Build-a-baby!

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

A US fertility doctor is pioneering a new front in eugenics and genetic engineering, announcing that he will soon be able to allow parents to choose certain genetic traits in their children [story]

So, is this a good idea? Is it inevitable? IMO it's a Nazi's dream come true, for a nominal fee.

[BlondeTwiggy 43]

Hmmm, I suppose it would be good if you could avoid hereditary diseases and things like that. Bad if you can decide whether Junior is going to be the star basketball player or not. I think I'd rather leave that up to God (chance, fate, or whatever you believe in). I dunno, if my parents had genetically engineered me to be zee blonde bombshell that I am, it probably just wouldn't be the same. [kidding, lol]

But it looks like from the article it's mostly things like eye or hair color.

Well, I didn't know that we knew enough about genes/DNA to do this type of thing. (My biology book must be ancient history.) Very interesting.

[Jezus53 18]

Most biology books are ancient. Heck, most books in general are ancient if they're from school. I had a government book that didn't even know about the Clinton Scandal.

Back to the topic, this technology has a lot of potential of saving lives before their is problem, like eliminating or at least reducing the chances of the baby of getting a life threatening disease. As for picking hair color and eye color, that's up for debate. Religious people will say that's playing God while other people see it as okay. As for me, I will not take part in it. It seems to risky and we really haven't seen the long term affect of the mutation. I might consider it after 50 years and I see those people are just fine, but it'll be too late.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[N106 10]

Two things:

For the off-topic textbook thing: My school has fairly up-to-date textbooks, that mention Bush and 9/11. But, the state is making budget cuts, so those textbooks might still be in use in 30 years.

For the build-a-baby debate: If parents want to choose the traits of their kid, why not just look into adoption? There are thousands of orphans that need families. However, build-a-baby would be good for preventing genetic diseases, or even reducing risk of age-related disease. Also, I'd want to choose the traits of my own kid if I were to have one. There is no point in debating it. People have the desire to have power and play god, so it will happen, whether you like it or not.

[Haljackey 17,254]

This is Build a Bear Workshop gone overboard.

[Godzillaman 21]

Reminds me of an ad from the Radio in GTA4...

[hamsterTK 93]

two words: super soldiers

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Most textbooks used by schools today, whether they be biology or history, for example, only tend to include topics older than, say, 20-30 yrs.  I remember my frustration in American history when we did not cover Vietnam (it stopped at the Korean War - and vaguely), and the same goes for science texts that did not discuss recent developments in the life sciences and physics.  quote>

 

If your textbooks are covering things that happened 20-30 years ago, you are doing better than we did.   I graduated from high school without ever studying any history past World War I.    (and, no, I'm not that old; my father is a WWII veteran.)

As to the designer babies, it would be good if we could leave out some genetic diseases.   But this could easily turn into "Brave New World" where babies were designed and conditioned to accept a particular lot in life.  I don't trust any human being to do that.

 

 

[sim-fan192 4]

This can be good or bad depending on the situation. If your curing a desease that you can be born with (genetal herpies, etc) or fixing a birth defect before the child is born, it would be a very good. If you think your kid looks ugly and want to change him, thats a HUGE and stupid waste of time and money. If the kid has blond hair instead of red like you wanted him or her to have, SUCK IT UP!!!!!!! Thats what God gave you. Be greatful for cryen out loud! Doing this might cause some serious damage in the future. Anyway, being able to go all build a bear workshop on your kid doesn't surpise me. I've heard of scientists cloning, that's right, cloning mice, printing a heart that a few hours after making started beating (I'm not joking), and a few scientist made a new species of fish that can glow in the dark by tampering with the DNA of a few fish that where still in their eggs.

[sim-fan192 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK two words: super soldiersquote>

 

 Now we can make a spartan army like in halo. Woohoo.

[Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ 273]

wow what a controversial topic anways I've just been doing my biology course in High school... (wow really pays off) and we were taking about this in class. So I guess in the future it's all going to be about the people with money engennering a child that will grow up to have alot of money also and people that live in poor countries don't stand a chance. So basically we're making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Well I guess we will have to wait and see what the future holds...

[belfastuniguy 18]

I'm not against genetic engineering to ensure they do not have genes that make them susceptible to things like cancer and other gene related illnesses. Can't say I'm in favour of parents selecting how beautiful their child is, its intellectual ability or things like that. I wouldn't say its Nazi or Fascist either (there is a difference for those not aware that the difference exists).

[Sim shady 12]

I understand the resistance to picking your child's traits, but I have to ask "why not?" If we can genetically engineer everybody to be stronger and healthier, I suspect the benefits would be enormous. On this page as I write this, there is an ad from Health.com advertising the ability to find causes and treatments for chronic pain. If scientists were able to ensure that babies born did not experience such debilating factors like chronic back pain by genetically enhancing the strength of the spine or even something simple like obesity; increase the body's natural level of metabolism. The ability to prevent these common detriments in the human body could yield phenomenal results. On a personal satisfaction level, a person that has been cured of back pain will most likely be much happier and more productive. Gastric bypass and lap-band surgery are just two of a host of different treatments designed to attack obesity. The ability to curtail obesity and isolate its causes to lifestyle choices should help reduce obesity levels in modern societies. The negative economic, social, and medical impact of obesity is well documented (please don't make me pull up some links to back this up, just draw on previous knowledge ). By engaging in genetic engineering, we could greatly impact the health and productivity of people in society for the better.

My Question is just "Why not?"

*And no, I don't mean to offend anyone. I just want to engage in intellectual conversation

[Patricius Maximus 236]

It is ultimately up to the parents, as it is their sperm and eggs, and their right to decide what to do with it. However, I do have an opinion on it.

We are a long way from having designer babies, all we can do is influence well-understood traits, such as eye, hair, and skin color, and we are close to understanding certain inherited diseases. This, however, is about the ultimate future, when we have the capability to genetically engineer true designer babies.

Eugenics has been described as the "self-direction of human evolution". In many ways, this is the case, but there is one crucial difference -- Evolution operates by natural selection. Eugenics operates by artificial selection. We are on the cusp of placing the trust in ourselves to determine which traits will be dominant in the future.

If positive traits are selected, such as intelligence, independence, beauty, et cetera, then human evolution will accelerate and produce better generations ahead which will greatly improve the human species.

If negative traits are selected, such as obedience, or the ensurance of "averageness", then it can only lead to the rise of totalitarian regimes, an Orwellian world, or even species-wide extinction.

By 100 years from now, natural selection will be mainly in our hands. Let's use it to our children's advantage, instead of perpetuating our own dominance, for the cause of a better future ahead.

Voluntary (unforced) eugenics can be a good thing, it can also be a bad thing. I fully support the right to choose to design babies or not to, to any degree.

If we are to self-direct our evolution, let us direct us towards a better future.

- Patricius Maximus

[Sim shady 12]

Amen. Those totalitarian societies described in books like Brave New World, the Uglies, 1984, ect. all rub on me the wrong way. I believe all humans have the basic capalitity of good within them. Even men such as Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein, considered by most to be the bastions of evil in mankind, probably had at least some kindness within them, showing it to perhaps a lover or a child of theirs. Their causes, while horrific to us, were validated to themselves with their own twisted logic. I highly doubt they saw themselves as evil men or recognized how wrong their causes were. The concept of heartless, evil bad guys so often portrayed in Hollywood just does not ring well with me.

Either way, Patricius Maximus words ring very true to me. If we are to gain such power, I would truly hope that mankind has the ability to use it in the right way.

[Meg 368]

It all depends on who is doing the designing.

It's one thing for every couple to have the ability to design / select the best babies they can produce.

 

It's another thing for a group of people (the design companies, the insurance companies, big brother, a morality task force, whoever) to decide which babies get to be designed and which do not.

I know people who say that assisted conception is bad because most of the resulting babies have some sort of medical problem.   I suspect that is an overstatement.   There have to be healthy assisted-conception kids.   Even if the ones I know are not.

 

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Personally, I'd say it would take a lot of the fun out of having kids. You want to see what your kids become and what they do. Think about something here. If your kid does well in school naturally, you get to say "Look how smart he is!" ...which is a decidedly different feeling from saying "Look how smart I designed him to be!".

It takes credit for their achievements away from them.

That said... well, of course there will be people who'd beg to differ and would love to choose how their kids will turn out in advance.

And while that's certainly ethically touchy, simple fact of the matter is that if we have the capability to do something, and there's money or power to be gained from doing it, it's going to get done by someone, morals be damned. There's money to be made here, so, get used to the idea. It's something you'll be seeing in the future whether you like it or not.

[panthersimcity4 162]

ZOMG DESIGNER BABIES! 

[Easy Bakes 253]

I wonder what Ricardo Montalbán would have thought of this.

[Jezus53 18]

Oh God, not Brave New world status. That book worries me so much. I would never want to live in a world like that.

Before this goes out to everyone, there really needs to be long term clinical trials. What scares me is the fact that if you tinker with a few genes to make them intelligent, one or two genes to make them strong, and maybe another to stop cancer, those things could potentially cause even more damage than they're worth. I wouldn't want that on conscious.

Seeing how much governments everywhere are corrupted and hearing of things they would try to hide, I would never trust them with this kind of technology. You know every government would develope secert super soldiers. I don't know if you're all familiar with Stalin's ambitions, but one was to create a super army of a hybrid of humans and apes. Sure Stalin was, well, crazy with power, but the fact that the idea was brought up and researched is scary. It wouldn't surprise me if the US also tried to do the same thing during the cold war.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Oh God, not Brave New world status. That book worries me so much. quote>

So does 1984, and most other dystopias for that matter.

I would never want to live in a world like that.quote>

Exactly. And we must always remain on alert for any "slippery slopes" into totalitarianism, or any movements towards it. That is always the case, but even more so in the next century when babies can be designed to be indifferent to it.

What scares me is the fact that if you tinker with a few genes to make them intelligent, one or two genes to make them strong, and maybe another to stop cancer, those things could potentially cause even more damage than they're worth.quote>

That is a risk. We do not know everything about DNA that is there to know.

Seeing how much governments everywhere are corrupted and hearing of things they would try to hide, I would never trust them with this kind of technology. You know every government would develope secert super soldiers. I don't know if you're all familiar with Stalin's ambitions, but one was to create a super army of a hybrid of humans and apes. Sure Stalin was, well, crazy with power, but the fact that the idea was brought up and researched is scary. It wouldn't surprise me if the US also tried to do the same thing during the cold war.quote>

Yes, they could create a whole army of state slaves that would be obedient to the people at the top. Strict laws or even constitutional amendments should be enacted to prevent this.

Imagine if designed citizens indifferent to totalitarian regimes went about their lives while a super-army stalked them every minute, obedient to the super-intelligent at the top. While this cannot happen with a liberal society (one that values rights first), it certainly can and probably will happen in a totalitarian government which has control over the designing.

[duack 14]

This can only be good. So far, the only negatives I've heard are examples from fiction novels, and perhaps that extrememly boring movie "gataca". But in reality, the advantages are enourmous and the disadvantages almost non-existant. Like people have already mentioned, wiping out diseases and such. Also, cosmetic properties are also good because all the good genes would be picked and all the ugly traits would be history. How is that a bad thing? Everyone in my family has a honky nose and if I have children, removing this gene would be great.

Besides, I would argue that this is relatively safe. I won't accept any "playing God" theories because thats offensive to people who don't believe in God. But why I reckon its safe is because when the fetus first develops, the genes are the code for everything, and genes have already started to multiply themselves and create amino acids, the building blocks of life. So any complications would appear very early in development. Its almost impossible for something to "appear later" because all genes ever do is multiply themselves, and produce amino acids using the same process every time. Besides, genes naturally mutate themselves all the time. Each time a gene copies itself, it changes by 0.001%. So if its copied itself 1000 times, its changed by a whopping 1%! So your genes actually change throughout your life, and Im not too sure but I think this is one of the reasons the risk of birth defects is higher in older women, because your genes are slowly mutating.

Plus, living in a capitalist society, it will always be up to the consumer (the parents) to decide what they want. For this to be turned into a whole totalitarian thing, we would first have to vote for a totalitarian leader, and I doubt that will ever happen.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

What scares me is the fact that if you tinker with a few genes to make them intelligent, one or two genes to make them strong, and maybe another to stop cancer, those things could potentially cause even more damage than they're worth.quote>

That is a risk. We do not know everything about DNA that is there to know.

quote>

Agreed. And even what we do know is tricky and expensive to change. Genotype is also not the be all and end all of phenotype. Living things can be genetically one characteristic, but phenotypically another.

I suspect though this is more a matter of blown out of proportion hype more than anything. Looking at the methods likely to be used indicates there would probably be certain limitations to it.

What they are probably doing is something similar to what can be done currently for disease screening. Basically multiple embryos are  produced (similar or the same as in IVF), which are a product of two people. Then at the eight cell stage, one cell is taken from each embryo and tested for certain characteristics. The embryo to implant can then be selected from the produced fertilised embryos. This is similar to what happens now for example when embryos are screened for risk for colon or breast cancer now, and an embryo selected that does not have the risk gene.

Since the embryos produced are the product of two parents, the possible combination of traits are limited to those that would be produced by those two people under natural circumstances anyway. So if a couple does not have a blonde gene between them, they probably aren't going to be able to select a blonde embryo.

Also, it is very likely that only a limited number of traits could be selected in the one embryo, because with only two parents and a limited number of embryos that could realistically be produced, the chances of getting the exact combination of several characteristics you want would be smaller for every additional characteristic you want to select. Selection of complex traits (ones that depend on many different genes) such as intelligence or obedience are probably still a very long way off. Splicing in novel genes (such as red hair where the parents have no red hair genes) is probably also a very long way off, even if though some modifications can and are done with (lab only) animals. There are very tight restrictions on genetically engineered animals. They are also very valuable due to the time and cost to create them.

I don't think its so much of a lego kit as opposed to select one from a few possible options that could have occurred naturally anyway. Eg you and your wife have genes for blonde hair or brown hair, which would you prefer? Maybe you could also have either blue eyes or brown eyes. I don't think glow in the dark eyes are one of the options though.

I think if used for disease screening it could be a good technology but not every couple will be prepared to go through IVF type procedures just to be able to pick their child's eye or hair colour. Perhaps if they were already having to do the procedure anyway they might want to, but they may well have more pressing concerns in that case.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: duack Everyone in my family has a honky nose...

quote>

Ah, the one racial term no one seems to complain about. How is it a 'honky' nose, compared to a, um, never mind...

Not that I'm offended, I'm not. I'm pretty honky myself.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan How is it a 'honky' nose, compared to a, um, never mind...quote>

It's like with one of those guys from Sesame Street. The nose goes "honk!" when you squeeze it.

Like in that song, "

"...

[Patricius Maximus 236]

This can only be good. So far, the only negatives I've heard are examples from fiction novels, and perhaps that extrememly boring movie "gataca". But in reality, the advantages are enourmous and the disadvantages almost non-existant.quote>

Ah, but these fiction novels that I have mentioned serve as a warning: a warning to prevent the rise of totalitarian regimes in your city, state, or region.

Assuming the capability to design humans will exist in the near future, with proper safeguards and methods it will turn out to be mostly advantageous.

Safeguards include a prohibition on the state to interfere with the choice to gentically engineer your own embryo, and a prohibition on the state using the technology to make super-soldiers, state slaves, et cetera.

Like people have already mentioned, wiping out diseases and such. Also, cosmetic properties are also good because all the good genes would be picked and all the ugly traits would be history. How is that a bad thing? Everyone in my family has a honky nose and if I have children, removing this gene would be great.quote>

There will still be diseases, especially among the population that elects not to do this thing. I agree that certain traits would be best eliminated.

Like your family's honky nose, my family has a history of hereditary back problems. It would be great if my parents had made my spine stronger when my genes were contained in an embryo.

Plus, living in a capitalist society, it will always be up to the consumer (the parents) to decide what they want. For this to be turned into a whole totalitarian thing, we would first have to vote for a totalitarian leader, and I doubt that will ever happen.quote>

It's not always as simple as that. Imagine, for instance, if George Bush had pushed the 9/11 crisis to the absolute maximum, giving the government virtually unlimited power. With a complicit court system, and a rubber-stamp legislature, that could have happened.

Fortunately, it did not result in a complete transformation, but look at what the Executive branch managed to do. America now even has a secret police, in the form of the NSA, that spies on every citizen.

The potential is there, especially in exploiting crises. Do not deny that, or you may become a victim yourself. Think about 9/11, the Reichstag Fire, or other examples. It can happen, and once totalitarian government gains power, it always expands itself.

Sam: Thanks for that logical reminder. As I said, we do not have the capability to design babies now, but I believe we will by the 22nd century.

[Explodingsims 3]

Someone's been playing too much GTA IV...

Well, this sounds like a slippery slope. While it might start out as a good idea, you just know someones going to use this against us.

[hym 358]

America now even has a secret police, in the form of the NSA, that spies on every citizen.quote>

First, the NSA existed before the Bush administration, and it was either known to have or believed to have possessed many of the same responsibilities that it has now. The major difference between then and now is that more light as been shed on what it does.

Second, the NSA doesn't spy on every citizen. It neither has the resources nor the technology to make such a concept feasible.

[duack 14]

 Some people are so open minded they contradict themselves. Besides, just about every developed country has its own secret police and the main point of this is to stop terrorists and drug dealers from getting away. 

Also, manticore said this...

Ah, the one racial term no one seems to complain about. How is it a 'honky' nose, compared to a, um, never mind... quote>

I don't get it.