It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


FDA to hold first public hearing on GM babies

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:28 AM
The FDA is holding meetings next month about the controversial subject of Human gene therapy at 'egg' level.

What arguments should be discussed on both sides of this sensitive issue ?

Should we keep Mother Nature or should we 'change' Her thinking ?

Could these 'technologies' lead to a 'packaged seed' bank for Human selections ?

Do corporations have a 'vested interest' that could influence FDA policies regarding this ?


The 'science' is explained;

Next month, the US Food and Drug Administration will hold a two-day public meeting to discuss genetic modification within the human egg, which changes will be passed on generationally.

Human gene therapy has been ongoing since 1990, but most of that involved non-heritable genes, called somatic (non-sex cell) gene therapy. Somatic modifications only affect the individual and are not passed on, and so do not affect the human genome.

The game changed with the successful birth of at least 30 genetically modified babies by 2001. Half of the babies engineered from one clinic developed defects and so the FDA stepped in and asserted jurisdiction over “the use of human cells that receive genetic material by means other than the union of gamete nuclei” (sperm and egg).


FDA to hold first public hearing on GM babies

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:37 AM
The Food and Drug Administration is going to have a meeting on GM Babies? We don't eat babies. Babies aren't drugs. What even gives them the right to look at this issue. The Department of Agriculture should be handling this.

They are probably a lot less corrupt than the FDA.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:55 AM
Someone somewhere will do it. It's crazy to think nobody will do it. And once the cat is out of the bag the others may feel they have to do it too. It's a slippery slope. It'll start out as fixing serious disabilities. As our science improves and we become more confident about the consequences, it'll probably go further. Disabilities will be redefined.

What're the odds science finds out we shouldn't manipulate the genes? We should let nature do its thing? Well, the way I see it, how often do companies let nature do it? Not often because the money is in creating patents. If nature has already made something, nobody is going to make money. So they have to create some new things.

In the future, I think they will conclude nature is wrong about a lot of things, including genes. Thus, we'll change our genes. They already say nature is wrong about a lot of things. We're always finding excuses to remake nature in the image we prefer.

I think a lot of it's rooted in anthropocentrism. We have this innate need inside us to believe in our abilities and to see the universe through our actions. This magnifies what we perceive ourselves doing. We become like a force of god. All things around us shrink and distort and the human things expand to consume most of our perceptions.

The end result is we're actually far smaller than we think we're.

There's a quote that says it's not the person who accepts his environment that progresses things, it's the person who does not and thus changes it and evolves our shared reality.

Maybe our dumb allegiance to ourselves is the reason we exist at all. Perhaps if we hadn't been this way we'd have been absorbed by something else long ago.
edit on 17-9-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 06:02 AM
When will the madness stop!!

As far as I understand, science is about gaining understanding.

Personal opinion, or logic: if it ain't broke, don't fix it - or, don't reinvent the wheel.

Plants and animals, from micro to macro, have been just fine for thousands of years.
I understand wanting to improve life with drugs, etc, which admittedly do inherently change and influence microbes and such, but really, how far are we going to go?

In 50 years
will we have GM cloned armies?
will baby Einstein's be the norm?
will any life still be normal/real, or just a product ™?

Do we want a manufactured life?

I'm sorry, I don't actually give two hoots about the discussion, it's wrong. Go fund a starving country or something. Go clean up the oceans. Jesus, there are 1000 and 1 things that need to be done and genetic modification is not one of them, I do not care for the debate.


log in