Three parent babies

[silverfox]

That'll make things interesting when it comes to mothers' day.

Also, why stop there? Why not introduce a bit of bat gene so cyclists can use echo location so as not to pull out in front of drivers without hand signals? Or a bit of jelly fish gene so we can all glow in the dark?

[Huguenot]

I'm sure in your tremulous and poorly informed worldview such a thing is terrifying silverfox.

The truth is that even you are genetically a multi-parent child. You are a splicing of the genes of your parents, who are a splicing of the genes of your grandparents and they of their forebears.

In fact silverfox, you are a child of millions of parents and a hotch-potch of their genes.

How terrified are you now? You want to cut off your arm?

This 'three parent' baby is nothing more terrifying than correcting the mitochondrial genes of a 'broken' parental gene with those of a third party to prevent debilitating and heartbreaking disabilities.

Only someone with a really nasty streak could try and prevent this to either a) prevent people with curable conditions from having babies or b) force people to live with lifetime debilitating diseases that could be cured.

I trust you are neither of those silverfox.

[silverfox]

"I'm sure in your tremulous and poorly informed worldview such a thing is terrifying silverfox..."

Hi Huguenot. I try to raise these issues as broadly as possible and my opening post does that. Unfortunately you miss the bigger picture as usual.

This isn't just about the ability of science to correct defects by involving a third person, as desirable as that may be. Rather, this is about genetically altering people, which has both good and bad implications.

My good looks, charm and superior intelligence have been derived naturally. As sure as eggs are eggs, people will be queuing round the block to order blue-eyed, blond haired, athletic, intelligent types like myself.

The future evolution of the human race will be borne in test tubes and available only to the rich.

[Huguenot]

That's where you're making monumental leaps of imagination.

People 'create' babies every day - choosing partners on their health, wealth, good looks or smell. They are fabricated and totally artificial, based on the selective pressures of popular fashion, anticipated skills or just whatever we can get as a passport to the next generation.

We also have medicine, that destroys viruses and bacteria, and replaces good marrow with bad to cure leukaemia. These are all unnatural - a painful death and life expectancy of 30 years is the 'natural' lifespan.

You may be too late too qualify for a heart transplant silverfox, but in your prime would you have rejected one on the basis it made you unnatural?

I thought not.

Yet despite this hypocrisy, there's no therapy in your simplistic mindset, only Frankenstein's monster.

[silverfox]

"...People 'create' babies every day - choosing partners on their health, wealth, good looks or smell. They are fabricated and totally artificial, based on the selective pressures of popular fashion, anticipated skills or just whatever we can get as a passport to the next generation..."

People, and animals, do of course choose partners or mates on such a basis in the hope, note the word hope, that certain traits and abilities will be passed on to their offspring.

However, nature is an unreliable matchmaker and as you have pointed out, individuals are composites of countless antecedent generations. It is a gamble, to a large extent, which traits and characteristics will actually be passed on to the child.

The child then, far from being artificial as you state above, is very much real and natural. Genetic engineering however allows children to be fabricated and unnatural and it is here that the perceived desirable traits and characteristics can be selected with the potential danger that such desirable traits can be the stuff of whimsies and fleeting fashion. More worryingly, they could be the preference of social engineering, with one class destined for a life of servitude in call centres and a ruling oligarchy enjoying the lion's share of life's riches.

No different from what exists now you may say with the exception that in the future it can be planned and purchased if you can afford it. Why leave it to the fickle hand of nature?

[Huguenot]

You may be unaware of the lottery of gene therapy, but I can assure you that it is the hope, note the word hope, that certain illnesses will not be passed on.

Nature is, as you point out, an unreliable matchmaker.

So the child, as you point out, is very much real and natural.

Your logic that we should ban useful things on the basis that they may be misused is utterly illogical. I shan't grace your assertion by listing household objects that should be made illegal if used for dangerous purposes.

Of course we don't ban them.

I have often held that warfarin would be a better treatment for cantankerous elderly curmudgeons than toleration and indulgence.

However, it seems it's use is banned for that purpose.

So no silverfox, using gene therapy to cure horrific diseases is not the same as using it for cosmetics.

[silverfox]

I didn't say it should be banned. In fact I think it's unstoppable. It will happen because we can now do it.

Like the invention of gun powder or nuclear fission, it can be used for good or ill. At the moment the issue is being presented as curative. However, the genie is out of the bottle and 'designer' babies are just around the corner.

What will homo sapiens look like in a few centuries? What traits will we 'breed' out of mankind and which characteristics will we deem to be desirable? Who decides?

[uncleglen]

What's wrong with natural selection- for example- people with sickle cell trait have an advantage in the survival stakes in countries where malaria is endemic and sickle cell trait is almost symptomless- or should people be genetically engineered to have sickle cell trait?

[Huguenot]

Try telling a parent in the UK that their sickle cell kid in the UK will only have a life expectancy of 42 because uncleglen reckons they should sod off to Laos where most kids don't live that long because they don't have it.

[uncleglen]

Only you H could come up with such tripe. You love trying to paint other people- probably in your own colours.

[dulwichgirl2]

Which part of the human egg carries genetic coding for eg hair colour, egg color etc? It isn't mitochondria is it? isn't that just the provider of energy to the cell? All that aerobic respiration going on?

[Saffron]

I don't think that genetic engineering will automatically be available only to the weathly. Perhaps initially, yes. But as this type of engineering is relatively new, there will of course be room for improvement. The process can be streamlined and made more readily available.

Take the case of IVF in Africa. Increasing demand for this expensive practice meant there was a market, but many of those who wanted it couldn't afford it. However, in recent years the IVF process has been streamlined and made more affordable, so it could reach this market. I don't see a reason to think that genetic technology would be any different.

Whether or not one sees that as an ethical issue is very much dependant on one's point of view. The technology itself --the ability to manipulate genes-- is not inherently evil. Its morality (or lack thereof) will be derived through its usage by humans. Technology may change, but humans it seems will always have moral struggles. Should we on that basis conceed to condemn and cease all technological advances? Personally I don't think so, but others will disagree. Perhaps it's reconciling those differences in a fair and harmonious way that is itself the most profound moral challenge?

[Medusa]

From a cursory scan through his past posts, I suspect that silverfox is less concerned about medical ethics than about the Outrageous Overthrowing of Normal Family Life and all who sail in it.

Fortunately it matters very little that moral dinosaurs are still stomping around grumpily; the rest of the world is moving on.

[silverfox]

Medusa was a monster, a Gorgon, generally described as having the face of a hideous human female with living venomous snakes in place of hair. Gazing directly upon her would turn onlookers to stone.

A good example of genetic engineering gone wrong?

[Moos]

Actually, Medusa was the loveliest of mortal women, and was turned into a hideous snake-locked monster for having sex in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong guy.

More of a morality lesson about time and place than genetic engineering. Beware holding up the mirror of metaphor, it can sometimes show images other than those you were expecting.

[silverfox]

Interesting version of the story. So Medusa, "was the loveliest of mortal women, and was turned into a hideous snake-locked monster"

To mix up some more images and quotes it would seem terrible beauties can be born when the Gods (scientists) start tinkering with mortals.

[Saffron]

Good things also happened when Gods intervened in mortal scenarios. The Greco-Roman gods had human attributes, and were therefore prone to human frailties, emotive and ethical dilemmas. Which returns me to the point I made previously: Technology may change, but humans it seems will always have moral struggles.

So even if you're an Anabaptist Amish/Mennonite who shuns technology, you're still going to have ethical struggles. It's part of the human condition. I would even go so far as to say that "monsters" can be created within ourselves through our responses to the world, or by our mishappen perceptions or unfair judgements of others.

[Saffron]

Moos, I like the bit about the "mirror of metaphor". I'm going to print that out and put it on my desk!

[silverfox]

"...I would even go so far as to say that "monsters" can be created within ourselves through our responses to the world, or by our mishappen perceptions or unfair judgements of others..."

True Saffron, it is part of the human condition that we will wrestle with ethical and moral dilemmas especially as science and technology advance.

If you think about it, the reason for the three-parent work around is that we have classified the two parents as 'defective' and that they would be irresponsible to risk bearing 'defective' children. Hence the third-person work around in the absence of a cure.

[Brendan]

If my mum and dad had the choice to make me glow in the dark and didn?t do so I would never forgive them.

[DJKillaQueen]

You are making exactly the same arguments here as you did on the gay marriage thread silverfox...that it's the beginning of a road to doom and catastrophe (or as you really believe, a threat to traditional family life). To say that we are somehow defining people as 'defective' and using gene science to 'cure' them is also utter tosh.

As H and others have pointed out, the overwhelming agenda of medical science is to prevent, eradicate and cure disease. We already test pregnant women for downs syndrome and other conditions.

I think the real issue you have is that of a moral objection to genetic intervention and this comment explains why perfectly.....

'From a cursory scan through his past posts, I suspect that silverfox is less concerned about medical ethics than about the Outrageous Overthrowing of Normal Family Life and all who sail in it.'

We've had IVF for decades, surrogacy for decades and even adoption and fostering. All of these things involve more than two parents and none of those things have destroyed the existence of traditional family life.

What I would say though is that, given how many children are in care, I wish some would be parents would consider that as an option rather than going down some of the other routes on offer.