I really hope the slippery slope concerns are true. All hail the genetic superhumans of the future! :worthy:
An in depth diagram explaining the process can be found here.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31069173
QuoteMPs have voted in favour of the creation of babies with DNA from two women and one man, in an historic move.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people.
In a free vote in the Commons, 382 MPs were in favour and 128 against the technique that stops genetic diseases being passed from mother to child.
During the debate, ministers said the technique was "light at the end of a dark tunnel" for families.
A further vote is required in the House of Lords. It everything goes ahead then the first such baby could be born next year.
Proponents said the backing was "good news for progressive medicine" but critics say they will continue to fight against the technique that they say raises too many ethical and safety concerns.
Estimates suggest 150 three-person babies could be born each year.
Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one."
Life-saving
The method, which was developed in Newcastle, should help women like Sharon Bernardi, from Sunderland, who lost all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease.
Ms Bernadi said was "overwhelmed" by the decision.
Sharon Bernardi, who lost seven children to a genetic disease: "I'm just overwhelmed"
Mitochondria are the tiny compartments inside nearly every cell of the body that convert food into useable energy. They have their own DNA, which does not affect characteristics such as appearance.
Defective mitochondria are passed down only from the mother. They can lead to brain damage, muscle wasting, heart failure and blindness.
The technique uses a modified version of IVF to combine the DNA of the two parents with the healthy mitochondria of a donor woman.
It results in babies with 0.1% of their DNA from the second woman and is a permanent change that would be passed down through the generations.
Debate
In the Commons debate, Public Health Minister Jane Ellison told the House: "This is a bold step for parliament to take, but it is a considered and informed step.
Fiona Bruce: "There will be no going back for society"
"This is world leading science within a highly respected regulatory regime.
"And for the many families affected, this is light at the end of a very dark tunnel."
Fiona Bruce, the MP for Congleton, countered: "[This] will be passed down generations, the implications of this simply cannot be predicted.
"But one thing is for sure, once this alteration has taken place, as someone has said, once the gene is out of the bottle, once these procedures that we're asked to authorise today go ahead, there will be no going back for society."
The debate in Commons also repeatedly struggled with whether the move would constitute "genetic modification".
Robert Flello, who represents Stoke-on-Trent South, said he feared "families will be let down tragically" due to the uncertainties in the technique and that society would be "up in arms" if this was a proposal for genetically modified crops.
But Frank Dobson, a former former health secretary, argued uncertainty was "the nature of medicine and science" and that IVF would not have gone ahead if absolute certainty was needed.
'Proud'
Prof Doug Turnbull, who led the team that devised the technique at Newcastle University, said: "This is an important hurdle in the development of this new IVF technique, but we still have the debate in the House of Lords, and importantly the licensing by the HFEA [the fertility regulator].
"Finally, I think the quality of the debate today shows what a robust scientific, ethical and legislative procedure we have in the UK for IVF treatments.
"This is important and something the UK should rightly be proud of."
The Chief Medical Officer, Prof Dame Sally Davies, said the UK was at the forefront of scientific development.
Analysis
An embryo
By James Gallagher, Health editor, BBC News website
This is a hugely significant moment for the families involved and society as a whole.
The UK is about to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies with DNA from three people.
For the families affected by mitochondrial disease, this is the only option for a healthy child.
While some people argue changing mitochondria is akin to a blood transplant the implications are much wider.
This is a change that will be passed down through the generations.
It also asks questions about the future.
Some people argue we are now on a slippery slope to further genetic modification of children.
line break
Last week the Catholic and Anglican Churches in England said the idea was not safe or ethical, not least because it involved the destruction of embryos.
Other groups, including Human Genetics Alert, say the move would open the door to further genetic modification of children in the future - so-called designer babies, genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease.
Rachel Kean has a family history of mitochondrial disease and says the technique could be hugely beneficial
David King, from the campaign group, said: "Once you cross the ethical line, it is very hard not to take the next step of designer babies."
Dr Gillian Lockwood, a reproductive ethicist, told the BBC it was a "small change" in the legislation.
"The biggest problem is that this has been described as three-parent IVF. In fact it is 2.001-parent IVF," she said.
"Less than a tenth of one per cent of the genome is actually going to be affected. It is not part of what makes us genetically who we are.
"It doesn't affect height, eye colour, intelligence, musicality."
Safety concerns
A review by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, as well as a public consultation by the fertility regulator, argued the creation of three-person babies was ethical.
Three scientific reviews by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) suggest the technique is "not unsafe".
Yet some scientists argue those reviews were flawed.
Dr Ted Morrow, from the University of Sussex, believes there are still uncertainties.
"I have some concerns about the safety, I'm really not happy that the reviews have been as exemplary as other people think they are."
Prof Lisa Jardine, former chair of the HFEA, said the safety issue was a "red herring".
"All of those issues have been investigated," she said. "The scientific committees have said there is no evidence this procedure is unsafe but like all good scientists, they say it will require careful progress."
Bishop of Swindon Dr Lee Rayfield said this procedure was a "massive step" and some of his colleagues were concerned about how it was going to be regulated once approved.
"If the safeguards are there, the Church of England will be behind this," he added.
Rachel Kean, whose aunt died from mitochondrial disease, told BBC Breakfast that a yes vote would "prevent some of the cruellest and most devastating diseases, not just for the next generation but generations after".
She said there had been an "unprecedented" amount of scrutiny into the regulation and a lot of misinformation about "designer babies".
The HFEA is expected to give Newcastle a licence to carry out the procedure.
The first attempt could take place this year, which could lead to the first birth in 2016.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2015, 07:13:24 PM
I really hope the slippery slope concerns are true. All hail the genetic superhumans of the future! :worthy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fmemoryalpha%2Fimages%2F7%2F72%2FKhan_Noonien_Singh%2C_2267.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20090604045431%26amp%3Bpath-prefix%3Den&hash=7811dd9394eb485effbea98ff9091b1bf616985c)
Dreamy! :wub:
QuoteThe debate in Commons also repeatedly struggled with whether the move would constitute "genetic modification".
Why? Is the English and Welsh House of Commons as stupid as our own legislature? Of course it's not "genetic modification." The nuclear DNA is left untouched.
It's a good thing, but it's a baby step--barely a step at all--toward creating better humans.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 03, 2015, 07:24:17 PM
QuoteThe debate in Commons also repeatedly struggled with whether the move would constitute "genetic modification".
Why? Is the English and Welsh House of Commons as stupid as our own legislature? Of course it's not "genetic modification." The nuclear DNA is left untouched.
It's a good thing, but it's a baby step--barely a step at all--toward creating better humans.
It's nothing of the sort, creating better humans is a conscious act of by the person and/or his parents/guardians/society.
What the hell kind of hippie nonsense are you talking about?
Khan: tainted
This thread would have been so much better if it said "three-headed babies"
Quote from: Josephus on February 03, 2015, 08:40:43 PM
This thread would have been so much better if it said "three-headed babies"
Then it would be full of Tim-bashing for misunderstanding the article. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 03, 2015, 09:40:45 PM
Quote from: Josephus on February 03, 2015, 08:40:43 PM
This thread would have been so much better if it said "three-headed babies"
Then it would be full of Tim-bashing for misunderstanding the article. :hmm:
So better?
Possibly.
I'm uneasy about this.
Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.
Quote from: Josephus on February 03, 2015, 08:40:43 PM
This thread would have been so much better if it said "three-headed babies"
I thought that is why Tim was in favour.
Though I liked this from one political reporter:
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 12h 12 hours ago
RiposteOfTheDay. Evangelical Tory MP in No lobby: "I'm voting for Jesus." 2nd Tory MP in Aye lobby: "But didn't He have three parents?"
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.
Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.
Really? It seems to me like people are bending over backward to make this more "ethically difficult" than it actually is, at least provided somebody isn't being unethical already by fibbing about the mechanics of this process. It doesn't affect enough change to modify genetic identifiers, so this process is not just more useful for therapeutic purposes; it's
only useful for therapeutic purposes. Pending bizarre feedback from future safety studies, calling this "ethically difficult" is like calling the application of penicillin "ethically difficult."
I do see the potential for it being prone to abuse, granted, but only covered by well-established patterns of unethical behavior, especially charlatanism in the sense of doctors or donors profiting by marketing the procedure as a necessary maintenance (in the same vein as colonic cleanses or the ever-vague "detox").
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:36:26 PM
Though I liked this from one political reporter:
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 12h 12 hours ago
RiposteOfTheDay. Evangelical Tory MP in No lobby: "I'm voting for Jesus." 2nd Tory MP in Aye lobby: "But didn't He have three parents?"
:lol:
Good one indeed. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.
Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.
Sounds like something a Green would say.
I am happy to hear common sense prevailed for a change.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.
Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.
How can it be ethically difficult? Are you not ok with egg donors for fertility treatments? This is simply an advancement on that, for medical purposes.
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2015, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.
Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.
How can it be ethically difficult? Are you not ok with egg donors for fertility treatments? This is simply an advancement on that, for medical purposes.
If the issue had been a goddamned tomato, cities would have burned.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 06:07:45 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2015, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.
Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.
How can it be ethically difficult? Are you not ok with egg donors for fertility treatments? This is simply an advancement on that, for medical purposes.
If the issue had been a goddamned tomato, cities would have burned.
This is not even remotely like GMOs. No DNA is actually altered with this procedure.
You're only introducing a third party's from the host.
It sounds worse than what it really is.
This isn't surrogate parenting, where somebody's carrying around someone else's future snot-nosed little shit; this introduces genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level. The issue at hand may be addressing a specific procedure, but it's really the future of prenatal genetic modification Parliament just gave the green light for.
That being said, it's going to do wonders for the UK's genetics industry.
So in the future everyone will be bright and beautiful. Why's that a problem?
Because that would suck.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 06:52:54 AM
This isn't surrogate parenting, where somebody's carrying around someone else's future snot-nosed little shit; this introduces genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level. The issue at hand may be addressing a specific procedure, but it's really the future of prenatal genetic modification Parliament just gave the green light for.
That being said, it's going to do wonders for the UK's genetics industry.
Without those interventions at the mitochondrial level these hypothetical babies wouldn't be able to be born and/or live healthy lives. There's a host of genetic diseases that can be prevented this way, this is not genetic engineering for the purpose of making everyone blonde and blue eyed.
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2015, 08:19:52 AM
Without those interventions at the mitochondrial level these hypothetical babies wouldn't be able to be born and/or live healthy lives. There's a host of genetic diseases that can be prevented this way, this is not genetic engineering for the purpose of making everyone blonde and blue eyed.
Not now in 2015, but 2075 may be a different story. That's why genetic patenting is going on now.
Some mitochondrial diseases will be mitigated, not all of them. But it's all genies and bottles, anyway. It happened with the atom, it will happen with DNA.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 06:52:54 AM
This isn't surrogate parenting, where somebody's carrying around someone else's future snot-nosed little shit; this introduces genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level. The issue at hand may be addressing a specific procedure, but it's really the future of prenatal genetic modification Parliament just gave the green light for.
What fears do you have for "genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level?" What is the worst that could happen?
Who cares about mitochondrial DNS? Ain't that just basically the power plant for the cell proper? We inherit it from our mother "unrandomised" anyways, so its not like they are drastically decreasing genetic variaty
Quote from: grumbler on February 04, 2015, 08:56:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 06:52:54 AM
This isn't surrogate parenting, where somebody's carrying around someone else's future snot-nosed little shit; this introduces genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level. The issue at hand may be addressing a specific procedure, but it's really the future of prenatal genetic modification Parliament just gave the green light for.
What fears do you have for "genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level?" What is the worst that could happen?
Who said anything about fear? Why do you hate ethics?
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2015, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.
Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.
How can it be ethically difficult? Are you not ok with egg donors for fertility treatments? This is simply an advancement on that, for medical purposes.
I agree with this (pdf) piece on the problems and the motivation. The UK is doing this because we want to keep our position as a 'world leader' in this type of research rather than stay within the international consensus:
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.13358%21/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/499127a.pdf
And here:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/22/three-person-ivf-mitochondria-dna
From everything I've read we're only 6 years into trials on primates, of which there have been few, and we're already authorising it for humans - uniquely in the world.
Ethically I think there are problems with this treatment because it's inheritable. So the issues of potential problems arising from it don't affect just one generation which is bad enough. That also raises the issue of consent, it's present in all genetic treatments that the child can't consent to genetic alterations but in this case the child and their children can't. For me that is a big line to cross, when no other country does it and especially to do so quite so nonchalantly with 90 minutes of debate.
They're also carving out an exception to the UK's rule that egg and sperm donors can't be an anonymous which is, I think, problematic. I support the principle that a person who was born through IVF or other treatments like that have a right to know who the egg and sperm donors were. I don't think there should be an exemption here.
My understanding is also that the mitochondria aren't just 'batteries' but our knowledge of what they do and their role is actually growing and they're more important than previously thought.
And I think the language that's been used is slippery. This isn't a transfer it's a replacement and it's not a cure. People who have these conditions will continue to suffer, it's a genetic treatment that will alter a future person.
All in all if this were any industry but the biomedical, or if it was GSK carrying out the research there'd be a lot more suspicion from people who are currently just cheering this on.
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 09:09:37 AM
Who cares about mitochondrial DNS? Ain't that just basically the power plant for the cell proper? We inherit it from our mother "unrandomised" anyways, so its not like they are drastically decreasing genetic variaty
Nope:
http://www.cell-symposia-mitochondria-2015.com/
QuoteMitochondria perform diverse, yet interconnected cellular functions and are dynamically regulated by complex signaling pathways. Interest in this fascinating organelle has recently undergone a renaissance due to a series of discoveries revealing that mitochondrial function goes beyond the generation of molecular fuel. Mitochondria also play a central role in thermogenesis and cell death and influence an organism's physiology, as well as its pathology. The driving forces behind these discoveries have been in the development of animal models, systems-based approaches, and dynamic imaging techniques and are critical in unravelling the significance and complexity of mitochondrial behavior.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329870.600-possessed-the-powerful-aliens-that-lurk-within-you.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 09:23:19 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 09:09:37 AM
Who cares about mitochondrial DNS? Ain't that just basically the power plant for the cell proper? We inherit it from our mother "unrandomised" anyways, so its not like they are drastically decreasing genetic variaty
Nope:
http://www.cell-symposia-mitochondria-2015.com/
QuoteMitochondria perform diverse, yet interconnected cellular functions and are dynamically regulated by complex signaling pathways. Interest in this fascinating organelle has recently undergone a renaissance due to a series of discoveries revealing that mitochondrial function goes beyond the generation of molecular fuel. Mitochondria also play a central role in thermogenesis and cell death and influence an organism's physiology, as well as its pathology. The driving forces behind these discoveries have been in the development of animal models, systems-based approaches, and dynamic imaging techniques and are critical in unravelling the significance and complexity of mitochondrial behavior.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329870.600-possessed-the-powerful-aliens-that-lurk-within-you.html
Thanks, it shows my biology studies were quite a while ago. :)
Still, it is inherited from our mothers and is not "randomised" like "regular" DNA, so I am still not seeing any dangers with this procedure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 09:18:33 AM
So the issues of potential problems arising from it don't affect just one generation which is bad enough. That also raises the issue of consent, it's present in all genetic treatments that the child can't consent to genetic alterations but in this case the child and their children can't.
So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 09:18:33 AM
So the issues of potential problems arising from it don't affect just one generation which is bad enough. That also raises the issue of consent, it's present in all genetic treatments that the child can't consent to genetic alterations but in this case the child and their children can't.
So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.
Never figured you for one of those personhood amendment types.
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.
Yep. It's an ethical problem with all sorts of issues, but I think more so with genetics and even more with inheritable genetic changes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 09:18:33 AM
So the issues of potential problems arising from it don't affect just one generation which is bad enough. That also raises the issue of consent, it's present in all genetic treatments that the child can't consent to genetic alterations but in this case the child and their children can't.
So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.
Never figured you for one of those personhood amendment types.
I'm not. I don't see it as an ethical problem as consent seems like it has been historically irrelevant in all those situations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.
Yep. It's an ethical problem with all sorts of issues, but I think more so with genetics and even more with inheritable genetic changes.
"Not interfering" with "natural" genetics, when taken to its (kind of logical) extreme is the basis for the must cruel fascism, like euthanising mentally challenged people or not helping people with inherited disabilities/problems.
Extreme customisation of the DNAs of embryos I guess could result in long term risks to the species, but this procedure is not even close to doing that, and even if we get to the point where the majority of a country's citizens will be able to cherry pick the genes of their offspring (which has to be hundreds if not thousands of years from now), we will still have 15 other billion people in poorer parts of the world happy to take over once a new sickness eradicates the Cloned Blond People Nation.
We CANNOT let fear of the new stop us from helping those who need it.
For all the misfortune and suffering the 20th century caused, its only redeeming quality is the unparalelled technological advance which has been translating into making people healthier and giving them better chances at life. This process must be maintained and made quicker, not slowed down or stopped because "its not how we used to do things".
There are alternatives such as genetic screening, abortion, IVF treatment. I don't think there's necessarily a right to have a baby that's biologically yours.
I also don't think the UK should necessarily be a rogue state in biomedical research on treatments that have only been tested in primates in the past six years. It seems to me longer time would be better and broader support from the global scientific community would be useful.
And there are legitimate safety concerns from the lack of testing done so far:
QuoteEvolutionary theory predicts a mismatch between the DNA in the donor's mitochondria and the mother's nuclear DNA, with potentially serious and unpredictable consequences for any embryo created using MR, an issue my colleagues and I wrote about last year. When MR is carried out experimentally, it has been shown to alter the metabolism and cognitive ability of mice. In other species it results in male sterility, reduced survival, accelerated ageing and changes the expression of many hundreds of genes. But there is a lack of data from species more closely related to humans – a gap in our knowledge that we felt would be wise to fill before proceeding to clinical trials.
The problem of mismatching arises because of the peculiar way mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited through mothers only, giving an opportunity every generation for the mtDNA and some of her nuclear DNA to be passed on together. This allows natural selection, nature's quality control mechanism, to weed out combinations of interacting mitochondrial and nuclear DNA that are not compatible with one another. Over long evolutionary timescales within populations, the two genomes will become matched or "coadapted" to one another. MR breaks these coadapted genomes apart, giving rise to a range of damaging effects. The particular design of the experiments needed to detect mismatching is especially important. They usually involve manipulating several distinct mitochondrial types and making observations in many individuals. Without these features the ability to detect mismatching is poor. So while demonstrations that MR is technically feasible (with the production of four macaques in 2009), it is not sufficient to rule out the possibility that the kinds of effects seen in other species will not be found in primates or humans.
Given that research is actually suggesting new and more important roles for mitochnodria and there's been a very short space of primate testing for an inheritable genetic alteration I think it'd be best to err on the side of caution and not produce children - who must be monitored all the lives and whose children must be monitored - for the sake of being a 'world leader' in biomedical research. Especially if any of those defects in other species actually appear - and we don't know because we've not given enough time to continue to test on primates before we've approved it for human tests.
Quote
Given that research is actually suggesting new and more important roles for mitochnodria and there's been a very short space of primate testing for an inheritable genetic alteration I think it'd be best to err on the side of caution and not produce children - who must be monitored all the lives and whose children must be monitored - for the sake of being a 'world leader' in biomedical research. Especially if any of those defects in other species actually appear - and we don't know because we've not given enough time to continue to test on primates before we've approved it for human tests.
I understand your position, it might be valid, but I disagree. The potential benefits of advancing genetic engineering are limitless in making this a better world. And I doubt the current vast knowledge of medicine and treating people of sickness and injuries came about without experimentation and mistakes made along the way, yet we keep it improving and benefiting the species.
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 10:10:01 AM
Quote
Given that research is actually suggesting new and more important roles for mitochnodria and there's been a very short space of primate testing for an inheritable genetic alteration I think it'd be best to err on the side of caution and not produce children - who must be monitored all the lives and whose children must be monitored - for the sake of being a 'world leader' in biomedical research. Especially if any of those defects in other species actually appear - and we don't know because we've not given enough time to continue to test on primates before we've approved it for human tests.
I understand your position, it might be valid, but I disagree. The potential benefits of advancing genetic engineering are limitless in making this a better world. And I doubt the current vast knowledge of medicine and treating people of sickness and injuries came about without experimentation and mistakes made along the way, yet we keep it improving and benefiting the species.
No one is suggesting they stop the research. They just don't want to use the procedure on humans until more research is done, which I can't disagree with when talking about an inheritable procedure.
It seems a very small step from saying we should swap out the mitochondria of a mother with a donor for the health of the child to saying we should begin to alter the DNA for the health of a child. The decision has the feel of a very bright line being crossed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2015, 11:35:47 AM
It seems a very small step from saying we should swap out the mitochondria of a mother with a donor for the health of the child to saying we should begin to alter the DNA for the health of a child. The decision has the feel of a very bright line being crossed.
The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"
Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 11:43:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"
Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.
You are old so you have a pass for fearing technological advance, ergo I am not debating this with you :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 10:02:30 AM
There are alternatives such as genetic screening, abortion, IVF treatment. I don't think there's necessarily a right to have a baby that's biologically yours.
You are the last person I'd expect to drop the civil union argument- your argument is, after all, akin to saying that gays have no right to marriage because they have a functional equivalent in civil unions. IVF and surrogacy are functionally equivalent, but they are not biological reproduction (and I couldn't disagree more strongly about the right to a genetic lineage).
No identifiable traits are gained from the third parent, BTW, so for the umpteenth time, your argument about "modification" is a complete and total red herring. There is an ethical issue at hand here, yes, but you've been dancing around it- the issue is actually how we define a "parent." If a collective pool of traits from which we obtain a new individual is your line, then no, the third party is not a parent, neither biologically nor socially.
Do you also believe organ transplant recipients have a right to track down their respective donors? Or that the transplant somehow turns the recipient into a chimera of themselves and the donor? Because that's the kind of absolutism you seem to be pushing in this thread.
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 11:51:27 AM
You are old so you have a pass for fearing technological advance, ergo I am not debating this with you :P
I may not have done it very long, but I picked up a couple things about the post-doctoral genetic engineering experimental environment last year. mtDNA is a bit more than a "battery", beet boy. :P
So the objections seem to be:
1) safety/need more time - possible but that just means revisiting a couple years from now
2) Lack of consent from a being not yet existence that absent the procedure will never come into existence. This doesn't seem that compelling.
3). Slippery slope
4) just doesn't seem right somehow.
Am I missing anything?
5) Jesus is against it...possibly hypocritically.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 11:43:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"
Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.
Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 11:43:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"
Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.
Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity? :huh:
Because science is spooky.
I dont see a problem with this.
For the record, this particular technique is a variation of a similar previous one that was already used for human reproduction in the US back in 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1312708.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1312708.stm)
We should return to a simpler time. Subsistence farming is where it's at. Science is evil.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2015, 07:13:24 PM
I really hope the slippery slope concerns are true. All hail the genetic superhumans of the future! :worthy:
What valid slippery slope concerns are there that havent been tainted by people watching/reading too much Sci-fi books or put forward by religious freaks and their moon gods.
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 11:43:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"
Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.
Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity? :huh:
Why are you asking me a question when I'm goofing on Tamas' silly ass "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die" comment?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 03, 2015, 07:24:17 PM
QuoteThe debate in Commons also repeatedly struggled with whether the move would constitute "genetic modification".
Why? Is the English and Welsh House of Commons as stupid as our own legislature? Of course it's not "genetic modification." The nuclear DNA is left untouched.
It's a good thing, but it's a baby step--barely a step at all--toward creating better humans.
We don't need to create better humans.
I am already a better human.
What we need is a global free market economy so we can develop technology, and nanotechnology in specific, to its fullest potential.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2015, 12:03:32 PM
So the objections seem to be:
1) safety/need more time - possible but that just means revisiting a couple years from now
2) Lack of consent from a being not yet existence that absent the procedure will never come into existence. This doesn't seem that compelling.
3). Slippery slope
4) just doesn't seem right somehow.
Am I missing anything?
All I mentioned was, had the subject of the discussion been a genetically modified tomato* instead, England would burn over the ethical and moral discourse regarding the potential ramifications of the future of the human race. Because Europeans are kinda goofy that way.
*As opposed to Tamas, a genetically unmodified tomato.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 12:36:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 11:43:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"
Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.
Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity? :huh:
Why are you asking me a question when I'm goofing on Tamas' silly ass "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die" comment?
Sorry, I've been confused as to your position throughout the tread. -_-
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 12:49:01 PM
Sorry, I've been confused as to your position throughout the tread. -_-
Actually, his position has pretty consistently been "Euros are goofs who care more about raising tomatos than babies." Nobody said his position had to be salient to the topic. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.
Yep. It's an ethical problem with all sorts of issues, but I think more so with genetics and even more with inheritable genetic changes.
I still have no idea what the ethical issue is. I guess it is one of those things that is an ethical issue by definition. I'm completely unconcerned about those, as I don't accept that definition.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:36:26 PM
Though I liked this from one political reporter:
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 12h 12 hours ago
RiposteOfTheDay. Evangelical Tory MP in No lobby: "I'm voting for Jesus." 2nd Tory MP in Aye lobby: "But didn't He have three parents?"
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on February 04, 2015, 01:31:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.
Yep. It's an ethical problem with all sorts of issues, but I think more so with genetics and even more with inheritable genetic changes.
I still have no idea what the ethical issue is. I guess it is one of those things that is an ethical issue by definition. I'm completely unconcerned about those, as I don't accept that definition.
What ethical issues or concerns? I believe this has been asked several times in this thread.
Sheilbh said it makes him uncomfortable, so it's an ethical issue. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on February 04, 2015, 01:31:54 PM
I still have no idea what the ethical issue is. I guess it is one of those things that is an ethical issue by definition. I'm completely unconcerned about those, as I don't accept that definition.
Apparently it's an ethical issue because:
1) The baby's genetic identity might be modified. But not really, since it's been established that's not a possible outcome of this procedure.
2) The unborn baby isn't in a position to provide consent for the nonexistent changes being made to its person.
3) Not enough safety studies.
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2015, 12:27:07 PM
Science is evil.
Agreed. So, you gonna quit your job or what?
Quote from: Martinus on February 04, 2015, 04:05:24 PM
Sheilbh said it makes him uncomfortable, so it's an ethical issue. ;)
I'll come back to this thread tomorrow.
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns. This is germline gene therapy. Even if you support it absolutely and would even support similar therapy (which I believe theoretically could be done) to treat cystic fibrosis, I don't see how you can not treat that as activating ethical concerns. You can say they're outweighed by the benefit but they exist and I doubt they've been explored in 90 minutes.
In addition there are questions of parenthood and the rights of the child which I don't think can just be dismissed. Some have raised the issue that future mitochondrial replacement treatments being limited to creating boys so any possible adverse effects won't be passed on which raises a whole other set of concerns.
I'm not necessarily entirely opposed, but I'm not sure it's clear that it's fully safe given the response of other species. I don't think the UK should do this alone, I think there needs to be a broader international discussion and consensus which would include those ethical questions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 07:53:37 PM
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.
If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 07:53:37 PM
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.
If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence. :lol:
Except you are preventing that person from coming into existence. The person who is coming into existence is something different.
I think there are ethical issues with abortion. In general we've tried to create a pragmatic framework for it, which has broad public support.
But I find abortion difficult. The only positions that I find mentally acceptable are the extremes, but the one I support is the pragmatic framework that we currently have plus or minus a few weeks.
However the difference surely is pre-meditation.
Edit: And as CC says autonomy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2015, 08:02:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 07:53:37 PM
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.
If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence. :lol:
Except you are preventing that person from coming into existence. The person who is coming into existence is something different.
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?"
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 07:53:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 04, 2015, 04:05:24 PM
Sheilbh said it makes him uncomfortable, so it's an ethical issue. ;)
I'll come back to this thread tomorrow.
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns. This is germline gene therapy. Even if you support it absolutely and would even support similar therapy (which I believe theoretically could be done) to treat cystic fibrosis, I don't see how you can not treat that as activating ethical concerns. You can say they're outweighed by the benefit but they exist and I doubt they've been explored in 90 minutes.
In addition there are questions of parenthood and the rights of the child which I don't think can just be dismissed. Some have raised the issue that future mitochondrial replacement treatments being limited to creating boys so any possible adverse effects won't be passed on which raises a whole other set of concerns.
I'm not necessarily entirely opposed, but I'm not sure it's clear that it's fully safe given the response of other species. I don't think the UK should do this alone, I think there needs to be a broader international discussion and consensus which would include those ethical questions.
No one chooses which sperm out of millions inseminates the egg that becomes "them," and yet this determines the genetic makeup of the person and their descendents. Is this also an ethical concern for you?
I think that this is a made-up dilemma. Parliament could debate 90 hours and be no better-informed than after 90 minutes.
Quote from: grumbler on February 04, 2015, 08:22:32 PMParliament could debate 90 hours and be no better-informed than after 90 minutes.
But we might be.
We've actually been pretty well informed on this. Sheilbh's taking issue with the alteration of DNA, and is absolutely refusing to acknowledge that mitochondrial DNA is a completely separate and distinct set of DNA. He keeps reminding us that it "alters[sic] a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up" which is disingenuous, at best. Only the mitochondria would be altered.
It sounds like Sheilbh's advocating the position that all parts of a human are completely interconnected and thus sacrosanct, when it just isn't true, but he won't admit that the alternate position exists. Gene therapy specifically for the mitochondria more closely resembles maintenance on the gut bacteria than an abortion.
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 05, 2015, 08:21:02 AM
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. :mellow: What's been shrill has been the pile-up, but that's just Languish herd dynamics at play.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 05, 2015, 08:21:02 AM
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. :mellow:
I agree. He hasn't been able to articulate the reasons for his position yet, but he hasn't been shrill.
Until scientists figure out a way to get a three-person baby out of a threesome, I refuse to find this important.
Why can't science be useful for once? :P
Quote from: Malthus on February 05, 2015, 11:49:54 AM
Until scientists figure out a way to get a three-person baby out of a threesome, I refuse to find this important.
Why can't science be useful for once? :P
Why would you want to ruin a threesome with pregnancy? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2015, 08:02:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 07:53:37 PM
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.
If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence. :lol:
Except you are preventing that person from coming into existence. The person who is coming into existence is something different.
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?"
Agreed. But lets not pretend that something fundamental isn't being changed here.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 05, 2015, 11:49:54 AM
Until scientists figure out a way to get a three-person baby out of a threesome, I refuse to find this important.
Why can't science be useful for once? :P
Why would you want to ruin a threesome with pregnancy? :huh:
Some folks actually
want babies, you know. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on February 05, 2015, 11:56:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 05, 2015, 11:49:54 AM
Until scientists figure out a way to get a three-person baby out of a threesome, I refuse to find this important.
Why can't science be useful for once? :P
Why would you want to ruin a threesome with pregnancy? :huh:
Some folks actually want babies, you know. :lol:
As a consequence of having a threesome? WTF? Maybe you do it wrong in Canada?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2015, 11:54:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
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?"
Agreed. But lets not pretend that something fundamental isn't being changed here.
It's much more important to mock, ridicule and dismiss those that do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2015, 08:02:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 07:53:37 PM
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.
If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence. :lol:
Except you are preventing that person from coming into existence. The person who is coming into existence is something different.
No. The mitochondrion has its own DNA independent of the cell's, and that DNA is inherited unchanged from your mother. There is zero change in the person's genetic makeup.
Quote from: Tamas on February 05, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2015, 08:02:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2015, 07:53:37 PM
But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.
If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence. :lol:
Except you are preventing that person from coming into existence. The person who is coming into existence is something different.
No. The mitochondrion has its own DNA independent of the cell's, and that DNA is inherited unchanged from your mother. There is zero change in the person's genetic makeup.
What you are really saying is there is zero change to the DNA of the nucleus. Which, at least as far as our limited knowledge of how the mitochondondria interacts with the nucleus takes us, is correct. But you have to admit that at the very least new mitochondria DNA is being swapped in. That is the whole point of doing the procedure. No one can tell us with any certainty what long term affects that might have. And certainly no one can deny that the child who is eventually born will be different than the child who would otherwise have been born.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2015, 03:51:08 PM
And certainly no one can deny that the child who is eventually born will be different than the child who would otherwise have been born.
Well, of course. The whole point was that you wouldn't end up with a child who would die of an inherited disease.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2015, 03:51:08 PM
And certainly no one can deny that the child who is eventually born will be different than the child who would otherwise have been born.
Well, of course. The whole point was that you wouldn't end up with a child who would die of an inherited disease.
It would be helpful if you paid attention to whom I am responding and not just repeat the argument they have not actually conceded. Tamas takes the view nothing changes at all. You at least have the good sense to admit that something is changed but your argument is that the change is for the better.
But on that logic there are a lot of other genetic changes that one could argue should also be permitted.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2015, 04:13:56 PM
But on that logic there are a lot of other genetic changes that one could argue should also be permitted.
Sorry, I can't hear you - I've already slid right down the slope. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2015, 04:13:56 PM
But on that logic there are a lot of other genetic changes that one could argue should also be permitted.
Sorry, I can't hear you - I've already slid right down the slope. :(
It would be a slippery slope argument if no changes were actually being made now. You have already conceded that changes are being made. My argument is that the Brits have already crossed a bright line. Not that we are on the slope toward crossing it.
The slope is that terrible things will go down like we will only want affable, smart, tall, blond, thin blue eyed heterosexual cisgendered children.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
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.
I'm going to back up out of this.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2015, 05:33:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 05:35:30 PM
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2015, 05:33:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
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.
Well sure.
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2015, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 05, 2015, 08:21:02 AM
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. :mellow:
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. :blush:
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2015, 07:22:06 PM
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.
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."
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
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 :P
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2015, 09:02:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2015, 09:02:11 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 09:09:17 PM
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.
QuoteYeah 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).
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2015, 09:11:29 PM
Exactly and now we're in the position of altering nuclear DNA.
Okay?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2015, 09:11:29 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 09:14:34 PM
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.
So your objection is really that you question the motivation in allowing this to go forwards now?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2015, 09:02:11 PM
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.
Just curious: are you aware that a slippery slope argument is, by definition, a logical fallacy?
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2015, 09:35:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2015, 09:02:11 PM
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.
Just curious: are you aware that a slippery slope argument is, by definition, a logical fallacy?
Well isn't there something to be said regarding a minor step that logically leads to a further step? I don't know that this is the inciting step but certainly if we start tinkering with Dna, I think we will then progress to wanting to prevent physical disabilities which is something that CC noted as a negative.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2015, 09:21:06 PM
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.
This type of treatment has been carried out in the US for 15 years. It hasn't been without controversy, but the controversy isn't over safety or effectiveness, but whether the human germline should be altered, even with the best intentions and results.
My view is that the human germline is changed each time an egg is fertilized. Provided care is taken to avoid known mismatches, I don't think that this technique is really producing anything new or newly risky.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 09:40:06 PM
Well isn't there something to be said regarding a minor step that logically leads to a further step? I don't know that this is the inciting step but certainly if we start tinkering with Dna, I think we will then progress to wanting to prevent physical disabilities which is something that CC noted as a negative.
That's not a slippery slope, though. So long as each case is judged on its merits, there is no inevitability to the process. I understand that Sheilbh thinks that the scientists involved are not acting in good faith, but that's an argument independent of the wisdom of this type of procedure.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi717.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww173%2Fprestonjjrtr%2FSmileys%2FSmiley31-1.gif&hash=b03cd54708e82bcc1a0b43ab42b9b22d88022fb8)
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2015, 09:44:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 09:40:06 PM
Well isn't there something to be said regarding a minor step that logically leads to a further step? I don't know that this is the inciting step but certainly if we start tinkering with Dna, I think we will then progress to wanting to prevent physical disabilities which is something that CC noted as a negative.
That's not a slippery slope, though. So long as each case is judged on its merits, there is no inevitability to the process. I understand that Sheilbh thinks that the scientists involved are not acting in good faith, but that's an argument independent of the wisdom of this type of procedure.
Yeah, I guess that's fair. It all sort of seems like it'll be inevitably (the curing of disabilities I mean) but you are right that it doesn't necessarily have to shake out that way / it'll be decided at each of those times and not out of any of these prelim decisions.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 05, 2015, 11:49:54 AM
Until scientists figure out a way to get a three-person baby out of a threesome, I refuse to find this important.
Why can't science be useful for once? :P
Why would you want to ruin a threesome with pregnancy? :huh:
Pregnancy play? Maybe.
MY CUM CAN BEAT YOUR CUM ANY DAY OF THE WEEK
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
The slope is that terrible things will go down like we will only want affable, smart, tall, blond, thin blue eyed heterosexual cisgendered children.
No we wouldn't. We want affable, dusky bisexual cisgendered children who are good at math and can endogenously produce enough vitamin D despite their melanin concentration. Eye and hair color can be left to parental preference.
I want orcs.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2015, 03:33:08 AM
No we wouldn't. We want affable, dusky bisexual cisgendered children who are good at math and can endogenously produce enough vitamin D despite their melanin concentration. Eye and hair color can be left to parental preference.
Who is this "we"?