Designing Life with Baby Genetic Engineering

By Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior | LiveScience.com

New York - The increasing power and accessibility of genetic technologies may someday will give parents the option to modify their unborn child, to set up a disease-free offspring or their child to a higher body, muscular, intelligent or endowed with the desired properties.

Does this change make a parent can give their children the best start? Or does it mean the baby is designed to cope with unforeseen genetic problems? Experts debate on Wednesday night (February 13) whether prenatal engineering should be banned in the United States.

Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals, said Sheldon Krimsky, a philosopher at Tufts University, who argued that he supported a ban similar to human babies. "But in the hundreds of thousands of experiments that failed, we just toss modified plants or animals that are not desirable."

Unknown consequences
Is this is a model who wants imposed by human society, by making genetic modifications, "toss modified when they do not succeed?" Krimsky asked Intelligence Squared Debate event held in Manhattan.

He and fellow supporters of the ban genetically engineered, Lord Robert Winston, professor of science, society and fertility expert at Imperial College in London, focusing on the uncertainty associated with the basics of the genetic trait. The two also discussed the consequences of manipulating genes.

"Even (for) height, one of the most famous trait to be inherited, researchers have found that at least 50 genes of only 2-3 per cent of the eligible sample," Krimsky said. "If you want a tall kid, marry tall people."

Nature does not care

Meanwhile, their opponents, who opposed the ban, said that genetic engineering will make parents give their children a healthy life, even if it means giving children their own properties that they can not be inherited.

Lee Silver, a professor of molecular biology and public policy at Princeton University, asked the members present to see someone sitting next to them.

"The man was and is different from over 1 million locations in the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) you. Majority (variations) could not produce anything," said Silver. "(But) even if you are a healthy adult, 100 (variants) can cause lethal disease in your children and grandchildren."

"Nature is a metaphor," he continued. "And that is a bad metaphor, because in reality it is the heritage of the game of dice. This sort of thing does not have to be that way in the future."

Colleagues who also opposed the ban, Nita Farahany, a professor of law and genome sciences and policy at Duke University, attacked the idea that uncertainty should prevent the use of technology, indicating that reproduction actually walk without the aid of technology, resulting in a lot of uncertainty.

"We're not going to ban natural sex," said Farahany.

It may be possible

Much of the debate focused on a particular technology, known as mitochondrial transfer. Although most DNA is located in the cell nucleus, a small amount is contained in the energy factories of cells, called mitochondria. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child. In rare cases, women who have a mitochondrial defect may pass it to their children, causing problems that damage or even death.

Transfer to replace defective mitochondria mitochondrial DNA as a way didonor, allowing the affected mother to avoid such defects in their children, who then took the genetic material from three parents (father and two mothers, including the donor).

Opponents of the ban argue that the proposed ban would prevent women with mitochondrial disorders to have healthy children of their own.

"I am not here to defend any kind of genetic engineering, I do not think we're ready now to embrace all people," said Farahany.

Rather than impose an outright ban, he and Silver argued for a middle way, which will allow certain procedures after they have been proven safe and effective. A scientific consensus states that the transfer of mitochondria would fit into that category, he said.

Winston did not agree.

"We understand that tinkering with mitochondrial DNA can make a huge difference as they did in the nuclear DNA .... children have been born as a result of abnormal mitochondria transfer," he said. "I think, in preventing any genetic disease, you are likely to cause other genetic diseases."

Communities should focus on the importance of environmental influences on health, says Winston. "What are we trying to do, rather than risk making babies is not normal, is to improve the environment so that the function of DNA will work optimally."

Both Farahany or Silver, arguing that they would make sure parents who want to modify their children not to focus on the traits of other less medically necessary, however, it is difficult to avoid such a desire to have children with higher intelligence or blue eyes.

"What I think is that most parents are concerned about the health problems of their children," said Silver.

Cause genetic disorders?

Both sides refer to the specter of genetic disorders idea, once adopted by the Nazis, who claimed that selective breeding can be used to improve the human race.

Winston and Krimsky shows, children are genetically modified to select desirable traits revive this approach. Meanwhile, Farahany noted that some of the worst breach in the history when the government is involved in trying to control reproduction. How to ban genetically modified children should be enforced, he asked whether all babies should be forcibly tested?

During the meeting, through the ballot, opponents of the ban is the winner.

Source: yahoo.com

 

Category: feature, Genetic Engineering