Designer babies more likely and needs debate

[seeder]

Rapid progress in genetics is making "designer babies" more likely and society needs to be prepared, leading scientists have told the BBC.

Dr Tony Perry, a pioneer in cloning, has announced precise DNA editing at the moment of conception in mice.

He said huge advances in the past two years meant "designer babies" were no longer HG Wells territory.

Other leading scientists and bioethicists argue it is time for a serious public debate on the issue.

Designer babies - genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease - have long been a topic of science fiction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30742774

[bubblykiss]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:27

*******

So it was that man saw the work of God upon Mankind as incomplete, so man did add some b****'n fins, awesome turbo claws and some totally kick-ass night vision, and all for a reasonable price.

[Dark_Grey]

The debate is thus: will the new master race of the planet be genetically perfect humans, or fully synthetic bodied artificial intelligences? (Either way, it doesn't look so good for us "humans 1.0")

[bubblykiss]

The debate is thus: will the new master race of the planet be genetically perfect humans, or fully synthetic bodied artificial intelligences? (Either way, it doesn't look so good for us "humans 1.0")

I can already see the chlorophyll and chloroform Green Kidz of the future. You make fun of these self sufficient bratz they knock you out and mulch ya.

[+DieChecker]

Well, if a baby is part of the mother's body, and she gets to decide what to do with her body, and if she can alter her body chemically, then I don't see what the problem with altering an unborn baby is..... It is exactly like a woman taking cough medicine. If you don't agree, you hate women. (Liberal Logic)

I'm not a fan of cloning, or genetic engineering, but if they can prevent a genetic abnormality before the kid is born... Stop autism, stop all genetically linked disease... I don't see why we shouldn't do it. (Practical Think)

[Imaginarynumber1]

Do it. We (almost) have the technology.

Genetically engineer a race of people that can survive the rigors of long term space flight and send them on a one way mission to stars.... so that they might eventually return and enslave our decedents.

[+DieChecker]

KHANNNNNN!!!!!!

[Wickian]

Genetic modification will start with stronger immune systems and an attempt to do away with genetic defects/conditions. From there it will likely expand to more beautiful/longer living babies(assuming scientists ever figure out what makes someone more attractive genetically).

I also think "taller" will be a popular modification in the future.

[Likely Guy]

After 1,000 years, would we recognize ourselves as even being human? (That is, us looking at them then and Them looking at us as we are now.)

[Tiggs]

As soon as it becomes relatively cheap for parents to be able to choose the gender of their child - then there's going to be a tsunami of males in the developing world.

My gut tells me that evolution does not always choose the prettiest and most intelligent of the species to survive - and that if we start to narrow the diversity of the gene pool, then it could have some fairly serious long term consequences. That said - fixing any obvious genetic disorders would certainly be a worthy goal. The issue on that front, I suspect, is that we still don't know entirely what they all are.

[+DieChecker]

As soon as it becomes relatively cheap for parents to be able to choose the gender of their child - then there's going to be a tsunami of males in the developing world.

My gut tells me that evolution does not always choose the prettiest and most intelligent of the species to survive - and that if we start to narrow the diversity of the gene pool, then it could have some fairly serious long term consequences. That said - fixing any obvious genetic disorders would certainly be a worthy goal. The issue on that front, I suspect, is that we still don't know entirely what they all are.

Yeah. And then eventually does having the "homosexuality" gene become a "defect"? Same with hair color, handedness, eye color, and so on... Eventually red hair, or being left handed will count as a genetic defect There is a point where it can go too far.

[Tiggs]

Yeah. And then eventually does having the "homosexuality" gene become a "defect"? Same with hair color, handedness, eye color, and so on... Eventually red hair, or being left handed will count as a genetic defect There is a point where it can go too far.

Even if it wasn't - it's easy to see that popular choice would render some genetic variations much less common. If you have a choice - who's going to choose to have a child with male pattern baldness, for example? Who's going to choose to have a child with just average intelligence? Or one that's not athletic? Or a Leftie, in a right-hand dominated world?

How would you explain to your child afterwards that you didn't tick all the "best" boxes, when you had a choice to? And how would they treat you, if you didn't? Would they blame you if they can't do 200 push-ups or be a rocket scientist - because you chose to tick the other box?

And then there's the "Would you like wings with that, sir? Lizard-like regeneration?" level of genetic dabbling, which would fundamentally change what it meant to be human.

I find it worrying that the technology to edit genes is way ahead of our understanding of the full consequences of those edits - especially as it's human life on the line.

What if the genes for genius IQ and Athleticism has a side-effect of depression, increased violence, or suicidal tendencies?

How are we going to know that some of the genes that we "smooth over" aren't vital for well-being? What if there's a genetic variation we wipe out that's resistant to a particular strain of virus?

Maybe I'm just getting old - but I believe that not everything that can be done, should be done. Plain old evolution's kept us alive for this long. If our current genetic form wasn't (generally) fit for the environment - we wouldn't have got this far.

I guess what I'm really worried about is that if we step in and play the role of "evolution by popular vote" - we may discover that what's attractive isn't necessarily what's best for us, as a species.

Not that I get a vote - but I'd want to see a lot more understanding about the interplay between different genes before agreeing to anyone unleashing Pandora's box.

[seeder]

Remember Bladerunner?

Tyrell: [Tyrell explains to Roy why he can't extend his lifespan] The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.

Batty: Why not?

Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship... sinks.

Batty: What about EMS-3 recombination?

Tyrell: We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.

Batty: Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells.

Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation - and you've got a virus again... but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.

Batty: But not to last.

Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy. Look at you: you're the Prodigal Son; you're quite a prize!

Batty: I've done... questionable things.

Tyrell: Also extraordinary things; revel in your time.

Batty: Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.

[Mr Supertypo]

well we could mix designer babies with artifical womb tech. And build a baby factory, and sell the toddlers on ebay. :-)

[Leonardo]

Having a higher average intelligence is no guarantee of improving the life of the individual, nor of obtaining success in any endeavour. Nature will eventually catch up with any artificial modification to our immune system and will eventually give rise to new species of micro-organisms that are totally impossible to eradicate and resistant to all antibiotics, etc. That lesson has already been taught to us.

'Good looks' are relative. Once everyone has the same 'good looks' they will no longer be 'good' - just average.

There is absolutely no long-term benefit in 'designer children', there is only a brief period of self-congratulatory hubris by the parents that they have such a "beautiful child".