PDA

View Full Version : Designer babies in the US


Selena
03-02-2009, 10:33 AM
Oooh boy. I don't like this one bit. I'm all for medical advances to help people, but this is just too much. Shopping for the perfect genetic baby. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm)

While the concept isn't new, we are really embarking on that slippery slope.

Reminds me too much of Gattaca.


The LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.
His clinic also offers sex selection.

LdyJhawk
03-02-2009, 10:43 AM
Oooh boy. I don't like this one bit. I'm all for medical advances to help people, but this is just too much. Shopping for the perfect genetic baby. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm)

While the concept isn't new, we are really embarking on that slippery slope.

Reminds me too much of Gattaca.

I'm strangely not too worried about it. Not my kids, not my uterus, not my choice. If someone only wants kids with black hair and green eyes or red hair and blue eyes...

Well, they're paying for it

Isabelle Warwicke
03-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I don't disagree with the sex selection though. After watching a friend have 4 boys and still want a daughter, I can see where that would be useful.

Expensive, but useful.

daBaroness
03-02-2009, 04:38 PM
This is just somehow very, very wrong to me.

I'm fully in favor of research to create children who are free of hereditary disease and disability. Imagine a world where diabetes, Downs Syndrome and life-shortening or debilitating genetic traits didn't exist!

But designing a made-to-order human being just smacks of Mengele and the Third Reich.

Cyranno DeBoberac
03-02-2009, 07:57 PM
I don't really care about to moral issues, but I wonder if it's a sound practice from a biological point of view. As far as I understand, biodiversity is an important component of species survival. This could potentially have a detrimental impact in that regard.

Selena
03-02-2009, 08:08 PM
I don't really care about to moral issues, but I wonder if it's a sound practice from a biological point of view. As far as I understand, biodiversity is an important component of species survival. This could potentially have a detrimental impact in that regard.

Ding ding ding!

Babe... another drink you are now owed.

Cyranno DeBoberac
03-02-2009, 08:17 PM
Babe... another drink you are now owed.

You know you don't have to get me drunk, right? :wink:

LdyJhawk
03-02-2009, 09:12 PM
K now see I was going from a moral standpoint. I have no issues with it if someone only wants a horde of red headed monsters of their own. Fine, pay for it and get it.

But from the whole spread the genes around bit? Yeah too much breeding out of certain things just leads to OTHER things breaking down the line and suddenly we're all the royal family and none of us will really have arms or know what plumbers do

Phoenix McHeit
03-03-2009, 07:54 AM
we're all the royal family and none of us will really have arms or know what plumbers do

::clappin:::clappin:

Izzard reference FTW

KissMeKate
03-03-2009, 10:04 AM
History Channel or some such did a special on genetics and how that has affected the human races choices of mates. Sometime way way back, society decided that blue eyes were the epitome of beauty and everyone wanted a mate with blue eyes. Since it's a recessive gene, both parents have to have blue eyes to pass it to their kids (mine are blue, my sister's are brown). Same thing has happened for blonde hair and also red hair. We (as a species) are more than capable of manipulating diversity. It just takes much longer and isn't as accurate. Loss of biodiversity isn't going to happen any time soon as we all have 6.5 billion other people to choose from as a mate. And not everyone will pick exactly the same traits for their kids.

My thought is that we don't know enough of how all of our genes interact with each other. If you deselect a gene that is for Down's Syndrome or another debilitating problem, who knows if that will create other issues down the line. Like cloning, we know how to play with the technology, but it still doesn't work really well.

Here's something else to contemplate. How many exceptionally bright people do you know who have decided not to have kids - for whatever reason. I know of a lot, including myself. How much of our intelligence do we get from our parents and how much is from what we learn? Are we lowering the potential IQ of the next generation by not adding to the population?

Ravin' Raven
03-03-2009, 10:19 AM
Since it's a recessive gene, both parents have to have blue eyes to pass it to their kids (mine are blue, my sister's are brown).


Ya know...a college professor graded me down because I stated my mother's eyes are brown (very brown - she's a little Pict) and my dad's are blue. All three of us have obviously blue eyes even though we shouldn't. Now if it were mom with the blue eye's I'd wonder about who my daddy....but...::whistle::

(Once I provided photographic evidence I got my higher grade)

But you have a good point, we've been "selecting" for a quite a long time. Not just looks either. Women generally prefer men with physical attributes that make them look like they can make good babies and provide food, etc., even though that's not much of an issue anymore...(I believe the show I watched pointed out that most women like a strong butt because it suggests good thrusting power....::whistle::)

Phoenix McHeit
03-03-2009, 10:20 AM
Since it's a recessive gene, both parents have to have blue eyes to pass it to their kids

Just a small point - both parents have to carry the recessive gene to pass it on... not necessarily have blue eyes themselves.
I got the entire Mendel chart with my four boys. I have dark brown eyes, their father has blue. My boys are as follows: one green-hazel, one blue, one light-brown-hazel and one dark brown.

Until I had my second son I never knew I carried a blue-eyed gene. My eyes are so dark brown it's difficult to see the difference between the pupil and iris.

ETA: Aaaaaand Raven and I were typing at the same time. She has faster fingers than I do... lol.

Selena
03-03-2009, 10:22 AM
Are we lowering the potential IQ of the next generation by not adding to the population?

Just watch Idiocracy. The movie is based on that very concept.

Ravin' Raven
03-03-2009, 10:37 AM
ETA: Aaaaaand Raven and I were typing at the same time. She has faster fingers than I do... lol.

mwah!!! and yes your eyes are lovely dark limpid pools.....

Jezebel
03-03-2009, 11:20 AM
Here's something else to contemplate. How many exceptionally bright people do you know who have decided not to have kids - for whatever reason. I know of a lot, including myself. How much of our intelligence do we get from our parents and how much is from what we learn? Are we lowering the potential IQ of the next generation by not adding to the population?

I think society is insuring that future generations will not be particularly deficient mentally. All of the jobs that pay well are in the fields of science and technology, requiring higher mathematics skills and a strong grasp of many different scientific fields. Our global society is making multi-lingual individuals a highly valuable commodity and the ability to accurately translate ideas from one language to another is obviously not something that can be done 100% successfully with a computer (Babelfish is extremely funny to play with!).

How much is genetic and how much is learned? We may never know. I often wonder what Shakespeare or Newton would be doing if they lived in todays computer age. In any case, the people who will be able to afford having children are the ones who will be able to acquire the skills society values and will thus be given the better paying jobs. A modern take on "survival of the fittest." (BTW, Happy belated birthday, Darwin!)

daBaroness
03-03-2009, 01:01 PM
::clappin:::clappin:

Izzard reference FTW

She loves Eddie!

Selena
03-03-2009, 01:35 PM
::clappin:::clappin:

Izzard reference FTW

Serious facepalm. I completely missed that!.

KissMeKate
03-03-2009, 01:54 PM
Just a small point - both parents have to carry the recessive gene to pass it on... not necessarily have blue eyes themselves.


Brain moves faster than I can type. That is what I meant. Dad's a blue-eyed blonde and so am I; Mom was a brown-eyed brunette and so is my sis.

My sister and I both went to the same college, although we hardly ever interacted with each other. Most people thought it was pure coincidence that we had the same initials and the same rather unusual last name. ;-)
My microbiology prof would often pass me in the hallway and say "You're not related". It got to be an inside joke. At my sister's graduation, we were standing together as a family unit (us + parents) and the prof came by, looked at all of us, said "Ok, you're related" and walked away, leaving me to explain the joke. *rotfl*