Genetic Discrimination

[CarlottaVonUberwald]

hang on....FOP... if i could use either gentic methods to cure it... or to not have a child with it... i would...same with Huntingtons ( sp?) and similar diseases.

[Creator]

you have a point
maybe the only way to prevent genetic discrimination is to control genetic therapy into such a way where you can remove genes that are fatal but not add genes like the designer babies. And also we have to ensure that genetic data is kept private to the patient and not publicised except to the authorities like the police...etc

[chrispenycate]

You’re oversimplifying the problem ; if the records exist (in hospital files, police files, government files) then corporations, hackers, those rich enough to bribe technicians would obtain access to them.
And the majority of gene splices used would not be “designer jeans, sorry, genes“ but proven human gene complexes. As an example, suppose the pattern that prevented HIV infection from developing into AIDS could be isolated. (statistical analysis strongly indicates this pattern exists) What more normal than that a rich and caring parent have this incorporated into offspring ? After all, it will be increasing in the population naturally, anyway. And what more normal than that someone equipped with this advantage would be somewhat less careful about spreading the virus ?( although « careful » is not really the norm even without the treatment)
Even assuming that all that was done was to splice out known death-causing factors, can you imagine a world where the rich (and this could mean countries or individuals) had a life expectancy of 150 years, without neural degradation, while the poor are happy to reach 80, and, worst of all this is a birthright ; no opportunity to work yourself up to superior status (personally I find the “all humans are born equal“ democratic ideal misleading, even dangerous, but there’s no doubt that both it and the “natural human rights“ fallacy permeate modern society)
The problem, as I see it, is that the potential benefits of genetic technology are so great, that its possible dark side is correspondingly powerful.

[Creator]

Hmm chris has got a point, maybe the problem cannot be solved overnight. but one thing is for sure is that it's evry person's right to have privacy especially genetic privacy.

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/privacy.html

[CarlottaVonUberwald]

i would never claim its simple but i heard about someone today who lost to daughters to ms and i cant help but think that either genetic screening or engineering could stop his pain as well as that of his past or future children..

[j. d. worthington]

I think genetic screening definitely has its advantages. Yes, there are also all sorts of abuses waiting in the wings. That's the case with just about anything you can mention: the more complex life becomes, the more things can go wrong; but there's no turning back that clock, and to think we can is simply wearing blinders, however well-intentioned. That's why it's increasingly important for people to be educated, and not to simply formulate opinions based on emotional reaction (again, however well-intended, or even seemingly reasonable as these reactions may be). If we're to make anything approaching a "democratic" ideal work, with any attempt at justice, or even simply humane behavior, the responsibility for such really does lie on the people; and its success lies on their willingness to educate themselves and be involved. It may be a pipe dream, but without such commitment, we're going to see an increasing gap between those who have the power and those without; and this includes the issue of genetic discrimination in a very big way....

[Creator]

I agree in one tale I am writing Alpha Omega. The only advantage seen with this genetic discrimination is the fact that many bad mutations are gone from the designer baby population and the natural borns. There is a invisible villian who hates natural borns, pulling the strings of the world government to do things that cause genetic discrimination.

But however there are some genes that are beneficial but are regarded as bad genes in the story.

But the designer humans have a big weakness. I will not spoil things so.... no details except a SARS and avian flu comeback.

[CarlottaVonUberwald]

i would slso like to make a point that ( and tyhis doenst apply to people o nthis forum really) but many of the designer baby attributes aren't even proven to HAVE genes let alone have they been isolated..

[manephelien]

It's a tricky issue. We should sort out the ethical problems involving stem cell research, which could provide genetic therapies for several debilitating diseases.

I support trying to eradicate severely debilitating diseases, as long as the consequences are fully known. Sickle-cell anemia is prevalent in many African and Asian countries, because the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia also protects from malaria, if you carry just one allele. SCA requires two.

Designer babies, though, are a different story. Babies are individuals in their own right, not mini-parents. I abhor parents who try to live vicariously through their children, such as buying them a piano at 5 and forcing them to practice for hours on end, just because all they wanted at 8 was a chance to play, and their parents couldn't provide the opportunity. In many cases, parents should be banned from the audience at sports events where their children perform. Who knows where this would go if parents got to pick, say, athletic talent for their kids? What if the kid hates sports in spite of being so talented, or isn't quite good enough in spite of the genetic therapy? Should GM kids be allowed to participate in the same events as unmodified ones? What about kids who naturally have the mutation others have added through genetic therapy? Assuming there even is any gene you can use for improving athletic talent.

Intelligence is another matter. I have a sneaking suspicion that extremely intelligent children often face a lot of trouble, in part because less intelligent people treat them with suspicion, and in part because their emotional development is no faster than that of other children. Just imagine a 13 year old with the emotions of a 13 year old and the brain of a 25 year old.

[Dave]

A number of different points raised here. And I just saw some news this morning that is relevant and I'll quote it.

Firstly, most human characteristics are the result of groups of many genes, that is true, but once they have mapped the human genome, and with increases in computer number crunching power, I would think they could easily isolate the complexities enough to have 'designer babies' made to order. I don't think that is a good idea, but it is coming anyway.

The same goes for the insurance aspect. The economics of the cost of health care will drive that scenario. In the same way that societies atttitudes are changing towards heavy smokers who damage their lungs, or heavy drinkers who damage their livers, or towards the overweight, then I think it will change towards people who have a genetically high risk of having a disabled child yet go ahead anyway. It will be seen as an 'own goal' and with rising health care costs people are going to ask "why should I pay for them?"

On the subject of diluting the gene pool, I think the road of 'designer babies' is a dangerous one, and a road leading ultimately to our own extinction. For a start, who says if someone is beautiful or not? Who decided what is the correct height to be? Many tastes in beauty are just fashions and they change with time. Have you ever seen portraits of beauties from the Tudor period? If this was possible say 7 years ago, wouldn't all our children now be in the image of 'Posh and Becks'?

Sickle Cell Anaemia shows how seemingly disadvantageous mutations can actually have advantages. The sufferers of the illness have a reduced life span, a maximum of forty years. However, it is believed that carriers (sickle cell trait) are relatively resistant to malaria. Since the gene is incompletely recessive, carriers have a few sickle red blood cells at all times, not enough to cause symptoms, but enough to give resistance to malaria. In parts of the world where Malaria is rife, people don't live to forty anyway.

I don't think we yet know enough about some diseases to try to eliminate them completely from the gene pool. Autism is something that comes to mind here. People with Asperger's Syndrome, a mild form of Autism, often have extreme difficulty interacting socially, preferring to focus on narrow fields of interest. But often they're able to pursue those interests with great intensity. Geniuses throughout history, including Albert Einstein, Andy Warhol and Emily Dickinson, have all been suggested to have had Asperger's. And Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith has spoken openly about what he calls the deficiencies and the selective advantages of Asperger's.

I read this this morning, it says that HG Wells was spot on:

from the Daily Mail
Haves and Chavs - how man will look in the year 102,000

Social division might split humans into two sub-species 100,000 years from now - just as HG Wells predicted.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative.

They would be a far cry from the "underclass" humans who will have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

The forecast was made by evolution expert Dr Oliver Curry, who spent two months investigating the ascent and descent of man over the next 100 millennia.

Novelist HG Wells predicted a similar gloomy outcome for humanity in The Time Machine.

He envisaged a race of privileged beings, the Eloi, who lived above ground and were prey for the cannibalistic ape-like Morlocks, who toiled underground.

According to Dr Curry, the human race is likely to peak in the year 3,000, before collapsing.

Within a thousand years, humans will evolve to between six and seven feet tall. Improved nutrition and medical science will see people growing taller and fitter and to 120 years.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve.

Men will have symmetrical facial features with squarer jaws, look athletic and have deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women’s skin will be lighter with large clear eyes, pert breasts, and glossy hair.

Interbreeding will produce a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

But the golden age of the beautiful people will not last forever, warns Dr Curry.

In 10,000 years, humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology and spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

Social skills could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile.

Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine.

Weak immune systems might be one result.

Much further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one’s partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality.

The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans representing the rich and poor.

Dr Curry from the Darwin@LSE research centre at the London School of Economics, was commissioned to carry out the study by the men’s satellite TV channel Bravo.

He said: "The report suggests that the future of man will be a story of the good, the bad and the ugly."

"Things could get ugly, with the possible emergence of genetic "haves" and "have-nots."

I'm not so sure of that myself. I do think the species will diversify though. When we colonise Space and have people living in zero-G, legs will become a useless appendage. The muscles waste away and blood pools in them leaving less available for the rest of the body. Under such circumstances, wouldn't a paraplegic have a distinct advantage?

I don't see the kind of diversity seen in the 'Ringworld' novels, where hominids have evolved to live in every different ecological niché - with carnivores, herbivores and scavengers. I do think we will get differences between HeavyWorlders and Belters though.

[manephelien]

Blood doesn't pool in the legs in zero-g. In fact, it tries to escape the legs, being used to fighting gravity normally. In any case, legs aren't useless in zero-g. They help center the center of gravity near the pelvis, which has a convenient joint/bending point, and are useful as counterweights (counter-inertias?) in zero-g movements. If we stay long enough in purely zero-g environments, though, I could envisage a retrogression to apelike feet, i. e. the return of an opposable big toe to grab objects.

[Dave]

Sorry I was wrong about the blood. You're correct. Due to the absence of gravity, blood from the lower body shifts to the upper body. The heart adapts to this by swelling to accomodate the extra flow of blood. The body adjusts to this by reducing the amount of fluid in the body. But skeletal muscles still lose mass, strength, and endurance. If someone is actually spending their life in space, then muscles will have atrophied so much that they would be unable to support the body in the presence of gravity. In addition to that bone marrow loss can be as high as a 1.5% loss per month in the legs.

[Saltheart]

Gene therapy should only be used to cure critical diseases not for cosmetic changes and augmentation.

[jackokent]

But as others and I have said, by eliminating a gene, that at first to us looks like an illness or useless, we could be halting a necessary evolutionary developement.

Of course if I could cure a myself or a loved one through this method I would, without hesiation, but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing for society as a whole.

[Saltheart]

Originally Posted by jackokent

But as others and I have said, by eliminating a gene, that at first to us looks like an illness or useless, we could be halting a necessary evolutionary developement.

Of course if I could cure a myself or a loved one through this method I would, without hesiation, but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing for society as a whole.

Then consider this: if a person had no will to live because the disorder is critical enough to make the said genuinely suicidal, it would be best to just cure the disorder: Leprosy, Huntington's, etc.

Not for mere changes like curing a cold, but actual ones that leave a person not only crippled physically, but emotionally too due to alienation and futility.