Should humans be allowed to modify genes of offspring?

[dZeus]

just interested in hearing some more opinions on this matter

[Sasq]

But only to remove congenital(sp?) dieases etc.
Not, no way any how for selecting children to be smarter, stronger or to have blue eyes.

Dan

[VJ]

I can understand that some people want to make sure their childeren don't suffer some inherited diseases. I myself suffer from both asthma (which made it difficult in school, as far as social relations is concerend : no playing outside in spring, no running, ...) and juvenile artritis (which currently limits me in several tasks, both professional : I am not allowed to lift stuff, need a special deskchair, ...; as recreational : I had to give up professional badminton ans swimming, playing the guitar is out of the question, motorcycling also, surfing, ski-ing, ...). Also it does not pose a very "bright" future : I still have to turn 26, yet I have lived the last 13 years of them in constant pain, with no immediate improvements in sight (I should be glad if the complaints remain status quo ).

These are all situations I would not want my childeren to suffer, so if I had a chance, I'd have them genetically modified not to carry these genes.
The problems are that it will only be possible for the people that can afford it, and that it will open the door towards "superhumans" : people won't stop at curing diseases, they'd want to choose color of eyes/hair, intelligence, perhaps even general looks, and I am against these "modifications".

So in short : only for curing diseases.


Jörg

PS: Who is the other guy that voted "yes, for the reasons below" and did not post any reasons below ?

[dZeus]

Originally posted by Sasq
But only to remove congenital(sp?) dieases etc.
Not, no way any how for selecting children to be smarter, stronger or to have blue eyes.

Dan

even if the genetical code to code for their abilities has been taken from one of the parents of the child? Thus only changing the 'fate' of which gene will be used from which parent?

If you think that's a valid reason to allow this, where should they stop? Should they only be allowed to chose chromosones from each parent with certain capabilities (thus not really modifying any genetical code, but allowing a certain more 'favourable' option to happen, which you might or might not agree on that it's ethical because 'survival of the fittest' is not very applicable any more to modern human society (just a random possible reason I could think of))?

Or should people be allowed to chose from any genetical code they want to, either from one of the parent or not?

Or something in between?
Where's the limit?

[Jammrock]

Yes and no, but mostly no. If gene research can cure some really nasty desieses then I say cool. I truely don't think that gene splicing can really make uber humans, though. The human mind and body is driven souly by one's desire to achieve.

Just look at pro athletes. Jerry Rice is slow, short and not really a physical phenom, but he is the greatest wide reciever in NFL (American Football) history. Why? Because he has the desire and drive to become the best. Now look at Randy Moss. This guy is physically the perfect wide reciever. He's fast, tall, extremely athletic and can catch anything thrown his way. He's a lazy bumm and hasn't done much in 2 years, because of his lousy work ethics. (sorry to all non-US MURC'ers, I couldn't think of a better example off the top of my head)

Nuff said.

If you haven't seen Gataca (Uma Thurman, Ethen Hawke), it has some great material on this subject if you can get through the slow parts.

Jammrock

[Gurm]

The issue here is "what is the definition of disease" or "what is the definition of birth defect".

Now, please note I'm _NOT_ trying to start a homosexual/heterosexual war here, but just listen to what I'm about to say.

You can argue, for example, that sexual orientation is a birth defect. Why? Because it's genetically predisposed, AND it doesn't further the propagation of the species. A genetic mutation which does not further the propagation of the species is a birth defect by definition.

But do we want to allow scientists and doctors to "cure" homosexuality? Maybe some of us do, but many of us think that's pretty terrible.

Will things such as physical weakness, low IQ, poor eyesight, lack of height, etc. eventually be considered "diseases"?

I think that most if not all people would say "sure, if you can cure cystic fibrosis or cerebral palsy or down's syndrome in utero go for it!", but you have to consider the other side of the coin. People WILL decide that "non-advantageous" traits are "diseases". They just will. It's completely inevitable.

That said, I'm still for genetic engineering. Man is at a crossroads - we can now direct the course of our own evolution. We should do so - but only with sufficient forethought and wisdom.

- Gurm

[cjolley]

Those who wish that it won't happen might as well wish the sun not to rise in the morning.
Besides, who would like to look at their kid at 17 and tell them
"I could have made you smarter and healthier but, I didn't want to."

Originally posted by Gurm
.... We should do so - but only with sufficient forethought and wisdom.

- Gurm

I agree that we will do it and that it will be a net Great Good.
But, we won't do with "sufficient forethought and wisdom".
We will stumblg and fumble along like humans do.
Chuck

[Schorsch]

Originally posted by cjolley
I agree that we will do it and that it will be a net Great Good.
But, we won't do with "sufficient forethought and wisdom".
We will stumble and fumble along like humans do.
Chuck

I think you're right - every "improvement" that is possible will be tried out somewhere on this planet, and to put it mildly, I suppose not all results will meet the expectations. But there are also other aspects of this topic: The thought that people who got their genetic code in the "old-fashioned" natural way (like we all here did) might be regarded as "inferior" in a future where all genetic deficiencies can be eradicated by genetic engineering makes me shudder...

Georg

PS: I agree with Jammrock - "Gattaca" is a good movie about this subject. The plot may not be that great, but you get an idea what tremendous impact the genetic "construction" of men would (or will) have on our society.

[Gurm]

However, as we are reminded in Gattaca - the most brilliant people are defective...

Genetic Engineering would eliminate the Corkys (Life Goes On, people... remember that show?) of the world, but it would also eliminate the Mozarts (addictive personality), the Beethovens (deafness and sterility ran in the family), the Einsteins (borderline autistic) of the world.

- Gurm

[Jammrock]

Gurm...exactly my point! What would push a man/woman to rise above the rest without adversity. If everyone was genetically perfect, what would this world be missing out on? Gurm, you forgot Steven Hawkins, btw.

The thing that I fear the most, is cybernetic and nanomachine enhancements. The human body is only capable of so much, no matter how much you tamper with the genome. When you start mixing genetic enhancements with 'artificial' enhancements, then you'll have some serious troubles. Can you imagine someone naturally smart like an Einstien, with a nanomachined super computer built into his head? Add on massive natural strength, agility and endurence coupled with cybernetic strength and speed boosters? Ouch...that's what has me worried.

Jammrock

[Wombat]

Gattaca was a particularly on-topic critique of this situation. Watch it if you haven't, and make sure you get the DVD with the cut scenes on it. One of them is from when they visit the geneticist, and puts a much darker spin on the whole thing.

Here's a quote from the geneticist that he uses to sell what he does. It's sure to be a point of debate if GA comes about: "Now, remember that this child is still you, he's just the best possible combination of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never have a child like this." I'm a little blurry on that last sentence, but I have the movie at home, and will probably edit it later.

[cjolley]

I don't think we need to worry that they will start producing
"perfect" people any time soon.

As little as is understood about human mental functioning at this
point, I don't think we realy know what the trade-offs will be.

Maybe Genius and Mental Health are not in conflict,
or even related.
How would anyone realy know right now?

chuck

[Wombat]

Chuck, sometimes those ARE in conflict. Although we don't really understand yet how it happens, mankind does have idiot savants. These folks are usually about the same mental level of moderate Downes patients, but have some amazing gift, such as perfect memorization, or incredible mathematic skills. No "normal" human ever possesses these kinds of abilities.

Also, Stephen Hawkins is also a great example. If his body weren't the cage that it is, do you think he would have spent all that time being introspective, and unravelling the mysteries of the universe? He's pretty much forced to establish his own world, and he used it to understand ours.

[Dr Mordrid]

Being a medical type I'd be glad to weigh in on this one

I hesitate to support this because, like reasons for reconstructive surgery, the standards are likely to evolve into something the current sponsors wouldn't even support.

By this I mean that at some point certain skin/eye/hair colors, facial & body characteristics, hair type and other such things that make us distinctive, both regionally and immunologically, could come to be looked upon as "birth defects". This would be a travesty of both logic and genetic diversity.

One thing I can see becoming a major fight would be to engineer out certain genetic traits that are double-edged swords. Example: the sickle cell trait found in certain tropical and sub-tropical populations.

While this may sound good in that it could possibly eliminate sickle cell anemia, a serious chronic disease, it's a horrid idea from a survival and diversity standpoint. This is because carrying the sickle cell trait protects one from malaria, a parasitic disease that kills far more people than sickle cell anemia.

Sickle cell is not the only genetic trait that results in a very few getting a chronic or fatal genetic disease when they get the gene from both parents only to protect many, many more who just carry the trait from just one parent.

I have no problem using genetic engineering to treat those with the actual diseases, but removing the traits from certain populations..which are often evolutionary survival tools..is a distinct no-no.

Without STRICT regulation worldwide this technology is likely to go the route of reconstructive surgery: the aspects with the highest potential for negative effects will be those used the most.

Dr. Mordrid

[Rags]

I am all for genetic engineering, but only for the studying, understanding, and treatment of diseases.

Rags