A New Eugenics?

"This is the first step on the road that will lead to the nightmare of designer babies and a new eugenics. The HFEA is right to say that the creation and legalisation of GM embryos raises ‘large ethical and public interest issues’ but neglects to mention that these have not been debated at all."

Source


This article relates to what is actually the first documented genetic modification of a human embryo.

Led by Nikica Zaninovic, researchers at Cornell University added a green fluorescent protein to an embryo left over from assisted reproduction. They destroyed the embryo five days later. It is believed to be the first documented genetic modification of a human embryo.

If the embryos were allowed to develop, genetic modifications — which would be permanent and passed to future generations — might prevent disease. Modifications might also be used for other reasons — physical appearance, intellectual prowess, personality — though the necessary science remains hypothetical at this point. Developing such techniques would necessarily entail trial-and-error and risk-taking with human life.

In other words in order to develop the modifications needed for a "perfect child", many more experiments will need to be competed.

It would involved the death of many more embryos.

a reply to: Kashai

This is the kind of technology that needs to be debated in the public realm.

The technological gap that exists between those at the forefront this evolution and the dumbed down masses is a situation that has been meticulously created by those in control.

When people at the top see you as chattel, their is no end to the amount of suffering they will put you through, one simply needs to look at the disgusting concentrated feeding operations of our meat industries to see this.

Then take a look at the feed they give the masses and the resulting decline in health we see all across the board!

Hey if this goes forward then there actually will be proven intelligent design. HAHAHA

a reply to: elementalgrove


People are living twice as long as the used to 100 years ago so what is the purpose of claiming a decline exists?


On the positive end this technology could actually extend life.

On the negative side in order to perfect it. It would probably result in the deaths of 100,000+ embryos, in order to figure out exactly how to do that.

Green fluorescence? This is some sick s***.

Science has left ethics in the dust.

Edit: Who's going to pay the Social Security for all the 120-year-olds? This is a STUPID IDEA.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: elementalgrove


People are living twice as long as the used to 100 years ago so what is the purpose of claiming a decline exists?


On the positive end this technology could actually extend life.

On the negative side in order to perfect it. It would probably result in the deaths of 100,000+ embryos, in order to figure out exactly how to do that.

I am not speaking of the length of life, I am speaking of the quality of life during the time spent alive and the profitability of maintaining a less then desired level of health.

It may extend life, but in the wrong hands it can also lead to an oppressive level of existence for say "undesirables", the likes of which we have never seen.

a reply to: Kashai

It is my understanding, that the overwhelming majority of research being done into gene manupulation, is being done in order to figure out how to remove certain hereditary diseases from our genetic toolkit. I am all for that. One hundred and ten percent. There are few things as cruel as those diseases which cannot be addressed in the merest fashion, once conception has occurred. The psychological toll on families whose members suffer these diseases cannot be overlooked, or trumped, by pitchfork wielding townsfolk, who cast about for something to wreck, unsure whether to fight, run, or merely wet themselves in fear of what they do not understand.

HOWEVER, there must be clear lines drawn, I believe, between actual debilitating and lethal hereditary illnesses, and simple genetic traits. The odd bit of short sightedness, or long sightedness, a tendency to run to fat more easily, matters of appearance, or any other largely superficial issue, must never be even poked at by this research.

The simple fact of the matter is, that the diseases which take babies from their mothers and fathers, and steal mothers and fathers from their children, should be assaulted with all the tools we can muster, no matter how arcane they might appear to the layperson. But the intrinsic palate from which we are all painted onto the canvas of the world, should not be altered more than is necessary to reduce the abject suffering that sudden death, prolonged and debilitating illness cause to affected individuals and their families.

No, a parent may not choose the attributes of their child. No, a scientist may not try to create an immortal.

When I sit with friends and play cards, we remove the jokers from the deck, normally speaking. Why? Because in a game where those jokers have no place, their presence in ones hand takes one out of the game, or means the whole game has to start again. Removing ALS from the genetic history of our species would not be wrong. Removing butt ugliness and a squint though? Hubris, foolishness, and as you rightly said, Eugenics, which is to be frowned upon.

Remember though, that eugenics is very particular as a concept. It's advocates like to force like candidates into close proximity in order that they mate and produce "pure" young. This actually increases the likelihood of errors finding their way into the gene code. Diversity is what keeps a species from falling on its metaphorical rump, so for all that we should support the fight against hereditary disease, we must always fight for our diversity as a species at the very same time.

a reply to: elementalgrove


As I have explained after perhaps 100,000+ trials a pregnant woman prior to her first trimester can get a shot. What is in the injection would free your child from developing any known disease, known to man today.

It could also allow for your child to be superior physically as well as intellectually to any child born on average today.

The down side is that in order to make this possible 100,000+ human embryos will have to be experimented upon and killed.

This will be necessary in order to figure out exactly how to do that.

Pretty much sums it up.

We are messing with things that we ought not...

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Kashai

This is the kind of technology that needs to be debated in the public realm.

This.

Science has an ethical responsibility to include any population effected by their tinkering. I was listening to an NPR show discussing some genetic modification proposed on mosquitos that would help put an end to them as a vector for malaria. The panel discussing this matter was at the forefront of the genetic work being done to achieve this, and was going into great detail about their obligation to include all of Africa and most of Asia in the discussion before deciding how to proceed, if they should even proceed.

Its no different than getting your approval before experimenting on you. That is what is, essentially, happening. It should have happened before it was done with food....but that genie is way out of the bottle. Lets not repeat the mistakes going forward.

To be honest we are currently treating human embryos like lab rats.

The movie Gattaca pretty much sums up where this is headed..

I have no doubt that it will start off with good intentions but quickly lead to elites and the wealthy using it to further seperate themselves from the masses by eliminating anything that could be perceived as genetic weakness. Today it will be a fix for something like a legitimate disease, tomorrow it will be people claiming blue eyes is a disorder or something cosmetic.

a reply to: Edumakated

Then today we forge a path toward freedom from hereditary disease, and tomorrow we can kill the abominations and their creators.

Let us deal with the bridges on the road, in the order we arrive at them!

What is with this "killing embryos" nonsense?

Embryos are not people.

originally posted by: CB328
What is with this "killing embryos" nonsense?

Embryos are not people.

originally posted by: CB328
What is with this "killing embryos" nonsense?

Embryos are not people.

You, my friend, were an embryo once... aren't you glad you weren't killed (aka. aborted)... ???

I wonder how many pro-choice advocates would have recommended that their parents should have had greater access to the "procedure" back then?

I wonder how many would honestly say that they were an unnecessary burden, and should have been terminated as embryos... embryos not being "life" after all...

a reply to: madmac5150


This is just not about abortion.


This is about taking a human Embryo that could be implanted into a human womb and result in a human baby in about 9 months.

Then killing him or her because they are part of some experiment in no different a way animals are killed in similar experiments, for the purpose of promoting human health.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: madmac5150


This is just not about abortion.


This is about taking a human Embryo that could be implanted into a human womb and result in a human baby in about 9 months.

There are bigger ethical issues at hand... and "abortion" is a medical procedure carried out on an embryo. I merely pointed out that, every damned one of us started out as an embryo. Would you have wished that procedure upon yourself as an embryo, if, indeed you weren't actually alive ?


We are messing with a genetic code that we can barely comprehend. We have no idea of the true implications of what we are doing. We know as much about the human genome as my dogs know about using Windows 7... but we are damned sure going to try anyway.

Mankind has grown FAR too proud itself, and I fear we are going to pay for our pride...

Life is a miracle in, and of itself. We have no right to tamper with it.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Edumakated

Then today we forge a path toward freedom from hereditary disease, and tomorrow we can kill the abominations and their creators.

Let us deal with the bridges on the road, in the order we arrive at them!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

a reply to: CB328


Human Embryos are Humans