It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Historic birth of cancer-immune baby

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by welivefortheson
the aim should to remove cancer causing genes from the genepool so future natural births dont result in cancer.

natural selection is no longer in effect with humans,our genome is degrading and will continue too thus we must control our genome ourselves.
desinger babies is hysteria,its nothing of the sort,its simply removing negativ mutations from the genepool.

the question is how did these negative genes get their in the first place?, sabateurs or lack of natural selection?
the thing that worries me is the worldwide nature of these genes ,usually mutationas are localized in populations unless they are ancient and had time spread.some genes have appeared suddenly across the world,the intelligence gene for example appeared suddenly 2000 years ago across the world,perhaps our benifactors restored one of our natural genes.

humans have a startling amount of negative genes compared to animals.


I actually agree with this train of thought. We haven't had natural selection for a while now; I'm beginning to worry about the quality of the human genepool. It would be especially problematic in the rich families and wealthy industrial societies such as ours. We need to do something in order to continue the evolution of the species.




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

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.



We'll save the later part for the military. Gene manipulated super soldiers. Hmmmm..........maybe not Clone Wars.....but.....Brainwashed gene manipulated super soldiers. They would probably attack anyone.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You are wrong - before implantation in the mother's womb, the embryos were screened (by taking a single cell when the embryos were 3 days old). The screening was for a faulty gene called BRCA1, because it has been observed that women who inherit this gene have an up to 80% possibility of developing breast cancer in their life. However, age is a factor as well, so the older they get the more chance they have of developing the cancer.


The embryos were not modified or altered, they were merely screened. While there are ethical considerations to take into account, these embryos were only screened passively and no changes were made to their genetic structure. It was also done because the mother and all of her relatives also had the gene, so it was an attempt to bring a new life into the world which was free of this faulty cancerous gene - but without modifying the embryos.


It was not gene therapy nor was it genetic engineering or manipulation. Get your facts straight before you sound off about something like this.

Read more: www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CapsFan8 It would be especially problematic in the rich families and wealthy industrial societies such as ours. We need to do something in order to continue the evolution of the species.


Uhhh....actually the biggest problem is the third world where they have as many children as possible. Modern science means the best and brightest are breeding the least, and the least educated/capable are breeding the most.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Breeding in unwanted problems sounds like a dream for big pharma. Since they have so much power already, I'm sure they wouldn't like for diseases to be bred out, since they wouldn't have any clients left.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


This is not about genes being manipulated! Via IF several foetuses are created and then checked to see which ones are free of the breast cancer gen.

I don't understand the leap to designer babies or talk about creating perfect people.

What I can understand though is that some people might feel that women with that cancer gen should adopt instead of having own babies. Then again people who feel that way must only have sex to conceive otherwise it would be throwing away perfectly good semen.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
This is not about genes being manipulated! Via IF several foetuses are created and then checked to see which ones are free of the breast cancer gen.

I don't understand the leap to designer babies or talk about creating perfect people.

Of course it's designer babies.

They scanned 11 foetuses to see which of them had the faulty gene. They found one that they wanted to keep and tossed out the rest. That's selecting by design. Designer babies.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   


Breeding in unwanted problems sounds like a dream for big pharma.
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


True you won't get any help from them, probably not from big government either.

As human geneticists get better at what they do they will be able to detect the marker genes for designated problems in adults. Problems like the brest tumors, certain types of arthritis, blood diseases and many others.

Concerned young adults will be able to submit their DNA and hopefully get a clean bill of health to present to their future spouse who hopefully has done similar testing. Screened parents could then expect to have healthier children. Not a bad thing I wouldn't think!

Beats the way we used to sellect a mate back when!



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Genetic manipulation COULD be GOOD.

BUT!

We dont know anything about it yet, and we have NO CLUE what we are messing with here.

I would suggest at LEAST 5000 more years of research on rats before we even begin to "assume" we know what is going on inside of DNA.

If humans actually knew anything about DNA, we would have ManBearPig by tomorrow morning. Nuff said


[edit on 10-1-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
reply to post by tezzajw
 


This is not about genes being manipulated! Via IF several foetuses are created and then checked to see which ones are free of the breast cancer gen.


I'm going to spell this out because a lot of people seem confused. You got this exactly right.

Eggs are taken from the mother. Sperm is taken from the father. The two are combined to produce embryos. The embryos are allowed to mature to a certain point (blastocyst, I think the stage is called). At that point they are screened for a particular gene (in this case BRCA-1 but theoretically it could be anything). The ones that have the gene are discarded and one or more of the ones that don't have the gene are implanted in the mother's uterus. From there it goes pretty much like nature planned.

So at this point there are two major ethical issues:

1) you are deliberately creating multiple embryos all of which could become babies, knowing that you're going to throw out most of them. For people who are pro-life, this should be morally identical to having sex with no protection because you can just have an abortion if you get knocked up. I don't understand why there is so little outcry from anti-abortion activists about IVF. Anyone, that's issue one: the deliberate creation of embryos in the knowledge that you'll toss them out.

2) you are choosing which baby will get to have a life based on one particular trait. In particular, you are deciding that any female babies you conceive that are likely to develop breast cancer at some point would be better off not being born. How many breast cancer survivors would agree to that one?



I don't understand the leap to designer babies or talk about creating perfect people.


"Creating perfect people" is probably way beyond us for quite a while. Just think about what the vet said on the last page of this thread in terms of how many detrimental traits have been introduced and encouraged by manipulation of the gene pool of domesticated animals through selective breeding. But designer babies? That's pretty realistic.

You may not be tinkering with the genes directly, but you are deciding which ones to allow and which to prevent. The most blatant possible use is in choosing a baby's sex. Want a little boy? Just make a handful of embryos and we can toss the girls in the medical waste bin. It's not the same as dictating height, weight, and hair color, but it is a baby-to-order.


What I can understand though is that some people might feel that women with that cancer gen should adopt instead of having own babies. Then again people who feel that way must only have sex to conceive otherwise it would be throwing away perfectly good semen.


There are probably people who feel that way, and again I'm troubled. Do breast cancer survivors really feel that they would be better off not having been born? Do their parents wish they had had a different kid instead?

_____________________________________________

Aside from the ethical implications of choosing one embryo over others, what about the repercussions medically and economically?

We know a lot at this point about which genes are associated with certain conditions. But we're still pretty darn ignorant about a lot of how genes get expressed. It's only been a few years since they were calling most of our DNA "junk DNA" in the belief that it didn't have much point to it. Now it seems like it has a vital role in gene expression.

Think again about the dog breeds the vet talked about. Did people breed certain types of dogs to have hip dysplasia? No, of course not. They bred them for other traits, and the hip dysplasia hitched a ride. What if there is another gene that hitches a ride with BRCA-1 but is beneficial? Or not a gene but a segment of "junk DNA"?

I'm sure the scientists have checked out these possibilities as best they can – if I thought of it, the geneticists certainly did
But there can always be unforeseen consequences.

_____________________________________________

And economically. At least here in the US we rely on insurance companies (filtered via employers) and pharmaceutics companies to control our financial access to health care.

I read a thread recently on a court ruling that employers can refuse to hire smokers because of the increased health expense incurred. Do we really want them to have a say in how we have babies? If I know that a genetic condition that is curable but will require expensive treatment runs in my family, am I okay with my employer telling me that they won't cover a pregnancy and child health care unless I make sure that the baby won't have that gene by doing IVF and screening for it?

Yuck.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by welivefortheson
desinger babies is hysteria,its nothing of the sort,its simply removing negativ mutations from the genepool.

This baby was 'designed' to have a particular gene altered. There was nothing 'natural' about this.


that gene came about through mutation,whats natural agout that?,it wasnt a natural gene theforeit was removal of an unatural gene.
would you rather our entire genome degrades unto the point where everyone is ill and mutated?
we are not naturally selecting our genes anymore,we have no choice but to alter them ourselves.
normally bad/mutated genes die out,but now all genes survive so our genome is being decayed,mutated genes will proliferate throughout the population.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
This is not about genes being manipulated! Via IF several foetuses are created and then checked to see which ones are free of the breast cancer gen.

I don't understand the leap to designer babies or talk about creating perfect people.

Of course it's designer babies.

They scanned 11 foetuses to see which of them had the faulty gene. They found one that they wanted to keep and tossed out the rest. That's selecting by design. Designer babies.


if you look at the repoductive patterns of most life including humans we all choose the genes we wish to create babies with,we are trained to look for traits that select good genes such as physical strength,health,resitinces to diseases,intelligence,etc we call them attractive personality traits.
the difference here is that instead on relying upon visual clues such as square jaws for testosterone levels or size of hips for birthng ablity,we can look closer.
its no less natural than what all life does,all life seeks positive genes to reproduve with,and activly ignores negative ones again by physicao cues.

designing babies has been part of life since day one.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by welivefortheson
we are trained to look for traits that select good genes such as physical strength,health,resitinces to diseases,intelligence,etc we call them attractive personality traits.

ANYONE can go to a bar, pub or nightclub and look for these traits. You don't need to be rich to use those services.

(The scene from the movie 'Species' comes to mind, where the alien selects the geek with 'perfect' qualities)

However, using hi-tech genetics to select a baby is not something that's common to the entire population. It's eliteist and will discriminate against those who can't afford to use the technology. That's a fact. The Ayrian race all accomplished in a test tube. Welcome to the future.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by welivefortheson
that gene came about through mutation,whats natural agout that?,it wasnt a natural gene theforeit was removal of an unatural gene.


Genetic mutation is a natural process – that's how evolution works.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Wow! Just imagine how recently we've found out "all there is to know" about genetics and how all that works. Has it happened?

In the future this child will probably be free of cancer but suffer from some other type of disease that is brought on by changing the gene sequence that they knew nothing about. Some rare and "unexpected" side-effect of the gene correction, or whatever they call it. I guess much like Monsantos has played with the food chain and begun the destruction of it which is evident in the loss of the bees worldwide.

If only we used our actual knowledge for good... but evil is better to some...

My 2cents



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Rampant breast cancer history or not, for when you start "playing God," then only bad results will follow. God put that gene there for a reason, and if we take it away, then it might cause problems worse than the possibility of getting breast cancer. Did they ever think of that? No, for these geneticists and doctors have such inflated egos, they can't see that, because they are blind.

I feel sorry for people with cancer in their families, but "playing God" is not the answer to the problem.

~ Lonelypoet



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by welivefortheson
that gene came about through mutation,whats natural agout that?,it wasnt a natural gene theforeit was removal of an unatural gene.


Genetic mutation is a natural process – that's how evolution works.



there are postive and negative mutations, why you would want negative mutations to continue purely out of principle is beyond me,have you ever suffered negative mutation?,what would you say to severly disabled folks that you denied them the right to be alieved of it purely because you believe its unatural?

if you can remove a negative mutation that causes harm and suffering it should be done,however should you want to cause harm to humans allowing negative mutations that cause depopulation ,then so be it.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   


ANYONE can go to a bar, pub or nightclub and look for these traits. You don't need to be rich to use those services.

(The scene from the movie 'Species' comes to mind, where the alien selects the geek with 'perfect' qualities)

However, using hi-tech genetics to select a baby is not something that's common to the entire population. It's eliteist and will discriminate against those who can't afford to use the technology. That's a fact. The Ayrian race all accomplished in a test tube. Welcome to the future.


just because genetic alteration currently needs funding to undertake,does not mean it is a negative action,nor will it always need funding.
because something is unaffordable to some does not mean it is a negative thing,there are many aspects of our society which correlate,for example a good home takes funding,are you to deny the existence of good homes because of that reason.

once upon a time cars cost alot of money,would you have said"we have to walk,its not fair that the rich can only afford it,so its wrong and must be banned"

we are not talking about the creation of any gentic elite here,we talking of the removal of mutated genes which cause diseases,thier is a vast difference.

i understand your concerns,but they are grounded out of fear,the truth is in a 100 years time alteration of the genome will be an everyday thing,but we must indeed be very careful for a while so we fully understand the implications of genetic alteration,very careful infact.and we must try to make postive alteration availble to all whom desire it.

you fear the development of a gentic elite,this is understandable,but their already exist elites who are born(if human) out of effort,intelligence and bravery,genes half of the time are responsible.

positive use of genology is a good thing,positive genes should always be sought and negative ones which cause diseases should be eliminated.

for now sticking to the removal of disease causing genes should be the aim.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by martalen
Just to clarify: This baby is not the product of genetic alteration to remove the gene. In vitro embryos produced by the couple were screened for the gene and the embryo free of the cancer gene was selected for implantation.

And, yes, the headline is typically sensational. This baby is only safe from the forms of cancer caused by the presence of that gene - she is not "cancer-immune"


That is good. I suspect that gene alteration would lead to infertility. You can see it on GMO's. If we would be made or born infertile - population reduction would be easy to manage for them (Big Boys).

I am against gene alteration, though embryo screening and selection seems sensible to me.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by FIFIGI]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajwThey scanned 11 foetuses to see which of them had the faulty gene. They found one that they wanted to keep and tossed out the rest. That's selecting by design. Designer babies.


Well then by that definition I guess going to a sperm bank and choosing a tall, blond, greened eyed guy with an iq of 150 is also "designing". Or even getting an ultrasound and aborting the pregnancy of the baby is female (common practice in India for example) would also be a form of creating designer babies.

Or the far more common method among many to marry individuals from "quality families" which typically means families with a history of accomplishments (i.e. often that equates to high iq). Or the religious restrictions of some that insist them marry partners of the same ethnic/religious group (which is believed to be an intentional effort to preserve the genetic traits of some groups).

That is a far cry from altering genes, or even selecting embro's for subtle POSITIVE characteristics like intelligence and looks.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Sonya610]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join