Designer babies could soon be a fact. Is this something you would do?

steddyeddy

New Crispr technology is making it easier to genetically engineer life. It may soon be possible to create babies with certain traits like blue eyes, intelligence or athletic prowess. This might seem OK but think about this. Some traits like sexuality are thought to be genetically determined. Some conservative parents could opt to make their child straight. Some might even choose to have a gay child. Are choices like this good for society and the individual? Link here and article from the BBC below.

Rapid progress in genetics is making "designer babies" more likely and society needs to be prepared, leading scientists have told the BBC.
Dr Tony Perry, a pioneer in cloning, has announced precise DNA editing at the moment of conception in mice.
He said huge advances in the past two years meant "designer babies" were no longer HG Wells territory.
Other leading scientists and bioethicists argue it is time for a serious public debate on the issue.
Designer babies - genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease - have long been a topic of science fiction.
Continue reading the main story

This is not HG Wells, you can imagine people doing this soon”

Dr Tony Perry University of Bath
Dr Perry, who was part of the teams to clone the first mice and pigs, said the prospect was still fiction, but science was rapidly catching up to make elements of it possible.
In the journal Scientific Reports, he details precisely editing the genome of mice at the point DNA from the sperm and egg come together.
Dr Perry, who is based at the University of Bath, told the BBC: "We used a pair of molecular scissors and a molecular sat-nav that tells the scissors where to cut.
"It is approaching 100% efficiency already, it's a case of 'you shoot you score'."
New era It is the latest development of "Crispr technology" - which is a more precise way of editing DNA than anything that has come before.
Prof Perry said the technique could one day be performed during fertility treatment
It was named one of the top breakthroughs in 2013, hailed as the start of a new era of genetics and is being used in a wide-range of experiments in thousands of laboratories.
As well simply cutting the DNA to make mutations, as the Bath team have done, it is also possible to use the technology to insert new pieces of genetic code at the site of the cut.
It has reopened questions about genetically modifying people.
Prof Perry added: "On the human side, one has to be very cautious.
"There are heritable diseases coded by mutations in DNA and some people could say, 'I don't want my children to have these mutations.'"
This includes conditions such as cystic fibrosis and genes that increase the risk of cancer.
"There's much speculation here, but it's not completely fanciful, this is not HG Wells, you can imagine people doing this soon [in animals].
"At that time the HFEA [the UK's fertility regulator] will need to be prepared because they're going to have to deal with this issue."
He said science existed as part of a wider community and that it was up to society as a whole to begin assessing the implications and decide what is acceptable.
Time for debate Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, from the UK Medical Research Council, has been influential in the debate around making babies from three people and uses the Crispr technology in his own lab.
Continue reading the main story

There needs to be a debate... and some rational thought rather than knee-jerk reactions that, 'No you can't possibly do that'”

Prof Robin Lovell-Badge Medical Research Council
He said testing embryos for disease during IVF would be the best way of preventing diseases being passed down through the generations.
However, he could see such potential uses of "germ-line therapies" for men left infertile by damaging mutations.
While they can have children through IVF, any sons would still have the mutations and would in turn need IVF. Genetic modification could fix that.
It would also be useful in circumstances when all embryos would carry the undesirable, risky genes.
Prof Lovell-Badge told the BBC News website: "Obviously in the UK, this is not allowed and there would have to be a change in regulations, which I suspect would have enormous problems.
"But it is something that needs to start to be debated.
"There has been a blanket ban on germ-line therapy, so there needs to be a debate about that and some rational thought rather than knee-jerk reactions that, 'No you can't possibly do that.'"


Such a debate would also have to move beyond therapies into the field of babies designed to have desirable traits.
Some alternations would only require small changes to DNA, such as some changes to eye colour or to make a child HIV-resistant.
The respected Nuffield Council on Bioethics is understood to be considering a report on the issue.
Its verdict in 2012 that it was ethical to create babies from three people formed a core part of the public debate on the issue.
At the time it said a much wider debate on germ-line therapy was still needed.
Complex ethics Its director, Hugh Whittall, told the BBC: "I think this is a challenge, for all of us, we should get onto looking at this fairly rapidly now."
He said the field raised questions of social justice around techniques available only to the rich and what constituted identity as well as "issues of governance and regulation".
Dr David King, from the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, echoed calls for the public to engage with the issue.
He said: "I think it's pretty inevitable that we'll get to a point where it's scientifically possible, certainly these new techniques of genome editing have made something look much more feasible than it did five years ago.
"But that does not mean to say it's inevitably the way we have to go as a society."
This is still a matter of science fiction and there is a huge amount of research - particularly on unwanted mutations, efficiency and safety - that needs to be done before any attempt of humans would even be considered.
A spokesman for the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said: "We keep a watchful eye on scientific developments of this kind and welcome discussions about future possible developments."
He said it "should be remembered that germ-line modification of nuclear DNA remains illegal in the UK" and that new legislation would be needed from Parliament "with all the open and public debate that would entail" for there to be any change in the law.

The_Valeyard

Grand, I'm going to great three or four ultra smart kids to take care of me in my old age.

Sheep Lover

White, green eyes and a hefty langer.

Sorted for life.

bodhrandude

Sounds kinda creepy, Brave New World here we come.

bjork

Varadkar said they won't be allowed

Miall108

Well at least ya dont have to feed them, clean them or take them to the vet....er I mean the doctor

Links234

Gattaca comes to life

For Forks Sake

I have only one question, can they be fitted with a volume control switch, and can it be retro-fitted.

hfallada

OP you are forgetting that it allows for parents to select embryos that have been screened for hereditary issues eg some people have genes that there is a massive probability that their off spring will definitely have cancer. They can screen the embryos to ensure they only have a child that doesn't have the gene for cancer.


Although it's a moral Grey area. It could possible prevent the suffering of millions if child born don't have genes that gave their parents severe health issues.

Obviously this is going to be a costly procedure so I doubt everyone in 10 years will have it done to ensure their children have blue eyes and will be 6 foot tall

A Primal Nut

It will take one family to do it. Then their neighbours will say; well we better do it or we'll be at a disadvantage. Then everyone starts doing it. Then after a hundred years, parents who prefer the natural way will be vilified for not wanting the best for their children.

kneemos

I'll have one with stripes thanks.

bjork

Can they be used for advertisement space?

Lapin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some conservative parents could opt to make their child straight.......

Why do you single out conservative parents making this choice ?

I aim to fall in love with someone smart and kind and breed smart and kind (but very small) babies and raise them in a smart and kind way with their smart and kind daddy, and hope for the best. That way they'll know that we were prepared to love them no matter what colour their eyes are, or how high or low their IQ is.

The Backwards Man

I want my kids to be just like me.

BlaasForRafa

Lapin wrote: »

Why do you single out conservative parents making this choice ?

Is there something untrue about his statement?

darkpagandeath

kahhhhn !

Lapin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Is there something untrue about his statement?

Not necessarily untrue, but there seems to be a suggestion in it that parents choosing to have heterosexual children are by default conservative minded.

I don't believe this to be the case.

steddyeddy

Lapin wrote: »

Not necessarily untrue, but there seems to be a suggestion in it that parents choosing to have heterosexual children are by default conservative minded.

I don't believe this to be the case.

Fair enough we'll agree to disagree so .

Mint Sauce

To remove hereditary conditions, yes. Beyond that, no.

Lapin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fair enough we'll agree to disagree so .

But why describe them as such then?

It's a bit of a brash generalisation in fairness.

DeadHand

Sheep Lover wrote: »

White, green eyes and a hefty langer.

Sorted for life.

I don't know, mate.

I was "blessed" with all three and life still ain't been no crystal stairs.

catallus

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I want my kids to be just like me.

I want my kids to be just like you too

BlaasForRafa

Lapin wrote: »

Not necessarily untrue, but there seems to be a suggestion in it that parents choosing to have heterosexual children are by default conservative.

I don't believe this to be the case.

You have a point there. But the majority would be on the religious conservative or moral conservative part of the spectrum rather than those who would be fiscal conservatives but moral liberals.

In any case, while this is an IVF issue then it'll remain rather limited. Normal IVF is a gruelling process for those that have to endure it and success rates for IVF are still pretty much on the low side.

JaseBelleVie

Didn't the Nazis try this stuff (albeit in a much cruder form) with their Lebensborn project? For me, the connotations of master races, eugenics and so on are enough to make me not want to touch something like this with a 10 foot pole.

Paramite Pie

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I want my kids to be just like me.

Backwards??

catallus

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Backwards??

No.

Smelling of turf and addicted to Tennents :pac:

My name is URL

How (much more) fcuked up would the world be if this was ever to become the norm. Imagine a society where only the well off have access to such things, and lets face it.. that would be the case for sure.

After a few generations there'd literally just be an overclass and an underclass.. with virtually nothing in between. Your life will have pretty much been predetermined before your parents were even born.

I'm not saying I'd disagree with the idea in general. It definitely sounds like a good way to eradicate a lot of horrible conditions but you just know it'd evolve into something that's used to get rid of undesirable traits.. regardless of whether or not those traits are life-limiting in any way.

It'd be an interesting world to see but I don't think it's one I'd like to live in!

The Backwards Man

catallus wrote: »

No.

Smelling of turf and addicted to Tennents :pac:

The reverse also works.:)

bb1234567

Should we eliminate homosexuality from the gene pool if we could? I want to see what people think about this.. I think the lgbt community add diversity to our societies but then again they do have it pretty hard. Eliminating it would mean more equality, nobody would have to suffer abuse for something they have no control over.

bb1234567

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

Didn't the Nazis try this stuff (albeit in a much cruder form) with their Lebensborn project? For me, the connotations of master races, eugenics and so on are enough to make me not want to touch something like this with a 10 foot pole.

Agreed. I think we should just stay well away from it altogether. It will make life better for those who already have it good and worse for those who do not. It won't improve the world for the majority who can't afford it.

ancapailldorcha

My name is URL wrote: »

How (much more) fcuked up would the world be if this was ever to become the norm. Imagine a society where only the well off have access to such things, and lets face it.. that would be the case for sure.

After a few generations there'd literally just be an overclass and an underclass.. with virtually nothing in between. Your life will have pretty much been predetermined before your parents were even born.

I'm not saying I'd disagree with the idea in general. It definitely sounds like a good way to eradicate a lot of horrible conditions but you just know it'd evolve into something that's used to get rid of undesirable traits.. regardless of whether or not those traits are life-limiting in any way.

It'd be an interesting world to see but I don't think it's one I'd like to live in!

Spot on.

At the start, this will be the preserve of the very wealthy; corporate CEOs and the like. It's a morbidly depressing picture; people spending hundreds of thousands on one of the babies while how many go starving.

Great for diseases or conditions and things

imagine the advancements we could make in science and other fields if people were super smart

mickstupp

I think if someone could ensure my children would never be susceptible to depression, I'd probably go for it. But it seems like such a slippery slope. I don't know.

But Gattaca is one of my favourite movies.

DeadHand

DeadHand wrote: »

I don't know, mate.

I was "blessed" with all three and life still ain't been no crystal stairs.

How you doin'

qt3.14

Relatively wealthy people already have healthier babies due to better education, nutrition and access to healthcare. This is just a natural progression of that.

bb1234567

qt3.14 wrote: »

Relatively wealthy people already have healthier babies due to better education, nutrition and access to healthcare. This is just a natural progression of that.

Not its not its like putting the progression on growth hormones, its unnatural and creates a very large gap without allowing poorer/unhealthier/less educated to even attempt to catch up

Jimbob1977

Gender selection, if possible, could be dangerous and cause imbalance in the global population.

Many South Asian cultures prefer boys. In extreme cases, female babies are left to die outdoors. If the technology became cheap and widespread, there's a danger that the gender ratio would be adversely altered.

In reality, socisl engineering is already happening vis-a-vis Down Syndrome. I believe the British termination rate is 90% for Down Syndrome.

Scientists will continue to push and push until they have their way. But it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

Gattaca and A Brave New World are just science fiction, but could become science fact.

The_Valeyard

darkpagandeath wrote: »

kahhhhn !

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him. I'll chase him round the Moons of Nibia and round the Antares Maelstrom and round Perdition's flames before I give him up!

qt3.14

bb1234567 wrote: »

Not its not its like putting the progression on growth hormones, its unnatural and creates a very large gap without allowing poorer/unhealthier/less educated to even attempt to catch up

Course there is. It'll be like vitamin supplements, organ transplants etc. Everything is initially a niche product affordable only to the rich and then eventually the tech spreads D gets cheaper.