I agree with you. If indeed we know all effects of our gene modification, and we have the ability to modify a gene to be "obviously better", then we are definitely morally obligated to fix it.
Let's ask another question, though. Let's say we don't have the ability to fix it, but we do have the ability to detect it very early. Should we be morally obligated to throw it away and try again until we get one without the problem?
I think that would depend on the degree of the disease or syndrome.
Where do you draw the line then?
Personally, I say yes; if you know that a child will be born with Tay-Sachs, you are morally obligated to abort that child, because it's more humane than allowing them to suffer a slow, painful, debilitating death. I would also argue the same thing if you had evidence that your child would be born with a severe mental handicap, sufficient to make that child dependent on full-time assistance for even the most basic functions.
Eurgh.. I think I'll go to bed and try making sense of that in the morning. Good night all.
That's all basic high-school biology right there. ;^)
Well, maybe not the function of HEXA and the mechanism of Tay-Sachs, but the central dogma (DNA-RNA-Protein) is probably the single most central and fundamental concept in all of molecular biology.
I agree with you. If indeed we know all effects of our gene modification, and we have the ability to modify a gene to be "obviously better", then we are definitely morally obligated to fix it.
Let's ask another question, though. Let's say we don't have the ability to fix it, but we do have the ability to detect it very early. Should we be morally obligated to throw it away and try again until we get one without the problem?
I think that would depend on the degree of the disease or syndrome.
Where do you draw the line then?
Personally, I say yes; if you know that a child will be born with Tay-Sachs, you are morally obligated to abort that child, because it's more humane than allowing them to suffer a slow, painful, debilitating death. I would also argue the same thing if you had evidence that your child would be born with a severe mental handicap, sufficient to make that child dependent on full-time assistance for even the most basic functions.
Sorry, I didn't read the question correctly. I thought we were still able to delete genes.
Erwin: I wasn't clear there. You said that it "depends on the disease." I'm asking where your line thus lies. As in, would it be acceptable for Tay-Sachs? How much should it be before the answer is "yes, meddle with it." I say it should be with any disorder that can impact the ability of a person to care for themselves. What say you?
We can delete genes, but that's a very inelegant process, and that wouldn't really fix the problem. A deleted gene is effectively the same as a gene that makes a non-functional product. We need to be able to revert point mutations back to the wild-type state without affecting other genes, and that technology is being worked on.
Let's ask another question, though. Let's say we don't have the ability to fix it, but we do have the ability to detect it very early. Should we be morally obligated to throw it away and try again until we get one without the problem?
OK this leads on to another topic of discussion. Right now New York State DOH Newborn Screening Program only test for genetic diseases that are treatable. This is a number of problems we can detect but we currently can not treat. Those problems are not tested for under the current program.
The problem is what if a cure if found for a disorder tomorrow but your child was tested today. They would have never been tested because at the time their was no cure. This would lead to a potentially huge overlap of kids who die for a now curable problem because they didn't get the test.
The flip side of this is how do we tell a parent that your child with die and their is nothing anyone can do about it. I am sure some parents would fight for their child and donate money and time to find a cure. Others may quit and give their child up for adoption knowing they are going to be dead soon anyways.
We can delete genes, but that's a very inelegant process, and that wouldn't really fix the problem. A deleted gene is effectively the same as a gene that makes a non-functional product. We need to be able to revert point mutations back to the wild-type state without affecting other genes, and that technology is being worked on.
We do not want to delete genes. Deleting a gene completely would leave you without the gene product and that could be worse than having a defective product. By deleting a gene entirely you may also be removing nonconding DNA and RNA that is important to other genes. Maybe there was a microRNA encoded in that defective gene's intron or untranslated regions, now by deleting it you've lost one of the body's regulatory mechanisms which could result in too much of a different protein or RNA. That now deleted microRNA might have been important for cells differentiating from a generic cell to a nerve cell or skin cell. You now have a fetus that will fail to develop properly.
Genes are not necessarily as discrete as TheWhaleShark has implied. A lot of genes have alternative splicing going on, which means one genes can make 1-30 different necessary gene products. They also encode microRNAs and contain microRNA target sequences within them. MicroRNAs are important because they help regulate cell's proteins and RNA, especially during development and differentiation of cells. Another thing you need to consider is that you have epigenetics to worry about as well. This means two people with identical DNA sequences will look different. This is because DNA can get methylated, meaning the machinery that makes DNA to RNA can't access certain parts of genes. There's a really good example experiment where feeding a certain kind of mouse a high fat diet causes the germ cells to methylate a series of genes including the coat color gene. This causes the offspring to have an entirely different coat color from the parent even though their coat color genes are identical.
While we don't have designer children we have the technology to either do site directed mutagenesis or homologous recombination to fix or replace a gene. The only thing standing in our way is a proper genetic map. We need everything mapped properly including the microRNA seeds, microRNA targets, introns and exons of alternatively spliced genes, promoters, enhancers, silencers, and methylation patterns. There is a caveat to all this. Just because we decide to make a designer child and actually alter the DNA does not mean it will remain in a perfect state. Human DNA polymerase is error prone and can mess up when making RNA or copying DNA and will put the wrong nucleotide in. So just because you went through the agony of deciding to make a designer child it could be for nothing if there's a few cumulative errors in the wrong gene. This being said, if I knew both my partner and I carried the gene for a horrible disease I would opt to design a child that did not carry it.
To be honest I think redesigning children to have altered disease genes will be available at some point in the future but, the addition of certain cosmetic traits listed earlier in the thread won't be as feasible. Adding genes comes up with issue of do we design new chromosomes for them, or do they get slapped on an existing chromosome? Then you have the issue of people with these additions reproducing later on. Everything needs to be balanced genetically for a fetus to survive and fetuses that are missing parts of chromosomes or have too many usually result in nonviable pregnancies.
The flip side of this is how do we tell a parent that your child with die and their is nothing anyone can do about it. I am sure some parents would fight for their child and donate money and time to find a cure. Others may quit and give their child up for adoption knowing they are going to be dead soon anyways.
Is this testing done after the child is born or in the last trimester, or is the testing done in time to abort the pregnancy?
A lot of genes have alternative splicing going on, which means one genes can make 1-30 different necessary gene products.
Right, but don't those genes that can be alternatively spliced have a particular set of gene products? I guess that's not technically discrete in the "one gene, one product" sense, but it's discrete in the "we know what this gene makes" sense.
And yeah, you really don't want to delete genes in humans. If we were to do anything to a mutated gene, it would be to mutate it back to its functional form.
The flip side of this is how do we tell a parent that your child with die and their is nothing anyone can do about it.
Probably just like that, though I do prefer the House approach to things.
I'm in favor of full disclosure to parents. The only thing that the information can do is help you to make whatever decision you would make.
I am not sure when the testing is done. I think this test it's after birth. I'll do what I can to confirm this. I know a number of test are done pre-birth but some tests done too early could potentially damage the embryo.
Now lets say this test was done early enough to allow for an abortion. Is it justifiable to terminate the pregnancy knowing your child has a fatal genetic issue? What if you detected the child would be born health BUT with a survival genetic disorder? Would you or should you be allowed to get an abortion if you know your child will be born with autism or dwarfism?
Would you or should you be allowed to get an abortion if you know your child will be born with autism or dwarfism?
Now that's a sticky question. If it's a fatal genetic disease, as I've said, I feel that parents are obligated to abort, because to allow that child to be born is simply cruel.
If it's a simple physical disorder that we can otherwise overcome, then I leave it up to the parents. You should have the right to abort an embryo for any reason, even if I personally find that reason reprehensible.
As for me, I'm not sure if I would abort a child if I knew it would be born with, say, dwarfism. That can cause a lot of health problems later in life, and I'm not sure if I could really sentence somebody to dealing with it. I generally think it's better to be alive than not be alive, but alive with a ton of health problems? I'm not sure that's a decision I can make so readily.
We need to ask somebody with dwarfism that question: if you could have been born without dwarfism, would you want to be?
What if you did a test and found out the kid would live a relatively healthy life, but would have severe and painful problems in old age? What if I found out the kid would be healthy, but clumsy and prone to accidents? What if they would be super healthy, but super ugly?
Now lets say this test was done early enough to allow for an abortion. Is it justifiable to terminate the pregnancy knowing your child has a fatal genetic issue? What if you detected the child would be born health BUT with a survival genetic disorder? Would you or should you be allowed to get an abortion if you know your child will be born with autism or dwarfism?
Women should be able to have an abortion for any or no reason at all, as far as I am concerned. Do I think they should? Well, that depends largely on circumstance. I think that an abortion of a fetus that would definitely die a slow an painful death at a young age after suffering for years is a mercy, not an offense. As for aborting a child because it has a genetic disorder that isn't fatal....? I don't know if I would do it. It depends on the disease and how much pain/suffering would be involved for the child.
What if you did a test and found out the kid would live a relatively healthy life, but would have severe and painful problems in old age? What if I found out the kid would be healthy, but clumsy and prone to accidents? What if they would be super healthy, but super ugly?
I wouldn't, but I think each mother should make the choice for herself.
What if you did a test and found out the kid would live a relatively healthy life, but would have severe and painful problems in old age? What if I found out the kid would be healthy, but clumsy and prone to accidents? What if they would be super healthy, but super ugly?
That's a tough one, so I'm going to go out on a limb here.
If the child would be born with a genetic defect that would result in undue hardship in life - ANY undue hardship - and you knew about it ahead of time, you as a parent should change the trait (assuming the technology is available), or abort the child if the technology is not available.
What if you did a test and found out the kid would live a relatively healthy life, but would have severe and painful problems in old age? What if I found out the kid would be healthy, but clumsy and prone to accidents? What if they would be super healthy, but super ugly?
That's a tough one, so I'm going to go out on a limb here.
If the child would be born with a genetic defect that would result in undue hardship in life - ANY undue hardship - and you knew about it ahead of time, you as a parent should change the trait (assuming the technology is available), or abort the child if the technology is not available.
What do we think of that?
Be more specific about undue hardship. Is being clumsy an undue hardship? How about carrying a bit of extra weight? Having acne? Having wisdom teeth that come in crooked or being a midget/dwarf? If there are any forum members with disabilities, I would be really interested to hear them weigh.
What if you did a test and found out the kid would live a relatively healthy life, but would have severe and painful problems in old age? What if I found out the kid would be healthy, but clumsy and prone to accidents? What if they would be super healthy, but super ugly?
That's a tough one, so I'm going to go out on a limb here.
If the child would be born with a genetic defect that would result in undue hardship in life - ANY undue hardship - and you knew about it ahead of time, you as a parent should change the trait (assuming the technology is available), or abort the child if the technology is not available.
What do we think of that?
How could you live with yourself as a parent if you knew you could have prevented a defect that causes the child to unduly suffer? Wouldn't it just be selfish to allow a child like that to be born? Or . . . would it be selfish to change the trait or abort it?
Also, remember that not all birth defects are genetic. You might test the genes, and think a baby is "perfect," but then it grows in a problematic fashion due to other reasons. Eliminating the genetic disabilities, but not others, would result in disabled people being even a smaller minority than they already are. It would consist almost entirely of people with non-genetic birth defects and people who were injured later in life, like Christopher Reeve. There would be fewer disabled people, which is good. But because of their lower numbers, they will have a harder time getting help from a representative government due to their lower numbers. It's the same thing when you get a disease that nobody else has, you're kind of screwed because nobody is going to research a cure for one person.
So, in some weird way, it might be better to forgo preventative solutions to some of these problems in order to keep research into post-hoc solutions from drying up. Maybe?
What if you did a test and found out the kid would live a relatively healthy life, but would have severe and painful problems in old age? What if I found out the kid would be healthy, but clumsy and prone to accidents? What if they would be super healthy, but super ugly?
That's a tough one, so I'm going to go out on a limb here.
If the child would be born with a genetic defect that would result in undue hardship in life - ANY undue hardship - and you knew about it ahead of time, you as a parent should change the trait (assuming the technology is available), or abort the child if the technology is not available.
What do we think of that?
Be more specific about undue hardship. Is being clumsy an undue hardship? How about carrying a bit of extra weight? Having acne? Having wisdom teeth that come in crooked or being a midget/dwarf? If there are any forum members with disabilities, I would be really interested to hear them weigh.
I'll go all the way to start with. If the child would be genetically obese, fix it or abort. The same goes for acne, or crooked teeth, or bad breath, or whatever. If there were a genetic basis for it, and you were aware of it, you should fix it or abort.
Scott is right, this wouldn't fix every possible handicap or hardship. However, if we were aware of hardships that we could correct, should we correct them? Shouldn't we minimize hardship and suffering if we are able to do so?
If there was a way to graft a gene that made it impossible for HIV to enter the blood cells into an egg or sperm, I would do it to any possible children of mine in a heartbeat. If there was anyway to remove a defect in a manner that doesn't cause harm to an individual or to the species, there should be no moral objections. Modifying ones offspring solely for vanity, however, should be thoroughly prohibited. This is just an extension of the tyranny of parenthood. Self-determination should be the norm for finding one's identity. No one should alter that, especially at birth when they are helpless.
The thing is that HIV attaches to a receptor that is very important for us all CD4 with the help of CD5 (both of them are very important for our adaptive immune system) on our T-cells. It is a lot easier to just teach safe sex to the kids. Also why give another excuse for unprotected sex?
The thing is that HIV attaches to a receptor that is very important for us all CD4 with the help of CD5 (both of them are very important for our adaptive immune system) on our T-cells. It is a lot easier to just teach safe sex to the kids. Also why give another excuse for unprotected sex?
HIV is also a blood borne disease, and I'm not advocating unprotected sex. Safe sex is not concrete, either. I would support something like this to aid in safe sex, not replace it.
The thing is that HIV attaches to a receptor that is very important for us all CD4 with the help of CD5 (both of them are very important for our adaptive immune system) on our T-cells. It is a lot easier to just teach safe sex to the kids. Also why give another excuse for unprotected sex?
HIV is also a blood borne disease, and I'm not advocating unprotected sex. Safe sex is not concrete, either. I would support something like this to aid in safe sex, not replace it.
I should have rephrase it better. I should have wrote "Many people would take that as an excuse for unprotected sex". Sorry In any case the best way to to prevent HIV would not be by stopping HIV's attachment the host but by preventing cholesterol from reaching the virus, while inside the host, which will inhibit its proliferation. I think is a a more feasible idea.
I should have rephrase it better. I should have wrote "Many people would take that as an excuse for unprotected sex". Sorry In any case the best way to to prevent HIV would not be by stopping HIV's attachment the host but by preventing cholesterol from reaching the virus, while inside the host, which will inhibit its proliferation. I think is a a more feasible idea.
What? Ok, you need to stop talking about HIV right now. There are populations in the world that are missing HIV co-receptors (CCR5) and do not have an altered immune response phenotype. In addition there are knockout mice that are missing the CD4 protein that can live normally. In addition preventing HIV proliferating would do nothing. Your cells need cholesterol for their membranes and organelles and you wouldn't be able to differentiate between the HIV virions and the parts of the cells that need it. Current ground breaking research in the HIV field is looking at how to prevent integration of HIV into host cell genomes, how to down/up regulate the HIV genome transcription and how to reactivate HIV in latent cells so they can be targeted by other immune cells. Please stop talking about HIV like you do research on it.
And how would this be an excuse for people to have unprotected sex? Are you one of those people that think little girls shouldn't get the HPV vaccine because you think they'll have unprotected sex now?
Comments
Personally, I say yes; if you know that a child will be born with Tay-Sachs, you are morally obligated to abort that child, because it's more humane than allowing them to suffer a slow, painful, debilitating death. I would also argue the same thing if you had evidence that your child would be born with a severe mental handicap, sufficient to make that child dependent on full-time assistance for even the most basic functions.
We can delete genes, but that's a very inelegant process, and that wouldn't really fix the problem. A deleted gene is effectively the same as a gene that makes a non-functional product. We need to be able to revert point mutations back to the wild-type state without affecting other genes, and that technology is being worked on.
The problem is what if a cure if found for a disorder tomorrow but your child was tested today. They would have never been tested because at the time their was no cure. This would lead to a potentially huge overlap of kids who die for a now curable problem because they didn't get the test.
The flip side of this is how do we tell a parent that your child with die and their is nothing anyone can do about it. I am sure some parents would fight for their child and donate money and time to find a cure. Others may quit and give their child up for adoption knowing they are going to be dead soon anyways.
Genes are not necessarily as discrete as TheWhaleShark has implied. A lot of genes have alternative splicing going on, which means one genes can make 1-30 different necessary gene products. They also encode microRNAs and contain microRNA target sequences within them. MicroRNAs are important because they help regulate cell's proteins and RNA, especially during development and differentiation of cells. Another thing you need to consider is that you have epigenetics to worry about as well. This means two people with identical DNA sequences will look different. This is because DNA can get methylated, meaning the machinery that makes DNA to RNA can't access certain parts of genes. There's a really good example experiment where feeding a certain kind of mouse a high fat diet causes the germ cells to methylate a series of genes including the coat color gene. This causes the offspring to have an entirely different coat color from the parent even though their coat color genes are identical.
While we don't have designer children we have the technology to either do site directed mutagenesis or homologous recombination to fix or replace a gene. The only thing standing in our way is a proper genetic map. We need everything mapped properly including the microRNA seeds, microRNA targets, introns and exons of alternatively spliced genes, promoters, enhancers, silencers, and methylation patterns. There is a caveat to all this. Just because we decide to make a designer child and actually alter the DNA does not mean it will remain in a perfect state. Human DNA polymerase is error prone and can mess up when making RNA or copying DNA and will put the wrong nucleotide in. So just because you went through the agony of deciding to make a designer child it could be for nothing if there's a few cumulative errors in the wrong gene. This being said, if I knew both my partner and I carried the gene for a horrible disease I would opt to design a child that did not carry it.
To be honest I think redesigning children to have altered disease genes will be available at some point in the future but, the addition of certain cosmetic traits listed earlier in the thread won't be as feasible. Adding genes comes up with issue of do we design new chromosomes for them, or do they get slapped on an existing chromosome? Then you have the issue of people with these additions reproducing later on. Everything needs to be balanced genetically for a fetus to survive and fetuses that are missing parts of chromosomes or have too many usually result in nonviable pregnancies.
And yeah, you really don't want to delete genes in humans. If we were to do anything to a mutated gene, it would be to mutate it back to its functional form. Probably just like that, though I do prefer the House approach to things.
I'm in favor of full disclosure to parents. The only thing that the information can do is help you to make whatever decision you would make.
Now lets say this test was done early enough to allow for an abortion. Is it justifiable to terminate the pregnancy knowing your child has a fatal genetic issue? What if you detected the child would be born health BUT with a survival genetic disorder? Would you or should you be allowed to get an abortion if you know your child will be born with autism or dwarfism?
If it's a simple physical disorder that we can otherwise overcome, then I leave it up to the parents. You should have the right to abort an embryo for any reason, even if I personally find that reason reprehensible.
As for me, I'm not sure if I would abort a child if I knew it would be born with, say, dwarfism. That can cause a lot of health problems later in life, and I'm not sure if I could really sentence somebody to dealing with it. I generally think it's better to be alive than not be alive, but alive with a ton of health problems? I'm not sure that's a decision I can make so readily.
We need to ask somebody with dwarfism that question: if you could have been born without dwarfism, would you want to be?
As for aborting a child because it has a genetic disorder that isn't fatal....? I don't know if I would do it. It depends on the disease and how much pain/suffering would be involved for the child.
If the child would be born with a genetic defect that would result in undue hardship in life - ANY undue hardship - and you knew about it ahead of time, you as a parent should change the trait (assuming the technology is available), or abort the child if the technology is not available.
What do we think of that?
If there are any forum members with disabilities, I would be really interested to hear them weigh.
So, in some weird way, it might be better to forgo preventative solutions to some of these problems in order to keep research into post-hoc solutions from drying up. Maybe?
Scott is right, this wouldn't fix every possible handicap or hardship. However, if we were aware of hardships that we could correct, should we correct them? Shouldn't we minimize hardship and suffering if we are able to do so?
In any case the best way to to prevent HIV would not be by stopping HIV's attachment the host but by preventing cholesterol from reaching the virus, while inside the host, which will inhibit its proliferation. I think is a a more feasible idea.
And how would this be an excuse for people to have unprotected sex? Are you one of those people that think little girls shouldn't get the HPV vaccine because you think they'll have unprotected sex now?
Edited for spelling. Rar.