[Heavy_Metal]

very true...but it all comes down to the passage of your genetic material to keep your line going and if you can strengthen that material along the way with modifications, I can see why people would do it.

[Brenda]

But this is not a modification. This is manipulation...

[Heavy_Metal]

aren't they one in the same? can't modify without manipulation?

[Chumley]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Opens alot of possibilities but alot of controversey as well. Eliminating all embryos with a defect gene like say the defective one that causes CF will bring down harsh criticism.

I guess it all depends on when you think life starts, I would have no problem failing any 'defective' embryos.

I don't either. It will bring out the people who do, the people who say this is playing god and probably the harshest of all, people afflicted with a particular gene disorder objecting to being screened out of existence.

Hopefully gene therapy will quell that as we aren't screening out anybody mearly correcting an existing defect.

Still this area always give people the creeps. Look at the whole GM foods criticism. Now we are talking people. (did that last sentence make you think of soylent green)?

Well, that's the thing. It all starts with screening for cancer. Then you screen for aggressiveness. Then we can all be one big happy hive eventually.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

I missed that last little nuggest at the end, Im quite suprised there isn't a public outcry about it.

I see no issue with correcting small genes, and believe me, if this process can correct whatever gene that causes psoriasis, I will, for my child's sake. However, and just like GM foods, how much can we modify before we're not human anymore? And if we all do this, do we, sooner or later, become nothing more than lookalikes if parents can start modifying physical features of children (changing brown hair to blond, hazel eyes to blue, things like that)

I have no issue about changing small genetic defects, but my big issue is having gene treatments being just like cosmetic surgery.

Remember that the article is about a screening procedure whereby they test viable embryos for the gene in particular, they don't actually modify anything. This works like in vitro vertilization except they are specifically looking for a gene rather then just randomnly implanting one or more viable embryos.

The true leap forward will be gene therapy in utero of natural conception embryos.

[DerbyX]

Chumley Chumley:

Well, that's the thing. It all starts with screening for cancer. Then you screen for aggressiveness. Then we can all be one big happy hive eventually.

Thats one of the controversies. Rich parents affecting gene manipulation to produce "ideal" children.

Gattaca.

[Arctic_Menace]

I'm beginning to think that the next step in our evolution will be due to technology, not some advancement in nature.

[roger-roger]

I sure as hell hope so, since we wouldnt notice another significant change in our evolution for another some 10 000 years.

[Brenda]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

I sure as hell hope so, since we wouldnt notice another significant change in our evolution for another some 10 000 years.

At that is bad, because?

[Public_Domain]

[roger-roger]

Brenda Brenda:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

I sure as hell hope so, since we wouldnt notice another significant change in our evolution for another some 10 000 years.

At that is bad, because?

I highly doubt the human species will be around in 10 000 years, at least not with out some sort of mechanical manipulation.

[Yogi]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

An addiction is not really a disease, people just say that to make themselves feel better.

You are so wrong on this subject. A little research on your part is certainly in order. You are really quick to jump all over people who comment on something that they know nothing about, and rightly so, but this time YOU are flapping your gums!!!
( this can be carried on in another thread)

Back to the topic. I agree, to a point with Brenda and AC, but I think that if handled as it is intended, and in the correct hands that this could be an excellent boon to mankind.
ie; If at some point a DR. told you that there was a very good chance that your offspring, or your childs offspring could be afflicted with oh say, Down's Syndrome, to use one example, but that the Dr. could isolate and delete the gene that causes 'Downs', and then you could reasonably expect a healthy baby to be born, would you tell the Dr. "no thanks, we'll take our chances"?

[wildrosegirl]

Any time you mess with Mother Nature, she will come back to bite you in the ass at some point.

Do I like the thought of a child OR adult suffering with a disease/condition that could have been prevented? Hell no. BUT - at what point will we cross a line with Mother Nature that will cause her to strike back and get even?

The circle of life, as it is, has a very delicate balance. Part of that balance is population control. One day, she WILL reset our numbers as she pleases, and I do NOT think we're gonna like it.

[ShepherdsDog]

hakuna matata

[Brenda]

lily lily:

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

very true...but it all comes down to the passage of your genetic material to keep your line going and if you can strengthen that material along the way with modifications, I can see why people would do it.

How many modifications before they're not really your genes anymore?

1