World's first GM babies born

World's first GM babies born

www.dailymail.co.uk

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'.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Thirty babies have been born with at least two of them having genes from three different parents. This reminds me of that movie "Twins" with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito.

Personally, I don't believe in this type of tinkering with human reproduction, in fact it makes me very uncomfortable for various reasons.

There is no turning back folks, it's all downhill from here. This can only lead to bad things. What if these "GM" babies have mutations and defects humans have never seen before then proceed to reproduce with non "GM" babies, it could cause a drastic ripple effect.

I have a feeling they have cloning and modifying humans for decades now but they're finally deciding to let us know about it.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

so...kill off the population and then just make your own...sounds exactly like something "they" would want, no?

You can argue this to the cows come home, I do with my friends but it always, ALWAYS comes down to ethics V morality.

Yes it moral to take out degenerate diseases and cancers and potential other life threatening diseases that cause much pain before birth. As well as birth defects. Probably save the human world.

But the ethics of it should we be playing with god? and destroy evolutions grand design of what to come? What if we mess it up and destroy human health?

TBH there is no right or wrong answer its just a matter of opinion, what you think is right.

This was pretty inevitable I think.. But I still don't think it's right.

What's the whole point of it anyway? I mean what can you get out of producing GM babies?

reply to post by ICEKOHLD


Yeah, the possibilities are endless. This could be used for good or bad, regrettably the people who run things usually don't use this type of advancement for the better of humankind.

This is the type of stuff that Enoch talked about. I'm not religious but this type of stuff sure makes it feel like end times. If there is a god he would be pissed right now.

from the article, halfway downish

'is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children'.

well then...answers that question...

reply to post by Tingle


I agree. What's the point?

Best case scenario you get a perfectly healthy kid.

So why not leave things naturally the way they're supposed to be? Our ego's are a little to big though, I bet it's just because we think we're smart enough to do it, so we may as well do it. Why not. What's the worst that could happen...

I'll stick to the good ol' fashioned fun way of making babies.

reply to post by 11235813213455


I don't understand the WHY of doing this?? To harvest organs? To have perfect babies for the Elite?
Or just to say they can?

Originally posted by definity
You can argue this to the cows come home, I do with my friends but it always, ALWAYS comes down to ethics V morality.

Yes it moral to take out degenerate diseases and cancers and potential other life threatening diseases that cause much pain before birth. As well as birth defects. Probably save the human world.

But the ethics of it should we be playing with god? and destroy evolutions grand design of what to come? What if we mess it up and destroy human health?

TBH there is no right or wrong answer its just a matter of opinion, what you think is right.

edit on 29-6-2012 by definity because: (no reason given)

Sorry, that's a bit of a misrepresentation of genetic importance there.

Genes are a blueprint, they have no power to create disease, that's all down to the individuals PERCEPTION of the environment, according to Bruce Lipton (one of the first stem cell researchers) and many others who've spent their lives in this field.

Sure, you may be able to tweak a gene to change the blueprint, but when you alter the tendency of a human to produce cancer (if that is even possible), what else have you just altered? The truth is, no-one knows, and no-one will know the full consequences of this kind of thing for a long long time.

I'm totally against this kind of human redesigning, but then I'm not even in favor of cosmetic surgery or even the bulk of orthodontic work that is carried out in the name of vanity (of course there are exceptions).

Humans don't need to be MADE better, we just need to be allowed and encouraged to BE better, to achieve something closer to our actual potential. Love the movie Gattaca

Disease can be handled quite adequately with environment, diet, exercise and emotional intelligence. The human body is already naturally designed to stay healthy or return to health, given the chance.

Isn't Genetic Modification just a politically correct term for eugenics?

J

Forget genetics, the benefits or the downfalls.

Just like any other "creation" there ware many mistakes made first. Before Dolly was on the scene there were 240+ botch attempts. So my question is. How many botched GM babies were there? I always wonder why people dont think about this first.

Peace, NRE.

Nature Genetics reported that two-thirds of cloned mice died prematurely, and another survey found that they were much more likely to become obese in middle age. Eighty-five percent of embryos cloned from healthy cattle miscarried or had heart defects, joint problems, diabetes, severe anemia, or developmental problems. Even cloned cattle that appeared healthy scored lower on intelligence and attentiveness tests. The group that created Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, had 276 failures before their success with Dolly. Dolly herself was euthanized in 2003 because of a lung tumor.

legalaffairs.org...

If there is any testament to this, it seems that they are rushing the dumbing down of the population as opposed to making it better. Who the heck told them that making babies and humans was a good idea, I swear sometimes I could just scream at the utter stupidity sometimes!!

I guess we wont stand up, until we are all to dumb to realize what happened!!

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

World's first GM babies born

www.dailymail.co.uk

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

Sooooo....the moms had threesomes?

"Ladies and Gentlemen.... We bring to you...


SUPER BABIES!!!!!!"


Maybe that one Baby Skateboarders Commercial is actually gonna come true!

But that's neat to hear, since they like testing humans! xD

Topic already started here several days ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For what its worth, if this is done with the utmost care, im all for it.

I dont hold any special beliefs that we humans are already in our perfect form, and im not religious so i dont have any qualms about improving our species.

Originally posted by definity
You can argue this to the cows come home, I do with my friends but it always, ALWAYS comes down to ethics V morality.

Yes it moral to take out degenerate diseases and cancers and potential other life threatening diseases that cause much pain before birth. As well as birth defects. Probably save the human world.

But the ethics of it should we be playing with god? and destroy evolutions grand design of what to come? What if we mess it up and destroy human health?

TBH there is no right or wrong answer its just a matter of opinion, what you think is right.

edit on 29-6-2012 by definity because: (no reason given)

I agree, this is one of those issues where there is no right/wrong.

I always say if "God" did not want humans to posses this ability, he/she would have made it impossible to accomplish this.

reply to post by nightbringr


I did not find anything during my search, luckily this is the BAN forum and the other forum is Other Current Events, so this thread can remain open.

And the news came out yesterday, and the thread was posted last night, not a few days ago.

reply to post by ManicDepresive1


I think that you can consider it a solution with out a problem at this point. One can speculate a whole host of sinister reasons for this.

That said I think that there will be a godsmack handed down for this type of tinkering.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Personally, I don't believe in this type of tinkering with human reproduction, in fact it makes me very uncomfortable for various reasons.

It's something of a Pandora's Box. Like it or not - the discovery has been made and people will utilize it. There's no going back. It's like if you were to try and ban nuclear weapons. You can slow their spread - but the only real way to counter a nuclear enabled power is with the use of nuclear weapons (presuming they have intercontinental delivery systems and an arsenal that can ensure enough damage will be done to deter conventional attacks).

You either take advantage of genetic engineering - or you get overwhelmed by those who do utilize it - much in the same way the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were more or less 'forced' into the farming trends developed by the Neolithic humans. While the populations were not "invaded" and "replaced" - the benefits of farming so greatly trumped the life of hunter-gatherers that even the increased disease brought about by large camps and closely packed humans could not stem the tide.

There is no turning back folks, it's all downhill from here. This can only lead to bad things. What if these "GM" babies have mutations and defects humans have never seen before then proceed to reproduce with non "GM" babies, it could cause a drastic ripple effect.

Unlikely. None of the code is "new." In essence, all these researchers have done is insert a third stage of "outcrossing." This is -the- reason sex exists in the first place. Outcrossing ensures regular mutations of the lipid bases forming our cells that gives us increased resistance to viral and other parasitic infections. Meiosis first mixes up some of our own genetic code (creating duplicates of some genes while rotating through an inventory of code that isn't expressed) and then mixes it up with our mate's genetic code (which gives the offspring chances of being resistant to future strains of infections as well as their offspring).

This allows us to be more selective - which is what it is. We can prevent expression of recessive traits (that can be the complete lack of a protein required for cellular synthesis) and correct flaws in some proteins that lead to genetic diseases and degeneracy.

Even so - the concept of diversity will ensure there is almost always an avenue for success. Some people will refuse to have their children genetically modified. If genetic modification causes problems that lead to death and infertility - then natural selection stipulates that those who did not undergo genetic modification will be the only ones capable of reliably producing viable offspring.

I have a feeling they have cloning and modifying humans for decades now but they're finally deciding to let us know about it.

Not entirely unlikely - but also somewhat doubtful. The technology to do the kind of precise tinkering we are doing is relatively recent.

Honestly - I look at the prospect like an engineer does. I would be very interested in doing a complete 'redesign' of the human organism. While human DNA will not likely produce a human figure (I have my suspicions that fetal development is very dependent upon feedback with the mother) - there are many 'simple' modifications that can be made to human cellular structure to lead to all kinds of interesting possibilities.

One of the more complex would be a modification to the adrenal response that would result in calcium being rapidly extracted from the bone and ducted into filament structures connecting to now-hardened platelets on the skin. These filaments would shatter upon impact, their crystalline structure absorbing large amounts of energy to protect internal organs (a fibrous sheath could surround each filament).

More simple would be a second cell membrane (acting as a sort of cell wall) and tweaking the internal cell membrane to regularly mutate its lipid structure to improve the organism's defense against infections. Simple concept - would require considerable testing for proper function in multi-cellular organisms - but the 'cell wall' concept could be further explored for applications to neuron, muscle, and connective tissues especially.

I have no doubt some will meet such ideas with outright disgust. I understand why - but find the implications to our future to be far more important.

The reality is that we will be seeing genetically modified human beings. The question is how we will treat them. If you treat them like something other than a human - you cannot expect them to see themselves as a human (which means they will not see you as being one of them... problematic if they are, indeed, 'super babies').