Designer babies could be approved in future, says medical ethics panel

Loves Love Island said:
we're talking about editing existing genes, as in forcing the selection of an advantageous gene they had a % chance of inheriting anyway or likewise ensuring that a gene that might cause them illness and that they had a % chance of inheriting isn't inherited - you're talking as though they're replicants or something

likewise you could just have IVF, create multiple fertilised eggs and then screen them - would you apply the same rules there, if someone was born via IVF, no gene editing but the parents decided to chose them based on certain genes they happened to have and dispose of the other fertilised eggs, end result can achieve the same thing as forcing the selection of some genes that might otherwise increase the chance of illness and are known to run in that family, or when it is know that this embryo has a better chance of being taller etc..
Click to expand...


I'm not though.

Reduce the amount of myostatin a person produces and they'll look like Arnie without ever touching a weight.

We've already identified some genes that control this

As experimentation becomes more and more normal and researched we'll be discovering the genes that control all sorts of things.

Like you said certain African people are way better at sprinting what happens if you modify your white English baby to have the genes that cause that advantage.

Also it's not just genes that exist we can add new ones.

How about the ethics of making a glow in the dark human? (Pretty common genetic experiment)
 
Tefal said:
Like you said certain African people are way better at sprinting what happens if you modify your white English baby to have the genes that cause that advantage.
Click to expand...

I.e. Have more fast twitch muscle fibres... they they become better at sprinting. We already have a group of people who have a big advantage when it come to sprinting, you even the playing field a bit.
 
StriderX said:
They will not be cheap and it's all about who gets first pickings in this type of game.
Click to expand...

Not initially but if companies want to make money from it then they need to target a wider range of consumers. It isn't something one single company can have a monopoly over or control and you don't get rich by only offering it to a few elite types in some private clinic in Panama.
 
China already does a similar kind of eugenics. I posted about it years ago. They sequenced the DNA of high acheivers in maths, physics and the like and found what they consider the genes for IQ. They dont edit the embryos but they can estimate which one will have the highest IQ in the batch and pick that one. They say there is about a 12 iq point variance in each batch.
 
Loves Love Island said:
I.e. Have more fast twitch muscle fibres... they they become better at sprinting. We already have a group of people who have a big advantage when it come to sprinting, you even the playing field a bit.
Click to expand...


So are they alowed to compete or are they now doping?
They have artificially been enhanced

Also how do you feel about the addative stuff?

Glow in the dark? We've done it with lots of things already.

Where do you draw the line at what is acceptable withour consent
 
Tefal said:
So are they alowed to compete or are they now doping?
They have artificially been enhanced
Click to expand...

Well they're not doping. Suppose a single mother wants her kid to have improved chances of being a fast sprinter, she could currently go to a sperm bank and select a donor with west African ancestry. Is that doping?

Likewise if she's a bit short she could select a donor who is tall.

Now with gene editing someone with a short partner could have that same choice.

Likewise ref my IVF example earlier - what if they don't edit the genes but select the embryo where some preferred genes are present?


As for the other bit I don't know enough about glow in the dark humans to comment on that.
 
Tefal said:
So are they alowed to compete or are they now doping?
They have artificially been enhanced
Click to expand...

It's not even about doping anymore, it's much worse than doping. The entire essence of sport will go down the drain. The competition wont be between competitors, the competition will be between geneticists and who can create the perfect running freak. It will be the end of sport as we know it.
 
asim18 said:
It's not even about doping anymore, it's much worse than doping. The entire essence of sport will go down the drain. The competition wont be between competitors, the competition will be between geneticists and who can create the perfect running freak. It will be the end of sport as we know it.
Click to expand...

I do not know to what extent physically possible it would be, for example, to have men running as fast as cheetahs or some other mammals.

Also, our sport has boring dominances, already. Real Madrid winning the Champions League every year, or the fantastic four in tennis splitting the GS titles amongst them.
 
asim18 said:
It's not even about doping anymore, it's much worse than doping. The entire essence of sport will go down the drain. The competition wont be between competitors, the competition will be between geneticists and who can create the perfect running freak. It will be the end of sport as we know it.
Click to expand...


Well as a spectator it soubds like sport may be about to become worth watching.
 
4K8KW10 said:
I do not know to what extent physically possible it would be, for example, to have men running as fast as cheetahs or some other mammals.

Also, our sport has boring dominances, already. Real Madrid winning the Champions League every year, or the fantastic four in tennis splitting the GS titles amongst them.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that might get shaken up when Uzbekistan brings in thier genetically modified super team (ok fine they die of heart failure at 29 but meh)
 
I think it's a good thing that we remove birth defects and genes that can potentially cause future diseases, as long as we know how those genes affect the wider picture. I think it should be illegal to enhance or change people's basic characteristics, that simply amounts to prenatal eugenics
 
Roar87 said:
I think it's a good thing that we remove birth defects and genes that can potentially cause future diseases, as long as we know how those genes affect the wider picture. I think it should be illegal to enhance or change people's basic characteristics, that simply amounts to prenatal eugenics
Click to expand...
This is my stance as well. Eliminate disease : yes. Change anything else : no.

No matter how much I want a space marine baby
 
Genetic engineering is a good thing as long as it is controllled correctly. Get rid of lots of illnesses etc. I would go even further and say make people more intelligent and beautiful. Gotta keep up with machines.

As long as it is an improvement I see no problem.

To stop a gattaca typle word we need gene therapy free on the NHS. The world being to capitalist isn’t a reason to stop this, that’s a seperate problem.
 
If you think racism is bad just wait until the world gets introduced to geneticism

I personally think this is a bad idea not because it goes against nature but because it will likely result in those with paid genes thinking they are superior to those without resulting into something not too distanced from Nazi ideology

Not to mention it will also put poor families at an even greater disadvantage than they are already at when raising a child and widen the divide between rich & poor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom