Genetics

Manach

This is a link from the BBC website.
Genetically altered babies born
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1312000/1312708.stm
Should we be worried or accept this as a natural progression of science?

Shinji

Natural progression of science, and a step in the right direction. The ability to alter our own genetic code in order to adapt to new environments, fight new diseases and eradicate crippling defects is one of the most important things our race can develop.

Our bodies are tools and housings for our minds. So far we've only been learning how to repair the tools and patch up the housings, the advancement towards being able to fix the underlying design and improve upon it is a vital one if we are to continue to progress.

RopeDrink

This was inevitable...
I really cant think of much to say on the matter... except that it seriously reminds me of my novel...

Bucon

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TARE:
Everything in the world is a result of natural evolution of our gen's, the human race messing with something they have such a limited understanding of would no douth **** it up.

</font>

How are we meant to increase our understanding without experiments?

I think that genetic modification is deinitely a good thing.
There are no external forces(e.g Mother Nature) involved in the development of a foetus...only interactions between mother and fathers genes. If we can intervene at this stage and prevent the child from developing physical defects/certain inherited diseases...then HOW can this be a bad thing?

Bucon.

SheroN

Nice point there WWMAN...the victors write the history books the loosers write the songs...Churchuill was an awful bad *******.....he did some terrible things to us irish.

neuro-praxis

That was OConnor and not WhiteWashMan.

But anyway, I used Hitler because he was the one who wanted the perfect race. Maggie Thatcher and Churchill weren't after that. Labelling Hitler evil doesn't alter anyone else's deeds, does it? Besides, I never even mentioned his evilness.

So it was actually a kind of irrelevant point.

Bucon, when I mentioned "Mother Nature" I didn't mean it in the literal sense, I meant it in the way that things naturally work. Which is what happens when the zygote is formed. And the way that things naturally work should not be tampered with, in my opinion, at least not during pregnancy.

That is my gut feeling anyway.

TwoShedsJackson

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by OConnor:
Why must people continue to refer to Hitler as thier only example of an evil man?
ok ok so he was partly responsible for the genocide of thousands of innocent jews
BUT its western propanganda that still has him portrayed as evil decades later.
FOR EXAMPLE:
It has been proved that Winston Churchill allowed the destruction of the Lusitania by a German U-boat in an attempt to bring the USA into WW1. During WW2, he and the US allowed Hitler to wipe out his "ally", Russia, by not opening up a second front in the west until years after the war had started. After WW2, the tension caused by this was responsible for the cold war, including Vietnam and Korea, and the near destruction of the world in a nuclear war!!!
hmmmmmmm
Second example:
Margret thatcher another conservative "heroine" ordered the destruction of a passager liner full of innocent people during the falklands war, in addition, she let the hungerstrikers die in prison. All fine attributes most seem to have forgotten.

So be careful before you blame Hitler for all the wrongs in the world.

OC (not actually a neo-nazist, or a republican, im quite neutral really)
really!</font>

What utter drivel. First off, it wasn't 'thousands of innocent Jews', it was five to six million, not to mention the forty five million other people killed during the Second World War, which he started.

He wasn't 'partly responsible', he was fully responsible for setting in place a police state that murdered everyone who opposed them or fell into a category they found unacceptable: Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the physically and mentally retarded.

'Western propoganda', or history as most people call it, still has him portrayed as evil decades later because he was one of the most evil men that ever lived. Just because he died over fifty years ago doesn't make him any less evil.

Please point me in the direction of the proof that Winston Churchill allowed the Lusitania to be sunk.

Thatcher (who I admit is pretty damn evil ) did not have a 'passenger liner' torpedoed during the Falklands War, it was the General Belgrano, an operational battleship - plus the two countries were at war at the time if you recall

As for the hungerstrikers, they starved themselves to death, Thatcher didn't 'let them die'. Maybe if they had ate some food they might have done just a little better.

As for being 'careful before you blame Hitler for all the wrongs in the world', that's simply one of the most cretinous things I've ever read.

Get a fu<king grip.

Doc

This dose disturb me.
Scientists have already isolated genes for eye and hair colour. I have very little reason not to believe that in 2-3 years you will be able to go to certain counters and ask for a blue eyed blond hared Asian baby because that is the fashion at the time.

amp

Can we blame him for the VW Beetle?

But seriously though, and to try and get this post back on topic, I don't like the idea of messing around with a massively complex code that we don't fully understand yet. Just because we know the entire sequence of DNA doesn't mean we understand it all.

Yes we can do lots of stuff with DNA, but we are akin to mere children looking at a hugely complex program. Even if we can change the colour of a babies eyes who knows what the ultimate effects of that are on future generations?

DNA is not like a computer program that can be hacked around with. Because a program can be re-installed. Until we perfectly understand DNA we should just use it as a guide to curing deseases.

And on the social implications of designer babies what of the future? Will babies be walking and talking down catwalks with the latest blonde curls, black skin and green eyes as designed by John Paul Gautier?
Will babies become like mobile phones with removable covers that can be adjusted to suit current fashions? Will parents alter their childrens height so they will play profesional basketball?

We don't have the right even if we are the parents of children made up of our own DNA to dictate what they will look like, because that takes away the choice of that person.

Some parents give their children ludicriously stupid names like Fifi Trixi Bell Tiger Lilly (Paula Jones kid I think) but those names can be changed later on in life.

Our bodies are more than tools and housings for our minds, they play a huge part in defining who we are. The way are faces look, how tall/short/fat/thin we are affects us greatly.

It seems that once again the human race is leaping before it looks, before the entire consequences are known. Allah help us all.

---

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage

DadaKopf

not the VW Beetle argument again!

how about Memetic engineering. I'm not well up on it but the basic jist is this:

things like language, ideas, religions etc physically manifest themselves in the bod as things like retroviruses. they compete for dominance in the brain like a war, in a darwinian sense of survival of the fittest. They're subject to outside influences of course and the winner, the most able/suitable to adapt become the mainstay. For example, why do some people speak one language over the other. This is just an attempt at a scientific/biological understanding of how ideas evolve.

Memetic engineering is a way to manipulate people's thoughts through methods such a spropaganda, advertising, subconscious stimuli like smells and sounds and so on and so on. This is a kind of genetic engineering too.

I don't doubt it can all be very useful, like Shinji said (good point) but everyone ought to probably be careful also. In the end of the day, once understood, we'll all accept genetic modification.

My point about the above example of Memetic engineering is this: how do we know we aren't already engineered in some way or another. Since wearing shoes, man's foot shape has genetically changed!

Hobbes

Isn't this how Gattaga started?

SheroN

I say kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.

SheroN

I say kill 'em all and let god* sort 'em out.

*note: god or other related entities may not actually exsist.

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by OConnor:
in addition, she let the hungerstrikers die in prison. All fine attributes most seem to have forgotten.
OB]</font>

and would oyu give a f*ck about these hunger strikers if they had been french in a french prison? i dont think so. anyone stupid enough to starve themselves to death earns the right to die. oh, and change your bloody avatar will you, i cant stand to be mistaken for someone who posts such an awful amount of crap.

as for the actual topic, i welcome any advancement in science and technology. most advancements these days are due to huge spending by the military on R&D. lets face it, quility of life has gone way up in the last 20 years, a time where probably 80% of most research has been done.

did you know galileo was the first man to suggest using a pendualum for a clock. just thought i add it in as im reading a book entitled 2201 facinating facts.
quiet fasinating it is too. full of trivia

OConnor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Castor Troy:
What utter drivel. *JUST PLAIN WRONG* First off, it wasn't 'thousands of innocent Jews', it was five to six million, not to mention the forty five million other people killed during the Second World War, which he started.*FACT*

He wasn't 'partly responsible', he was fully responsible*OPINION* for setting in place a police state that murdered everyone who opposed them or fell into a category they found unacceptable: Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the physically and mentally retarded.*FACT*

'Western propoganda', or history as most people call it,*PUN* still has him portrayed as evil decades later because he was one of the most evil men that ever lived.*OPINION* Just because he died over fifty years ago doesn't make him any less evil.*OPINION*

Please point me in the direction of the proof that Winston Churchill allowed the Lusitania to be sunk.>>>GCSE textbook,named "modern world history",by Tony Mcaleavy,Cambridge University Press<<<

Thatcher (who I admit is pretty damn evil ....
As for the hungerstrikers, they starved themselves to death, Thatcher didn't 'let them die'. *OPINION* Maybe if they had ate some food they might have done just a little better.*SOME BLOODY PATRIOT ARNT U CASTOR*

.</font>

OConnor

Churchill was a navy commander during the first world war in Special Operations, and it was confidential until there was a recent enquiry showing that HE made the decision that neglected to inform the Lusitania that there was a German uboat on a intercept course with it off the Irish coast.*fact*

androphobic

Interesting.. like Bucon said, if we can stop children developing with certain diseases, this would be a wonderful thing.

Neuro, you have said that you have worked with kids who have physical and mental handicaps, and they're great. Of course - but wouldn't it be great if they weren't inhibited by these handicaps?

At the same time! I do agree that in some ways it's scary.. I mean if everyone was gorgeous looking and amazingly intelligent then things would be very mundane!

We have to experiment. But I guess we have to ask.. at what price?

androphobic

Meant to comment on the history part..

OConnor is right about the Lusitania afaik..

but, OConnor, I don't see how you can say that Hitler was only partly responsible... he was in command. And if the killings of so many million people doesn't make him evil, wtf does?

Also.. how can you compare Churchhill or Thatcher to Hitler?
Afaik, what you said about the Lusitania is true, and even if what you said about what happened during the falklands war is correct, how can you compare the deaths of hundreds to the deaths of millions? YOU CANT.

And the hungerstrikers made a conscious decision to die.
It's not about patriotism.. patriotism is not about condoning the actions of the IRA. In my opinion, Bobby Sands and his compadres are far from heroes.

[Sorry to whoever started the thread for going off the point].

neuro-praxis

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Androphobic:
Neuro, you have said that you have worked with kids who have physical and mental handicaps, and they're great. Of course - but wouldn't it be great if they weren't inhibited by these handicaps?</font>

Well, Andro, no, if it meant tampering with their little foetuses before birth, then I say no.

These folks I worked with (on a residential camp, where we slept with them in the dorms, where we fed them and showered them) were beautiful people. They are humbling, sweet, special people, and if I could take away any pain they had, i would do it, but I would not change an ounce of the essence of who they are - beautiful and innocent.

Now, I know a girl who has cerebal palsy and she is menatlly 100% sound but she has trouble communicating. She is an incredible artist and wants to study art at college, but can't because no schools with the facilities she needs provide studies up to leaving cert level. That is atrocious.

However, despite her frustrations, she is an intensely special and strong and admirable person. Her cerebal palsy is part of who she is. And in my opinion, she is perfect the way she is.

Coyote

what do you count as a disabilet ?
i have dislexy very very bad
would i like to not have it yea
but haveing it has changed my mind in many ways
some would say it's has warped it as well
haveing it has changed my life and lead me in
ways that i would never have gone if i did not have it

if given the option to have kids and them not to have it, it's very hard to know what i would do. fine it might make them better at spelling, but life does not resolve around beening the best at spelling, running or any other things. beening dislexy has given me a diff outlook on life, (it makes the brain think in diff ways, as the two halfs do not communicate as well as a normal brain)
diff things change and make people what they are takeing things out or changing them will change them.

i'm not for or agenest the resurch
but what we do wiht it will have to be thought about a lot befor we do it.
doing things in one or two people would not put most people at risk of mistakes.
but the like of Genetic food changes could change all humens on the earth and once out and in the wild they can not be put back in the lad.
so we need to know what were doing befor we do it.
try to work out what all the miss spellings are Answers on a post card to the address below.

Coyote


[This message has been edited by Coyote (edited 05-05-2001).]

neuro-praxis

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">From column:
Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this "is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children". </font>

How many abnormal children were produced through these experiemnts first though?

I just feel uneasy and unsettled by the whole issue. Although, admittedly, 100 years ago, a heart transplant might have produced the same feelings in me.

But this, it just doesn't seem right. Why should we attempt to produce a perfect race?

I mean, it isn't like I can't see the advantages, but I am still not sure if we should tamper with embryos.

I have worked with handicapped people, both physically and mentally, and they are a joy. I don't think it is right to attempt to create a race/nation/world of similarly perfect people. It is a little too "Brave New World" for my liking.

But I am undecided. All that I know is, it gives me a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach to read about it, despite the fact that we all knew that this was going on, and that producing the perfect child was inevitable.

Are we going to try to produce people who are better looking, more intelligent too? We aren't giving mother nature a chance to produce the natural wonders that she is capable of. This worries me.

Isn't the perfect race just what Hitler was after?

---

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

FunkyChicken

surely hitler thought he was the super race and decided to kill everyone else?

OConnor

Why must people continue to refer to Hitler as thier only example of an evil man?
ok ok so he was partly responsible for the genocide of thousands of innocent jews
BUT its western propanganda that still has him portrayed as evil decades later.
FOR EXAMPLE:
It has been proved that Winston Churchill allowed the destruction of the Lusitania by a German U-boat in an attempt to bring the USA into WW1. During WW2, he and the US allowed Hitler to wipe out his "ally", Russia, by not opening up a second front in the west until years after the war had started. After WW2, the tension caused by this was responsible for the cold war, including Vietnam and Korea, and the near destruction of the world in a nuclear war!!!
hmmmmmmm
Second example:
Margret thatcher another conservative "heroine" ordered the destruction of a passager liner full of innocent people during the falklands war, in addition, she let the hungerstrikers die in prison. All fine attributes most seem to have forgotten.

So be careful before you blame Hitler for all the wrongs in the world.

OC (not actually a neo-nazist, or a republican, im quite neutral really)
really!

TARE

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Our bodies are tools and housings for our minds. So far we've only been learning how to repair the tools and patch up the housings, the advancement towards being able to fix the underlying design and improve upon it is a vital one if we are to continue to progress. </font>

"We" have developed quite nicely over the past 1 billion years or so from a single celled organism i think.

I don't think *forced* human genetic alteration is "vital" if we are to continue to progress.

Why would we want to interfer in something that has worked so well. Everything in the world is a result of natural evolution of our gen's, the human race messing with something they have such a limited understanding of would no douth **** it up.

Genistic drugs and other such inovations are of course another matter but we are talking about genitic alteration of an unborn child.



[This message has been edited by TARE (edited 05-05-2001).]

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
Well, Andro, no, if it meant tampering with their little foetuses before birth, then I say no.
</font>

Okay.
Well that's where we differ, because personally I think that if they could be born without handicaps, it would be great.
I am in no way *whatsoever* disputing their wonderfulness as people in general, so please don't take me up wrong.
But a handicap is such a serious thing- the girl you spoke of has limited opportunities because of her handicap.. and I think that if she could be somehow helped so that she wouldn't have to live with something that is limiting her from doing something like going to art college, then this would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.

A little kid I know was born with no legs from the knee down. He's a prime example of a child who is inhibited because of his handicap.. a wonderful child who would want proper legs like everyone else, if he had the choice.

If these experiments can give people that choice for their kids, then I think they should certainly be welcomed.


[If u can't understand this.. sorry.. [img]http://www.boards.ie/bulletin/smile.gif[/img].. I'll fix it tomorrow evening ..]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

A couple of points:

Firstly, the idea of over-the-counter reproduction as alluded to in much popular science fiction isn't going to happen any time soon. Human genetic and embryonic research is focused on the treatment of disease in LIVING individuals folks. The reason human embryos are an important model for studying disease are many. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that the patterns of development of embryonic cells and cancer cells is strikingly similar in stages. If growth factors and oncogenes can be better understood by human embryo experimentation, then do it by all means. A better understanding of the disease process of cancer could save literally millions of lives a year.

Another reason is stem cell differentiation. The specialization of embryonic cells into cardiac, nervous and renal tissue could allow re-generation of these tissues, once thought irreparable by natural body mechanisms. The thought that blind people might see again, deaf people hear, paraplegics walk...surely these are cures that justify any possible (even ficticious) risk in embryonic modification research.

Now, on to the point of disabilities already addressed in this thread. I think that there is little question that diseases that are lethal, or childhood metabolic disorders should be screened for genetically, and modified embryonically if possible. In my opinion, it should be the parents' decision up to a point. When conception is achieved- the embryo is the primary patient, and the mother the secondary one. A physician must act in the best interests of the primary patient- as in the cases of the Siamese twin seperation case in Britain. It is akin to punishment and a degree of disenfranchisement from society that would cause a parent to willingfully bring a disabled child into the world- if the means existed to remove that disability. Let's not forget the cost to society- special needs schools cost the state millions of dollars- such embryonic diagnoses would save the parents, the child and the state much adversity. That is undeniable neuro- for all their courage, humility, determination and success- on average, a disabled person is treated differently, and reaches different levels of achievement than would otherwise be capable in a fully functional person.

As for the concept that "mother nature" needs to do her work...I dislike the phrase- and here's why. Mother nature is a harsh mistress neuro. In an unstable ecosystem with evolutionary pressures- the disabled would die- their disability trait is selected against in Darwinian evolution, and forced out in punctuated equilibrium evolution. Evolution's goal is to optimize our specie's genetic code to best adapt to its surroundings. Ironically- by doing the right thing and helping disabled people...THAT is interfering with evolution and mother nature. What about medical advances? Surely those must be against mother nature too...And if we're talking about personality traits...from colored contact lenses to mobile phone rings- we all strive for uniqueness any way we can. People who are dissatisfied with their lack of uniqueness could modify it through lifestyle. Several famous artists found that disability aided their artistic suffering- Van Gogh's self-mutilation being an example. His parents didn't choose to give birth to him disabled- but he was perfectly capable of crippling his senses when he so-required them so. As such- the parents should govern choice within reason and up to a point.
Several current leading cases show parents seeking an abortion upon the discovery that their child might have Down syndrome, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or even being partially sighted. Whether a child can be reared safely and lead a normal life with a condition should be ultimately up to that child's parents- until the child's life becomes endangered by the parent's decision. Legally defined, life is not mere animal existence- but the opportunity to realize one's potential within abilities- that is, quality as well as quantity of life. So let the march of progress continue I say. To dissenters, I merely say this- William Harvey was warned of the dire consequences should he pursue research into human circulation on cadavers; Galileo was blinded for telling the truth...and Christian Barnard received death-threats from ultra-religious groups for weeks while conducting his procedure-test.

It just goes to show that society will be skeptical of new advances- and give far too much weight to the arguments of pessimism rather than optimism.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Et tu, Brute?=



[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 06-05-2001).]

][cEMAN**

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
A couple of points:

Firstly, the idea of over-the-counter reproduction as alluded to in much popular science fiction isn't going to happen any time soon. </font>

Well Occy I think more to the point is that a lot of us think in our own lifetime and not that what we do now will have an incredible affect on future generations.

Personaly on this issue it reminds me of a book I read - Brave new world

If we can develop the ability to alter a baby's genetic makeup then we will inevitably be able to increase other features of a baby such as IQ. Now if it reaches a stage where every baby may be created equaly and with the same abilities then what way do we structure our actual society?

This may seem condiscending (and I certainly don't mean it to) but you DO have people in certain jobs because they are FITTED for that particular job. Now if we make everybody equal then who gets to fill these jobs? Do we intentionaly make lesser ability babies? Wouldn't that be immoral?

Another point to consider is that there are also so many concepts of freedom i.e. Do we have freedom to think for ourselves if we are raised in a certain enviroment. I mean we are a clean template in which our life experiences create our character. At what point does that change and we are predisposed to certain characteristics?

If any of this seems a bit ubsurd it may be because I am very tired but I do feel that we are starting down a path to the wrong idea.
I agree that we need research in order to cure deceases which occur and to help ailments that people incure but we don't have the right to alterations before birth. That is MY personal opinion on this. Occy you say you disagree with the mother nature point. Well it's true we must adapt to our surroundings and evolve but at the moment WE have created our surroundings and we seem to have to correct the damage we do to ourselves. Do you not think that there are other issues we must first address?

I mean you talk about science fiction and the future. I'm reminded of another book 1984. How may references in that book are so real today?
Even down to the smallest point of the song that the lady sang which was manufactured by the government. Well we don't have the government to balme for it (least I hope not) but you look at Hear say. hehehe. It sounds stupd but i'm only stating one example from the book and a small one which has scarily come true just as most of the other points have.

I believe that humanity may not survive itself purely for the reason that we have not reached enough enlightenment to be able to tell what is truely right - or better yet there may not necessarily BE a right or wrong to anything.

If we do survive then it will only come from knowing that we know nothing. And yet we have reached a point in evolution that gives us the power over ourselves that we can not yet comprehend and correctly control.

azezil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
Natural progression of science, and a step in the right direction. The ability to alter our own genetic code in order to adapt to new environments, fight new diseases and eradicate crippling defects is one of the most important things our race can develop.

Our bodies are tools and housings for our minds. So far we've only been learning how to repair the tools and patch up the housings, the advancement towards being able to fix the underlying design and improve upon it is a vital one if we are to continue to progress.</font>

for once i agree intirely with Shinji!!!
yeah i see it as a way of doin away with genetic defects, improveing human mental and physical abilities etc.

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

OConnor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:


OConnor is right about the Lusitania afaik..


</font>

OConnor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
[/b]</font>

Unfortunately, the ship was actually outside an exclusion zone stated by the British, and was moving away.


[/B][/QUOTE]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Some of what you say is down to an ethical stance neuro- but a lot of it is just based on misapprehensions and ignorance. I don't mean that to be insulting- I myself will proudly admit to being ignorant in a wide field of topics. So on to the issues then:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Originally posted by neuro:
By all means? Even if there have been hundreds of genetically abnormal children produced in the process? Why do we never hear about the failed cases? A thousand sheep died before we produced Dolly.
</font>

A misapprehension neuro. Genetically abnormal children would not be produced in embryo experimentation. The experiments are conducted in-vitro, in a petri dish- and the embryo never passes the 16-32 cell stages. Your example of Dolly is irrelevant- cloning a living organism is an entirely different issue. Incidentally, I don't think we are (perhaps we never will be tbh) ready to clone a full human individual. But this isn't what I'm talking about. I refer to embryonic research in-vitro, that has the potential to save millions of lives. If we think in terms of opportunity cost- billions.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I disagree. Whether we like it or not, we have no right to attempt to eliminate all pain and disease in the world in this way. If the person involved could have a say in this issue, it would be different...I honestly don't care how much money it costs us to take care of special needs folks, we have a responsibility to take care of them, not to eliminate any possible imperfections.
</font>

There is no way on earth I could agree with that I'm afraid. A physician's responsibility is to care for the patient even if the patient cannot care for themselves or express a concious view. People who are mentally ill, are suffering from an upper motor neuron disorder, or who are in para-vital comas are incapable of speaking for themselves. Following the logic you apply- if we ignored those who could not speak for themselves (embryos included)- you disenfranchise roughly 30% of all treatment currently conducted. Just because the embryo doesn't have a say- doesn't mean that it doesn't have rights- including the right to fair medical treatment. And to the last part of that quote above- there is a clear and definable difference between a disability and an imperfection. They are not the same.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I do not want to live in a world without special needs people. What on earth is wrong with reaching different levels of achievement? ...They certainly let you know when they are angry and frustrated! They enjoy the most simple and childlike things - eating, colouring in, singing... </font>

To put it simply- why not? I've counseled disabled people before in high school and after high school. Many of them are frustrated about their disability- and it causes them a lot of mental, sometimes physical pain. I can only imagine the frustration experienced by someone who knows that they will never achieve what others have done. They are treated very differently by society than those without disability- special needs olympics are only further proof of this- if disabled people are part of society I think it abominable that they are treated any different from the average member of their society outside of caring for that disability- that attitude sickens me. Gene therapy would go a long way towards removing such prejudice.

Also, given the choice, the overwhelming majority would rather not be disabled- they have learned to live with their disability and often choose not to discuss this hope- because for them- hope can be a dangerous thing. You ask why we should eliminate these people- we're not eliminating them, but their disability- they will still be a person- we're curing them, not eliminating them. All we are doing is elimminating a devastating gene from the gene pool. This is no different from eliminating the small-pox virus from the realms of possibility. When we vaccinate a child- does the child get a say? Of course not- we are acting in its best interests. We won't be eliminating disabled people as a whole- if you're anxious to see people suffer with handicaps and strive through adversity- don't worry- plenty of people suffer accidents and deliberate harm which lead to disability. My point is simple- if a society would do everything in its power to eliminate these events that lead to disability in life- then why not at the embryonic stage? I fail to see the difference.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Mother nature may be a "harsh mistress" Bob, but nature at least is honest. It is base. She creates real and raw people, broken, sometimes, they way they are meant to be. </font>

Mother nature isn't honest or fatalistic. Evolution is completely dispassionate- it rewards genes favorable to an environment- and discards genes that would prove unfavorable. If you truly believe that we should not tamper with "mother nature" then we should leave disabled people to make their way in the world without special needs. Another thing:

The way they are meant to be? I'm sorry but telling a disabled person that they were born disabled because of fate or predetermination would offend most of them most terribly. That view sickens me as I read it- it makes me think of trying to console a bereaved family with fatalism- "Oh, she was meant to die- nothing you could have done about it"...Fatalism of that sort is a philosophy borne out of strife and pain of a bygone era neuro- I have no wish to return to those dark days of human thought. The very idea is ridiculous to me- if it is within our power to prevent disease or disability then it is our moral duty to do so. As for eye color, personality traits and the like- I dont't think we're ready for that sort of modification yet. Even if we were, I'm not sure if I'd agree with it.

Also- you say that you wouldn't want another person's genes used to help your baby...genes don't belong to anyone. That person's gene exists in other people- it isn't property. A gene is no indication of individual indentity by itself- genes mutate, change, interact and adapt with the genes around it. There is no risk at all of creating a race of perfectly identical people- the number of mutagens present in our environment- from UV rays to cosmic radiation to paint-stripper would quickly scupper the idea of copying a gene perfectly from one person to another.

I completely understand your fears about the possible misuses of this technology. But I think that these human fears are simply reflections of what accompany our thoughts whenever we venture into the unknown. As to possible abuses- that's why we- and millions of others around the world in positions of power- are having this debate. I am confident however, that we will all overcome our fears on this in time. Personal opinion and ethical stance are fine- but if religion, personal or moral views, superstition and the like- get in the way of effective medical treatment advances or bona fide treatement of a patient- then they have no right to do so imho.

There are several other points to debate- but that's quite enough to be getting on with for now

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=

PS- Apologies to Iceman- your post was interesting Ice, but I just don't have the time to reply to it now But rest assured I'll reply to it soon.