Where To Draw the Line With Embryo Selection? 727
Tjeerd writes "There is currently a discussion going on in the Netherlands about embryo selection. The process means that when using in vitro fertilization, you can check what kind of genetic defects will definitely become activated during life. When embryos with those defects are identified, they can be avoided or destroyed. The next step the government is considering is to make it possible to select against genetic defects which might become active in life, such as breast and colon cancer. Of course, this is a very difficult discussion; where do you start, and where do you end? People are worrying that there is no real limit, and that you could potentially check for every genetic defect. I think if you're in a situation where you or your family have genetic defects, you surely want to check whether your children would have them too. What does the Slashdot community think about this?"
Re:Government should not be involved at all (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think men should have any business telling a women what to do with their bodies, certainly not based on faith either.
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who advocates telling people what to do with their bodies. You can, however, find those who would like to legislate a measure of protection for other people's bodies (even if those bodies happen to temporarily be inside other people's bodies).
That being said, this really is a whatcouldpossiblygowrong situation. Disease is one thing, but what about aesthetics? Should people have the right to select babies based on more or less meaningless preferences? And of course, what of the people who were not preselected? Will they be forced to live out the life of one considered inferior?
Of course, that's the moral playing God standpoint, there's also the scientific playing evolution standpoint. Do you really think that we can play with genetics and foresee all the consequences? This could be a great way to dig ourselves into an evolutionary hole. Take the commercial Cavendish banana, for instance. Bred to be the best, and it stands to be wiped out by a single disease. Yeah, that's clonal propagation, but even if it were sexual reproduction, anything that limits the genetic pool tends to be a bad thing. For example, dog breeds were genetically concentrated into smaller populations, and they're medical train wrecks compared to mutts.
So, moral issues aside, genetic selection might work for a few generations, but then I'd bet it begins to come unglued, and the benefits dissipate when a bunch of weird-assed disease start poping up in the selected populations.
Re:A counter example (Score:5, Informative)
This technique could allow selecting for 1/2 sickle cell in Africa though, no longer will 25% of their children be SOL one way and another 25% SOL the other way.
Re:There is no line. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why does there need to be a limit? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't mean to be pedantic, but here goes:)
"We have an opportunity to pick up where we forced nature to stop in designing better-adapted humans."
That show a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection and random mutations.
Evolution doesn't have a plan, it is not a ladder or a tree. More of a bush.
I'm not trying to be a dick* I just think being clear on some issues is very important.
*It comes naturally!
Re:Government should not be involved at all (Score:5, Informative)
How so? Beethoven's deafness had an adult onset, and it's now believed to have been due to lead poisoning, not a genetic cause. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't have a genetic propensity to heavy metal poisoning. Although some people may be more sensitive than others, I wouldn't call it a genetic disorder.
Now if you had talked about Edison's or A.G. Bell's dyslexia, you might have had a better point. But even so, dyslexia's a disability that, properly diagnosed, can be worked around. Still it does raise a good point which is, what positive traits with disability co-factors might we eliminate if we try to eliminate disabilities. The best example of that is how the genetic traits for thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia also provide limited protection against malaria [harvard.edu]
"Malaria's not a problem for me, I live and have evolved for northern latitude where the mosquitoes and malaria are less prevalent", you might say. Ah, but what happens when you get something like Global Warming combined with air travel increasing the territory for malaria? Could genetic defect selection be wiping out currently unnecessary gene variations that could prove critical in another few hundred years?
As usual, SF touched on some of these issues already decades ago, starting with a Heinlein novella called "Beyond this Horizon".
Re:Government should not be involved at all (Score:4, Informative)
Does a tumor have a beating heart or brain activity?
An embryo does within 6 weeks.
Re:Government should not be involved at all (Score:3, Informative)
Already happening, a Deaf couple is trying to have a deaf child by not using embryos that have "hearing", not sure how they make the selection. Their reasoning is that deafness isn't a disability and they want a child that has they can "share their experiences with".
Interesting... I actually hadn't heard about that. For those curious, here's a BBC article: "Is it wrong to select a deaf embryo?" [bbc.co.uk]
Why proliferate avoidable suffering? (Score:2, Informative)
If you can choose between an embryo pre-disposed to colon cancer and one that is not, why would you choose the embryo likely to fall ill?
In vitro fertilization apparently correlates with an increased rate of birth defects --- the very least a parent going this route should do is eliminate genetic illnesses. Better still would be to eliminate the problems caused by the procedure itself.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/24/MN35978.DTL
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june02/testtube-3-6.html