World's first GM babies born [more info], page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 27-6-2012 @ 08:38 PM by ChaoticOrder
I was just reading a very interesting thread about the following story:

The world's first geneticallymodified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three 'parents'.

World's first GM babies born


However, the OP was getting a lot of heat about the article being from the Daily Mail and was struggling to find more legitimate sources. Then the thread was 404'd... [snip] (explanation posted below).

Anyway, I did a quick search and I couldn't find any other [respected] news source reporting this information.

HOWEVER, the Daily Mail article talks about the GM children having DNA from three parents. I did a Google news search related to that and I found some VERY interesting things. All these news articles were released just earlier THIS month...

Ethics body backs potential '3-parent' IVF treatment
Children with 3 parents could become a reality
'Three-parent babies' cure for illness raises ethical fear
Children with three parents could be reality: research
'Three-P arent' IVF Should Be Available: UK Health Panel
Controversial fertility treatment requiring three genetic parents given thumbs up
British Bioethics Council Gives OK to Three-Parent Embryo
UK Prime Minister backs controversial ‘3-parent’ IVF technique

We have the UK Health Panel and ethics groups giving this the "thumbs up". The last article even talks about the UK Prime Minister backing this "controversial ‘3-parent’ IVF technique". All these article were released a few weeks ago... is it possible that the Daily Mail article is accurate and that the scientists actually went through with it after receiving the support they were looking for?
edit on 27/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 27-6-2012 @ 08:40 PM by Bonkrh
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


this was just posted and deleted because they arent the first


reply posted on 27-6-2012 @ 08:42 PM by ChaoticOrder
Originally posted by Bonkrh
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


this was just posted and deleted because they arent the first

Perhaps not the first, but they most likely are the first using this controversial technique...



reply posted on 27-6-2012 @ 08:53 PM by Nspekta
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Thank you!

No, they ddn't delete it for a Hoax, I asked it to be removed because of my knee jerk reaction. I thought it was from today, and I was wrong! Every, please review the articles in this thread!

Some may already know about this, However I didn't and I'm sure many people on here haven't heard of this either!

Thank you ChaticOrder for posting good valid articles and good information!


reply posted on 27-6-2012 @ 09:02 PM by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Nspekta


No, they ddn't delete it for a Hoax, I asked it to be removed because of my knee jerk reaction. I thought it was from today, and I was wrong!

Ok thanks for the explanation. But actually the Daily Mail article is from today. Just because you found an old article about GM babies doesn't mean this is an old story... the Medical Article you are referring to doesn't appear to be related to this 3-parent technique at all. This is a new and controversial technique, which is made clear by the articles I linked to.


reply posted on 27-6-2012 @ 09:28 PM by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by rjetarh


Many old articles from Daily Mail UK don't have a date byline.

Yeah they certainly need to add a date to all their articles... but if you do a search multiple websites have picked up on this article and reposted it today, which leads me to think the Daily Mail article was actually released today... either that or a bunch of websites have picked up some old news.

news.bbc.co.uk...

That link is really interesting because it says almost all the same things as the Daily Mail article. It even has stuff about the DNA coming from two parents and a 3rd "donor". What I don't understand is why are there a bunch of new articles from earlier this month talking about this as if it hasn't happened yet?
edit on 27/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 27-6-2012 @ 09:45 PM by MrSandman
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I haven't heard of this, thanks for posting OP.

Isn't it amazing how fast we are advancing technologically?

Sooner than you think I bet women won't even have to give birth anymore. You pick the "features" you want your kid to have and they create and grow it in a lab. Interesting times we live in. This kind of reminds me of the film 'splice'. Anyone seen it?

What about mixing animal dna with human dna? I bet it's been tried in the 12 years we've come since Dolly the sheep was cloned. I wouldn't mind a pair of gills myself.


reply posted on 28-6-2012 @ 11:07 AM by DaveNorris
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


i dont see why this is an ethics issue, if we can manipulate the genes to eliminate genetic diseases and eliviate some of humanities pain and suffering then why shouldnt we. i for one would love to eliminate the gene for male pattern baldness in my family
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Cooking With Aluminum Foil Should Be Avoided
  Posted 16 days ago with 43 member flags
"US teen invents advanced cancer test using Google"
  Posted 17 days ago with 38 member flags
A virus that kills cancer: the cure that\'s waiting in the cold
  Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags
Stem cells bring back feeling for paralysed patients
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
Gruenenthal\'s thalidomide apology \'insulting\'
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags