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.
Recently scientists have made rapid advances in our knowledge of the human genome and in our ability to modify and change genes. In the future we may be able to "cure" geneticy diseases in embryos by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA. This is called germ line therapy and is carried out on an egg, sperm or a tiny fertilised embryo. Such therapy has successfully been done on animal embryos but at present it is illegal to do this in humans.
Originally posted by sty
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?
hm.. i understood different : that the existance of the BRCA 1 gene will bring a 80% chance for cancer, so they removed the gene. Actually it says that the fetus was scanned for this gene , then the gene removed. At least this is what I understood..
Originally posted by Sonya610
Nahhh...it will never get to that point. Though some strongly inherited diseases (like huntingtons disease quite nasty, and 50% of the offspring will get it with only 1 parent having the gene) I can see that causing some guilt.
But I guess it doesn't cause guilt because they all have it, it is part of their family heritage. It becomes a "clan" thing, and they all live with the fear of it.
Fertility expert Paul Serhal, who led the PGD team, said: "We have now entered a new era of being able to help people who have cancer genes. Not only can we liberate people from the guilt of passing a cancer gene onto their child, we can cut off transmission of the gene once and for all. These are families who have been plagued by this genetic curse for generations. With a wave of a magic wand the job is done, and this is fantastic."
Originally posted by americandingbat
Again, with the "liberating parents from the guilt" of passing on bad genes. It makes me very nervous.
Originally posted by Lazyninja
A little edit since I see people talking about cancer. I heard somewhere that 100 years ago there was a 3% chance of dying of cancer, and nowdays it is 1/3. Well who knows how accurate that is, since many people must have died from cancer without knowing it back then.
Yeah well cells are more likely to mutate as the individual gets older. So since many of us live longer, and survive other issues, cancer becomes more prevalent.
Originally posted by stymy believe - cancer is also caused by our 100 000 chemicals we invented in the last 100 years..
Originally posted by sty
lol i thought they stripped out the faulty gene , but actually this was just artifficial selection by killing the unwanted embrions that would be positive for the BRCA1 mutation
Originally posted by Oodain
well they have made modifications on animals a lot of times, it is far from a new thing, the difference is that usually they only add more genetic material to gain some wanted attribute and to track the attribute they use special gene markers that only bind to the altered part, that way one can with fair ease identify if the treatment worked or not.
reply to post by welivefortheson
humans have a startling amount of negative genes compared to animals.