It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations,'' he said.
If a woman with a similar family history of breast cancer decides not to use this technology, is she then guilty if her daughter develops cancer? Even if the answer is no, will she be made to feel guilty?
Originally posted by americandingbat
Third: we don't know absolutely that there isn't some other effect of this gene that makes it a valuable resource to the gene pool. While it seems at first like a laudable goal to rid the population of cancer-causing genes, I fear that we don't have a good enough understanding of gene expression yet to appreciate all the repercussions.
And that's all without even going into the moral vacuum of a world where people want to choose their fetuses based on genes associated with intelligence, or particular sorts of looks, or male versus female, etcetera.
Originally posted by Solomons
So if you had a genetic form of cancer,and you knew it was more than likely to pass on to your child.There was a possible treatment not for that child to never get cancer but this genetic form that has plauged much of your family history, you wouldnt have the procedure?
[edit on 9-1-2009 by Solomons]
Originally posted by munkey66
There may be a little problem with bringing emotion into the equasion, but there should be ethics involved,
Originally posted by Lazyninja
Lol I still wouldn't buy it. We didn't create this code, we're reverse engineering it. Actually that makes it sound more technical than it is. They're basically chopping out unwanted bits of code and hoping that the rest of the code wont notice or have any errors. That poor girl is just a guinea pig.
Originally posted by sty
i wonder if they will be ever able to do the "gene therapy" for existing adults.. like the IQ one you mentioned. I guess that the absence of the "follow the leader" gene would be enough to make someone having a decent IQ haha
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I think that gene altering our children in ways like this to protect them from disease would be amazing if everybody could access/afford it.
I don't think gene altering our children is cool to select the color of their hair or the strength of their athletic ability.
Originally posted by Oodain
what if cancer is just a freak of nature and serves no real purpose?
Originally posted by nyarlathotep
I think the title to the story is misleading. It said the child was born without the BRCA 1 gene, which causes breast and ovarian cancer. What about all of the other cancers out there?
Originally posted by flyindevil
Cancer is just that: a freak. Canada must have a much better education system, because in grade 8 I learned that "cancer cells" were just cells that didn't replicate properly.