A New Eugenics?

It's a bizarre topic hiting the ethics string pretty hard

but then I think of all the experiments done in past at the point in time labeled inhuman now saving lives

not sure if we could progress without experiments, new experiences

a reply to: coons


The link with respect to the OP pertains to the conclusion that experiments like this are already being conducted.

a reply to: Kashai

Yes I understand

It's one of those topics I dont know hard to comment

a reply to: Edumakated

No, with respect, that is inaccurate.

The road to hell is not paved with good intentions. It is paved with darkness of heart and only the most foul intention toward ones fellow human beings. No one ever ended up in hell by doing wholesome things out of love for his or her fellow human beings.

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

Embryos are not people.

Maybe. But consider this:

A human embryo in its natural environment, left to do what it naturally does, would (the majority of the time) develop into a functional human.

I'm all for the advancement of our understanding of science. I believe the experiment presented in the OP is a very modest start to manipulation of human DNA via an embryo. IIRC, the addition of a green fluorescent protein is generally one of the first steps in manipulating an organism's DNA. It's an interesting start, but they are still a long way from actually producing anything viable.

It is believed to be the first documented genetic modification of a human embryo.

I thought that the Chinese were the first to accomplish this task. Perhaps their research wasn't as well documented as this experiment.

With respect to the ethical considerations, I think there is plenty of time to discuss and debate this in detail. However, it is a conversation that needs to be had. But this debate needs to follow a logical course, and it should include experts from a variety of different fields; including biologists, ethicists, educators, and physicians. And then the religious leaders and politicians can weigh in with their opinions once the "science has been settled."

Having said that, I still have some concerns about genetic manipulation. I do not believe that we yet have a sufficient understanding of all of the intricacies of nuclear DNA to begin zapping bad genes from the human genome. There is also the issue of epigenetic influences to take into consideration. We are only now beginning to see how epigenetics dictate how genes express themselves in reaction to environmental conditions. Until we understand those concepts in greater detail, we need to limit our experiments to the laboratory.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley


I feel that killing a Human Uterus is equivalent to killing a human being.

To me it constitutes murder.

I understand that there is a socio-political discussion and I also was around when Roe vs. Wade was a supreme court decision. It relation to the actual data in relation to the idea of a mother. Rejecting there child because they were the result of rape or incest.


Understand that when it comes to a baby TLC is required and if not presented the infant could die.

Deny that to a toddler and while death may not be the result the child is going to have issues.

We are discussing taking a form of life that if inserted into a Human Uterus would result in a baby.

And in point is that had such been made possible they would have been able to reproduce and so were killed. Yes it is something to debate but in consideration from a moral standpoint is it legalized murder.

Which for the sake of discussion and debate is my opinion.

a reply to: Kashai

I understand and respect your opinion. Currently, with respect to the concept of human genetic manipulation, I believe that we must proceed carefully. There are a great many unknowns that could result in a catastrophic outcome.

Now as far as the destruction of embryos is concerned, I have to say that I'm not as concerned with that as much as I am with the potentially disastrous effects of DNA modification.

I think that many people, such as yourself, believe that life begins at the moment of conception. So the destruction of an excess inventory of in vitro fertilized embryos is considered murder on a mass scale. I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion. However, I will admit that I can't really define when human life begins. As far as I'm concerned, that's above my pay grade, so to speak.

On the other hand, I'm also not the best one to make an ethical judgement about that subject. I don't hold human life to be as sacred as do most people. However, I don't want to go into any more detail about that for now.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the sanctity of human embryos for now. I understand and respect your opinion on the subject however.

-dex

DexterRiley

Thank you for you response. This issue is really not being discussed to the extent it should.

A woman decides upon an abortion in a third world country but instead of destroying the Embryo, it is detached. Then it is placed in an environment in which in can survive, until is destroyed. In experimentation, authorized by some first world government.

In debate I would offer that this all seems premeditated.

But why just do this to women in third would countries?

To be clear where exactly are they getting the viable Embryos from?

a reply to: Kashai

To the best of my knowledge, the bulk of the embryos are acquired from fertility clinics. Once patients have successfully undergone in vitro fertilization, generally an excess inventory of fertilized embryos remain. The parents have the option of having them destroyed or donating them to science.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley


In relation to your understanding of how?

How many viable Embryos statically available world wide for experimentation, given your conclusion?

a reply to: Kashai

It would involved the death of many more embryos.

If that's your main concern, bless your heart. While it sure makes me queasy, there are other ripe buboes in need of lancing. Im'a go ahead and lay the largely unresolvable issue of personhood aside, and tear into the stuff that doesn't call for a decades long philosophical pit fight.

There's been an unprecedented amount of class mobility since the ringing in of the industrial age. It's been a good thing all around, as I think we can agree. The meritorious creme rose to the top on the wings of their best efforts, and all our institutions were geared to make this so. Well, you can kiss all your Randian dreams of meritocracy adios once the genetic aristocracy is established. Even if we know that merit isn't a product of genes, you can bet your sweet aunt Mildred that it's going to be marketed that way if embryonic engineering becomes available to those few who can afford it.

This kind of treatment is spendy as hell, and always will be. It's not going to be covered on any sort of plan, ever. The pleebs will continue to enjoy a 60+ lifespan and then die quietly in a hospice, trickling in their final contribution to the global economy in the form of inflated medical costs. The genetically blessed will probably get another 20 years above the usual age of croaking, but boy howdy, you can bank on that being a form of social currency. Such a small difference will result in a huge and possibly permanent economic gulf.

I guess an overclass of humans free of congenital diseases is better than a straight-up racial overclass, but not by much.

On the other hand, we can do it, so we should?

There are multiple problems with this.

Yes, we have mapped the human genome, but geneticists still understand less than 10% of what does what. The rest is labeled as non-coding DNA or, the common term, junk DNA. They call it that, which is a clever way of saying "we barely know what we are doing, we don't understand this part, so it must not be important."

Would you fly on a commercial aircraft if you were aware that the mechanics only understood 9% of the engines?

I absolutely love my car. I would NEVER trust it to a mechanic that knew less than 10% of what he was doing.

Would you trust a surgeon to perform a vasectomy if his only experience was the board game "Operation"?

For you ladies, would you trust an OB/GYN that learned his craft from Penthouse Magazine?

I am guessing that most everyone would voice a resounding "NO!" if presented with those four scenarios...

Yet, we are willing to alter an insanely complicated system that we know very little about, so we can have a kid with "custom options"... blue eyes, white skin, blonde or whatever. They are taking the miracle of biological conception and bastardizing it in the name of the truly wealthy having something else to waste their money on... and hold over the rest of us.

"We have a house in the Hamptons, a winter home in Malibu, and my isn't little Tiffany such the PERFECT child? We ordered her with green eyes like my grandmother... and we upgraded and demanded that our child was a genius... it cost us, but we just HAD to have one..."

How many advances in plastic surgery (trauma repair, soft palate repair, burn recovery etc.) were made on the backs of the wealthy that just wanted to look a bit prettier. If you happen to be poor, well...

Now, the natural rebuttal is to say that, yes, the wealthy paid the way for some poor bastard, burned in a fire, to get a life saving skin-graft.

That is exactly my point. It will begin with clinics that cater to the wealthy, as they will be the only ones that can afford it. Social standing could depend on genetic purity... a store-bought "master race"...

Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. Called active and quiet sleep, these states can be distinguished using electroencephalography. Their different EEG signatures go hand in hand with distinct behaviors: breathing, swallowing, licking, and moving the eyes but no large-scale body movements in active sleep; no breathing, no eye movements and tonic muscle activity in quiet sleep. These stages correspond to rapid-eye-movement (REM) and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals. In late gestation the fetus is in one of these two sleep states 95 percent of the time, separated by brief transitions.

What is fascinating is the discovery that the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself: adenosine; two steroidal anesthetics, allopregnanolone and pregnanolone; one potent hormone, prostaglandin D2; and others. The role of the placenta in maintaining sedation is revealed when the umbilical cord is closed off while keeping the fetus adequately supplied with oxygen. The lamb embryo now moves and breathes continuously. From all this evidence, neonatologists conclude that the fetus is asleep while its brain matures.

Source

a reply to: Kashai

So what is your view on chemical castration? What is your view on hysterectomy, vasectomy, and the like? What about the spermicidal chemicals that come with certain prophylactics? After all, these threaten the existence of little potential babies as well.

I call nonsense, emotive, ideologically driven nonsense.

a reply to: madmac5150

Skin grafting was developed largely out of a desire on the part of surgeons to be able to do something for those horrifically wounded in battle, like the fellows listed on this webpage...

www.oddee.com...

It was not a treatment developed for the purpose of prettification of the rich and famous, as you will see from the images in the link.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Kashai

So what is your view on chemical castration? What is your view on hysterectomy, vasectomy, and the like? What about the spermicidal chemicals that come with certain prophylactics? After all, these threaten the existence of little potential babies as well.

I call nonsense, emotive, ideologically driven nonsense.

Those are different than a fertilized embryo -- an embryo that has everything it needs to develop into a specific distinct human being, and in most cases would naturally develop into that certain distinct human being.

You can't say that about sperm. Millions of sperm die off naturally inside a male's body every day. Even during the fertilization process, only one among millions will fertilize the egg. A woman's egg only become available to be fertilize once per month, after which the woman's body naturally disposes of the unfertilized egg.

Now, I'm not saying that a woman's right the to choose what she does with her body is right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out the difference between a fertilized embryo and the sperm captured by a condom.

You can be for or against abortion, or for or against the idea of using embryos for research, but the fact still exists that an embryo has all the information it needs to become a specific human being, and will usually do so if left to do its thing, but sperm do not.

Text

a reply to: TrueBrit


I generally agree with Box of Rain on such issues.

I call nonsense, emotive, ideologically driven nonsense.

You should understand that historically the definition of what a human was can and did result in Genocide.

I would suggest that an embryo is the human equivalent to a caterpillar metaphorically, in relation to function.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: DexterRiley


In relation to your understanding of how?

How many viable Embryos statically available world wide for experimentation, given your conclusion?

Many couples undergo fertility treatments in the US each year. I'm sure that this is a global phenomena, but the information I have is the for the US only.

In IVF treatment, sperm is collected from the male participant, and eggs from the female. Drugs are used on the female participant to induce her to produce several more eggs than she ordinarily would in a single ovulatory cycle. These ova are then harvested, and the spermatozoa are then introduced in vitro. This results in some number of fertilized embryos. Generally that number is significantly greater than will be required for successful IVF treatment.

This set of embryos is then cryogenically preserved at about -300 degrees. A few of these embryos are retrieved at a later date and implanted into the female. Most of the time, not all of these will successfully implant into the uterus to become viable fetuses, that's why they use more than one embryo per implantation attempt.

After IVF treatment has been completed, a number of excess embryos remain in cryogenic-storage. The progenitors of these embryos then have the option of donating them for adoption, or for scientific research. Or they may simply agree to have them destroyed. Presumably for a fee they could also have the IVF clinic keep them in storage.

As to their viability, it is estimated that 50% or more of these embryos are not viable and will lead to spontaneous abortion within the first 8 weeks of implantation.

I have a few different numbers for the quantity of frozen embryos in the US. The National Embryo Donation Center estimates there are 625,000. A USA Today article estimates that there were about 400,000 embryos in storage in the US in 2003.

The following are my references for the above information and provide some specific points about the on-going debate over research using embryos:
- The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: The Human Embryo As Research Commodity

- National Institutes of Health: Destroying unwanted embryos in research. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research

- Oxford Journals: Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics and policy

I hope this brief and unbiased post answers your questions.

-dex