concerns. There are plenty of other people who because of fertility issues, sexuality or inheritable diseases have to choose another option such as surrogacy, other fertility treatment or adoption.

And there is a strong element of slippery slope - not in terms of very superficial things like hair or eye colour, but as I say my understanding is that a very similar treatment could be used for cystic fibrosis and other very serious diseases. Once we've accepted the principles of altering the genetic makeup of a person in an inheritable way, why not do it for those other conditions? We have the technology. As CC says until now there's been a very clear line that observed by scientists across the democratic, developed world which this crosses.

[garbon]

But the flipside is not having a biological child - assuming pre-natal screening, DNA tests and abortion are available. I don't think there's necessarily a right to have a biological child that overrides all other concerns. There are plenty of other people who because of fertility issues, sexuality or inheritable diseases have to choose another option such as surrogacy, other fertility treatment or adoption.

Yeah I don't understand this. I don't understand why not having a kid (or aborting one) would be preferrable to altering a kid so that it would be healthy.

And there is a strong element of slippery slope - not in terms of very superficial things like hair or eye colour, but as I say my understanding is that a very similar treatment could be used for cystic fibrosis and other very serious diseases. Once we've accepted the principles of altering the genetic makeup of a person in an inheritable way, why not do it for those other conditions? We have the technology. As CC says until now there's been a very clear line that observed by scientists across the democratic, developed world which this crosses.

Frankly, I think it would be inhumane if we had the ability to correct for CF and refused to do so.

[Sheilbh]

Frankly, I think it would be inhumane if we had the ability to correct for CF and refused to do so.

Exactly and now we're in the position of altering nuclear DNA.

Yeah I don't understand this. I don't understand why not having a kid (or aborting one) would be preferrable to altering a kid so that it would be healthy.

But my point is there are other options that would allow those parents to have a healthy kid (or a greater chance of it).

[garbon]

Exactly and now we're in the position of altering nuclear DNA.

Okay?

But my point is there are other options that would allow those parents to have a healthy kid (or a greater chance of it).

Certainly but if the technology exists, why avoid it - except for as Joan mentioned maybe kicking it a few years down the line once we've setup a few more guidelines and SOPs?

To pick up on CC's naive bit, I think that this is something that is going to happen. Energy is better spent on how we want to let it happen.

[Sheilbh]

To pick up on CC's naive bit, I think that this is something that is going to happen. Energy is better spent on how we want to let it happen.

Okay. I'd rather it happened after broad international consultation and consensus rather than the UK going alone. Other countries have considered allowing this treatment and decided not to allow it. I think maybe people assume the only possible objection to this is religious grounds and so we all want to be on the side of progress not men in dresses. My impression is that there's also a lot of disquiet among scientists internationally - the woman I linked to earlier is a bioethicist who is in no way religious for example.

My suspicion is that this is motivated more by getting that research money into the UK and keeping a successful industry as a global leader.