Would you genetically tweak your unborn child?

[OS]

I notice some of you are saying put a halt to human genetic technology. I don't think that is really possible because the technology is so damn powerful and sweeping that any society that chose to implement it on a wide scale would almost automatically have an edge up in productivity and overall intelligence. Thus forcing the other countries to use similar technology, or risk going the way of the dinosaurs. You could try to impose an international ban on the technology, but there will always be a country who wants to have the advantage. Once one country adopts the technology, all of them will.

As for me, I would probably do it if long term studies showed that it was safe. I wouldn't want to be among the first to try it out, but if there are a significant number of people using the technology, I won't let my children be left behind. I don't really see a moral/ethical problem with changing genes, the end effect is ultimately no different from plastic surgey, large amounts of education, or filling your body with modern drugs.

 

[OS]

<< What I'm getting from reading all the posts is that a vast majority of you would NOT love your child if he/she was not prefect. >>



That's a fallacy. Lets use education as an example. Every parent wants their children to be educated. But that does NOT mean that they wouldn't love them if they weren't.

 

[OS]

Man, I'm gone for 12 hours and this thread explodes

 

[mk52]

<< I'm sorry, I fail to see the difference between this kind of thing happening in 5 years or in 40 years. There are some things in society that never change. Concern for the well-being of one's offspring has always been present in almost every sentient organism. Nothing is going to change the fact that people want what's best for their children. Therefore, whether this technology is around in 5 years or 40 makes no difference; people are still going to want whatever they believe is &quot;best&quot; for their children. Now, what they believe to be &quot;best&quot; will change, just like styles of clothing, music, and every other transient element of culture. But some things just don't change, and one of them is people's concern for their children.
Whether or not our society adapts (in other words, comes to accept) genetic engineering as a part of life, people are still going to want their children to be the best they can be. This is exactly what leads to the rather drastic situation I proposed in my last post. >>



Let me give you another example. If somehow we would get technology from 200 years in the future, the world could break into chaos because we wouldn?t be able to handle the power and the responsibility. But for the society in the future who has been using it for decades its part of day-to-day life.
This isn?t about if you care for your children or not. If a new technology has been tested for years, is declared safe by the government, general public knows how it works and what it is capable of and it safes lifes, then you will see it differently.
So if doctors would find a genetic defect of your baby (f.i. Progeria), would you just say, hey if god wants my kid to have this disease, then so be it cause he the almighty doesn?t want us to alter genes? That?s what I call careless and ignorant.



<< This is not true for everyone. My parents didn't have much money, and I got a full academic scholarship to the University of Delaware because of my scholastic record, SAT scores, etc.. Please don't take that as bragging, just as an example that the amount of money one's parents have does not always equate with intelligence, the ability to get an education, or one's ability to get a good job.
You would be able to send your (hypothetical) children to Harvard if they could get a scholarship, whether academic or athletic. But the fact of the matter is that when you factor genetic engineering into it, the &quot;inferior&quot; people I described before wouldn't have intelligence or athletics as a recourse to get themselves a better education or a better job because their parents couldn't afford enough genetic engineering before they were born. >>



First of all scholarships are an exception, we are generalizing here. Those thousands of kids living in ghettos or really poor neighborhoods have little chance of escaping from that life.



<< You don't seem to understand the crux of my point: once you find a way to cure genetic diseases (some of which are quite complicated), you will be well on your way to changing a person's cosmetic properties. When you get down to it, changing genes that control eye color, hair color, musclar coordination, is not that much more complex than curing genetic diseases. These cosmetic changes are of greater importance to a lot of people than curing genetic diseases, considering that most families do not have a history of deadly diseases, but do have a history of lower intelligence, weaker muscles, etc.. Therefore I predict there will more of a demand for genetic engineering of cosmetic changes than of diseases.

And plus, how do you that there isn't someone or some corporation out there right now looking for ways to modify these cosmetic properties? >>



So what do want to do, just close your eyes and hope it will all go away. This might work in bible stories but the real world doesn?t function that way. So instead of saying ban it all we should think about ways to regulate this technology.
Every technology can be used to destruct, do you think that when scientists like Einstein when working on nuclear fission, thought about building a bomb for mass destruction, I don?t think so.
If this tech ever turns into reality life, as we know it will change fundamentally and you like everybody else will have to adapt.
Resistance and ignorance are futile.

-MeliK

 

[AaronP]

as long as it was proven to be 100% safe, with no negative aspects, I surely would tweak my child. Give the kid every chance possible to succeed.

That may be the next step in human evolution, and I am not afraid of it.

 

[geno]

The only thing I'd change would be any possible birth defects, diseases, or disabilities - but that's about it, I'd let nature take it's course from there on

 

[mk52]

<< MeliKK: what u described in a previous post ( the thing with the education that only rich parents could afford good education) is only true for your country. In most countries in europe education is for free (college included) so everybody who is up to it is able to get good education. >>



Hey, I m not american, I just recently moved to the states.
Education is free in Europe but see going to college means not working, so either your parents sponsor you or you re going to be broke. Of course you can have part time jobs and keep living with your parents but its not always that easy. Many have to start working early to support their family, financially.

-MeliK

 

[zimu]

<< The only thing I'd change would be any possible birth defects, diseases, or disabilities - but that's about it, I'd let nature take it's course from there on >>



thats exactly what my viewpoint is... well said.

 

[amdmaxx]

Of course I would.. Soon docs will be able to remove possible genetic deseases before child is born.. More power to healthier babies..

 

[HawkeyeNJ]

I have NOT retired yet. GOD

 

[Elledan]

<< I have NOT retired yet. GOD >>


Which god?

BTW instead of talking about 'gods' I'd rather refer to an universal force, which usually has no consciousness, but sometimes it'll have one or more consciousness. During those 'phases' it can influence certain processes in the universe, like 'causing' the development of life.

 

[AppleTalking]

<<Let me give you another example. If somehow we would get technology from 200 years in the future, the world could break into chaos because we wouldn?t be able to handle the power and the responsibility. But for the society in the future who has been using it for decades its part of day-to-day life.>>

I disagree with the latter half of your statement. I agree that if we could get technology from 200 years into the future, people might not know how to handle it. However, I do not agree that just because people have been using technology for decades that they will use it properly and responsibily. Genetic engineering is a completely new technology, something so different from everything else human science has been able to accomplish. The ability to change and control anything and everything about your child is a power that is beyond our capability to understand and use responsibly. No matter when genetic engineering becomes widespread, people are still going to have the same reaction to it. It's just like no matter when nuclear technology was introduced into the world, people would still try to build destructive weapons out of it. If we were just discovering nuclear technology today, don't you think that we would make the same choices that people did 50 years ago? I do. Our society has not changed that much. There would still be people would abuse the technology, just as there will still be people who will abuse the technology of genetic engineering, whether it comes into the public view 5 years or 50 years from now.

This isn?t about if you care for your children or not. If a new technology has been tested for years, is declared safe by the government, general public knows how it works and what it is capable of and it safes lifes, then you will see it differently.

I don't think you understand my point. Once genetic engineering becomes available, the public demand for it will be so great that there will not be enough time to test it, to declare it safe, and to educate everyone on how it works. People are just going to want to have it done to their children as quickly as possible. This kind of behavior will only lead to the chaos that I described in my previous post. Just as the advent of the technology may be unavoidable, so will the huge demand and widespread panic that it will create.

Genetic engineering may have the ability to save lives, but it also has the ability to ruin society as we know it. See my previous post for the kind of situation I'm referring to.

<<So if doctors would find a genetic defect of your baby (f.i. Progeria), would you just say, hey if god wants my kid to have this disease, then so be it cause he the almighty doesn?t want us to alter genes? That?s what I call careless and ignorant.>>

Okay, wait a second. I never said that we should just tacetly accept whatever happens to us, even if it is the Will of God. It's alright to be angry if something bad happens to you, or sad, or confused, or distraught. Similarly, it's alright to be elated if something good happens to you. I never said that we should just emotionlessly accept whatever happens simply because it is God's Will.

That being said, of course I would be unhappy if my child had a genetic defect. Any parent would, it's only natural. However, I do believe that we need to accept people for what they are, not what they could have been. I believe that, in time, I would come to realize that God had made my child in this way for a reason -- and not necessarily a negative one. Some people have said that children who are disabled or incapitated in some way can bring a lot of joy to a lot of different people. Just because someone has a genetic illness does not make them any less of a valuable person.

<<First of all scholarships are an exception, we are generalizing here. Those thousands of kids living in ghettos or really poor neighborhoods have little chance of escaping from that life.>>

Actually, scholarships are not an exception these days. There are many federally funded grant and loan programs that help a lot of families put their children through college. Most colleges have their own private endowments that help families afford the cost of college as well. If people would simply apply themselves to the task, they could get into a four-year college with little problem.

I will, however, agree that a full 4-year education at a well-known institution is not possible for everyone. But the fact that it is possible for most people through scholarships from many different sources is a great accomplishment. The percentage of children attending college is significantly higher than it was, say, 50 or 100 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that with genetic engineering and the situation I described, those people whose parents could not afford to genetically engineer them will fall into a trap that they would never be able to break free from. There would be no chance of scholarship money to go to school, since it would all go to the smart, athletic kids whose parents could afford the genetic alterations. These people would have no recourse, whereas people today do.

<<So what do want to do, just close your eyes and hope it will all go away. This might work in bible stories but the real world doesn?t function that way.>>

No, I do never said that I want to just close my eyes and hope this all disappears. I was advocating doing something to stop research on human genetic engineering. And I have never heard of a Bible story where people just closed their eyes and hoped everything went away, so you can stop with those kinds of comments right now.

<<So instead of saying ban it all we should think about ways to regulate this technology.
Every technology can be used to destruct, do you think that when scientists like Einstein when working on nuclear fission, thought about building a bomb for mass destruction, I don?t think so.
If this tech ever turns into reality life, as we know it will change fundamentally and you like everybody else will have to adapt.
Resistance and ignorance are futile.>>

I'm sorry, but there's not going to be any realistic way to regulate this technology. Once scientists have the ability to change any characteristic they want to, the demand will be so great that eventually the kind of situation I described will bring itself about. There is just no way we can regulate this so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Even in the right hands, this kind of technology has the potential to be infinitely destructive.

People should not be tampering with the basic forces that make us who we are. It would be terrible mistake to start tampering with the gene pool. If we screw up, we will have destroyed hundreds of thousands of years of careful evolution for our own selfish desires.

Nick

 

[mk52]

hold on a sec
Are saying that if your kid had this defect and you had the power to heal it and give it a normal life, you wouldnt do it???

 

[skywhr]

No I would just overclock it after the birth

 

[skywhr]

No I would just overclock it after the birth

 

[AppleTalking]

MelikK,

I honestly wouldn't know the answer to that question until I was actually placed in that situation. I simply do not believe that anyone should have that power in the first place.

Cheers!
Nick

 

[mk52]

thinking that research on that matter will stop is delusional.

 

[OS]

<< The fact of the matter is that with genetic engineering and the situation I described, those people whose parents could not afford to genetically engineer them will fall into a trap that they would never be able to break free from. There would be no chance of scholarship money to go to school, since it would all go to the smart, athletic kids whose parents could afford the genetic alterations. These people would have no recourse, whereas people today do. >>



You know, that used to be the case with education, only the rich could afford it. Why isn't that the case now? The government today gives everyone a free education until 12th grade and will heavily subsidize a college education if it's not affordable. Why? Because the government knows that an educated population is also a more productive one.

I suspect the same thing will happen with genetic alterations. The payoff is so damn good that the government will heavily subsidize, if not pay for, genetic modifications. The payoff is simply too damn good. Once the technology is mature, it will almost certainly be cheaper to change a few genes than to pay a lifetime of social security/welfare to a person who is of below average intelligence.

 

[pulpp]

nope if we start doing that we will have breeds of humans like we do with dogs, sick, and it takes the humanity out of being human

 

[OS]

<< Are saying that if your kid had this defect and you had the power to heal it and give it a normal life, you wouldnt do it??? >>





<< I honestly wouldn't know the answer to that question until I was actually placed in that situation. I simply do not believe that anyone should have that power in the first place. >>



Why? How is fixing the problem before it happens, any different or worse, than fixing it after it happens? Lets say you have a family history of acne. By no measure is it life critical and yet probaby billions of dollars are spent annually treating this problem. Everyone is trying to fix it after it happens. Why not just edit the genes are remove the problem in the first place?


No one really seems to be claiming that taking your kids to a dermotologist to treat acne is &quot;playing god.&quot; And yet if it were possible to fix that, in the genes, before it happens, it's playing god. How is the end effect really any different?

Take for example, nearsightedness, many people have this problem. Millions of people in this country alone need corrective lenses. Most of these people, myself included, will deal with this problem for a lifetime, either by using corrective lenses, or eye surgery. Definitely not a life threatening conditition. No one seems to complain about playing god when people wear contacts or use lasik. So why would editing the genes be any worse? Deal with the problem before it happens. The end effect is cheaper anyways and future generations won't suffer from the problem.

 

[AppleTalking]

<<thinking that research on that matter will stop is delusional.>>

So is believing that genetic engineering will only bring about good in the world.

All of you who are in favor of genetic engineering seem to see this as some kind of a panacea; something that will eliminate deadly diseases and make people smarter, more athletic, and more beautiful than ever. I agree that that potential does exist. The difference between you and me, though, is that I also acknowledge the potential for terrible consequences if something should go wrong. I still contend that science will never know enough about genetic engineering to be able to use it responsibly. To claim that eventually we will know the effect of one gene on every other gene is truly delusional. There are millions and millions of genes controlling every part of our being, how can we ever possibly understand the fundamental effects of that?

Let's say, just for the sake of this argument, that there are one million (10^6) different functional genes in the human body. Now, if you wanted to know the effect of each gene on each other gene, you would have:

10^6^(10^6) possible combinations

Which is one heck of a lot of combinations to consider when you change a gene. How are we to know that the changes we are making aren't going to have any negative side effects? Instead of curing birth defects, we could be creating them! I just cannot believe that you all are in favor of a technology that is so unproven and so risky.

Granted, genetic engineering has the potential to be great. But it also has the potential to be terribly deadly. The fundamental genetic makeup of our species is not something that humans were meant to mess with. If you change people's genes, only to find out 20 years down the road that they die from some horrible genetic disease, there will be no going back.

I simply do not believe that people should be screwing around with the fundamental principles of life. Be happy with what you have.

Nick

 

[AppleTalking]

<<I suspect the same thing will happen with genetic alterations. The payoff is so damn good that the government will heavily subsidize, if not pay for, genetic modifications. The payoff is simply too damn good. Once the technology is mature, it will almost certainly be cheaper to change a few genes than to pay a lifetime of social security/welfare to a person who is of below average intelligence.>>

Even assuming that the government is willing to pay the enormous amount of money to have everyone's kids genetically engineered (which I doubt they are), that still doesn't make genetic engineering any safer or any more right to do.

There is a very good chance that there will be (ominous voice) terrible consequences involved with changing people's genes. There is just no way that we can ever really know if what we're doing is safe. We may not even notice the negative effects immediately. What if, as a result of changing people's genes, they develop some kind of horrible genetic disease that no one could have ever predicted and die at the age of 20? Then you've got 20 years worth of children who know that, because their genes were changed too, they're going to die in less than 20 years.

I just cannot accept that humans should have the power fundamentally change the essence of their existance. It's what makes us unique and interesting. There are just so many downsides to genetic engineering that it's hard to see past them to all the good it could do.

Nick

edit: grammar

 

[OS]

We already do genetic engineering in plants and animals and we don't see any of the doomsday problems you are describing. And not every gene affects every other gene, so your mathematical example doesn't work.




<< The fundamental genetic makeup of our species is not something that humans were meant to mess with >>



People used to say that about just about every revolutionary new technology that came out.

 

[OS]

<< There is just no way that we can ever really know if what we're doing is safe. We may not even notice the negative effects immediately. What if, as a result of changing people's genes, they develop some kind of horrible genetic disease that no one could have ever predicted and die at the age of 20? Then you've got 20 years worth of children who know that, because their genes were changed too, they're going to die in less than 20 years >>



So? Even if it takes 100 years in careful testing to make genetic engineering work, the technology will still be worthwhile to apply. IMO, the best way to apply fixes is to cross reference the gene you want to fix with a good, naturally occuring one.

Humanity can choose to spend the rest of it's existence using oxypads, glasses, rogaine, hearing aids, etc. or they can fix it when the technology is proven and available.

 

[AppleTalking]

<<Why? How is fixing the problem before it happens, any different or worse, than fixing it after it happens? Lets say you have a family history of acne. By no measure is it life critical and yet probaby billions of dollars are spent annually treating this problem. Everyone is trying to fix it after it happens. Why not just edit the genes are remove the problem in the first place?>>

It's true that the end result is the same. But the means to obtain that result are very different. There is a fundamental difference between treating acne using some kind of topical medication and treating acne by editing people's genes. Namely, going to a determetologist is not going to have any life-threatening side effects. Changing people's genes just might. We know that topical acne medications are not going to cause any dramatic side effects: they've been tested and they work fine. Why bother changing people's genes? It's a much more dangerous process than just putting some cream on your face, and (as you yourself said) the end result is the same. So why take the more dangerous road when you can take the simple, less threatening one?

<<No one really seems to be claiming that taking your kids to a dermotologist to treat acne is &quot;playing god.&quot; And yet if it were possible to fix that, in the genes, before it happens, it's playing god. How is the end effect really any different?>>

There is a profound difference between taking your children to a dermetologist to have their acne treated with some kind of mediation and editing their genes before they're born. When you edit someone's genes, you change the very foundation of their being; you change what's at the heart of their existance. You don't do that with acne medication. Again the end effect might not be any different, but the means taken to reach that effect are.

<<Take for example, nearsightedness, many people have this problem. Millions of people in this country alone need corrective lenses. Most of these people, myself included, will deal with this problem for a lifetime, either by using corrective lenses, or eye surgery. Definitely not a life threatening conditition. No one seems to complain about playing god when people wear contacts or use lasik. So why would editing the genes be any worse? Deal with the problem before it happens. The end effect is cheaper anyways and future generations won't suffer from the problem.>>

Again, wearing glasses does not change the fundamental building blocks on which your existance is based. Changing someone's gene does. That's why genetic engineering is playing God: because you are altering that which defines someone's entire existance.

Nick