Test tube baby created to save sister

TwoShedsJackson

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2000/1004/fro2.htm

A US couple used genetic selection of their embryos to have a baby whose cells could be harvested in an effort to save the life of their seriously-ill first child.

The procedure may save the life of the girl but has raised a multitude of ethical questions, according to medical specialists.

A test-tube baby, Adam Nash, of Englewood, Colorado, was born on August 29th after being genetically screened as an embryo before being implanted in his mother's womb. On September 26th, life-saving stem cells taken from Adam's umbilical cord were transplanted into his sister Molly as a treatment for a rare inherited disorder.

Both children are reportedly doing well, but Molly's chances of survival with the disease, Franconi anaemia, were greatly improved, according to doctors treating her.

What do you think of the ethics of this situation?

FreaK_BrutheR

Saw the headline in the paper and thought "Christ this is too much man", but after reading it its a bit more complicated than that really. A baby being harvested and cut down before birth or whatever was what i though it was like....wholely unacceptable and horrific of course. The actual situation is a whole other can of worms. The mere idea that one can pick and choose traits and genetic strains to make a living being as a harvest ground for his/her cells is incredible...be back later to finish

Shiminay

It's a similar argurment to the other post about same sex parents concieving. I'm still not happy about people having "designer" babies, but in this case it has saved the life of another...

I've decided (for now) that I'm against it and I don't think it should have happened. My mind will probably change 10 times before the day is out, but I think it may reach this conclusion and stay there.

---

All the best,

Dav
@B^)
My page of stuff

Excelsior

the girl's life was probably saved, but that is one badass precedent that was set. our genetic variance is key to survival. no one can claim to understand the implications of genetic therapy at this point, but we are meddling anyway.
if in 15 or 50 or 100 years we had researched the ins and outs to it, then not many people would have difficulties. but we are taking big risks in these moves and it worries me.
does it not get anyone else too?

Mills

Who's to say some secret (military?) organisation (I'm getting a bit conspiracyish now) hasn't already been meddling with such things for years? I'm sure there are plenty of people with the ability out there who would have no qualms about probing into Genetics if not for the fears of the population en masse of the consequences. I'm not saying I believe anything as outrageous as this, just a thought that occured to me as I read the thread.

C B

Originally posted by Excelsior:

if in 15 or 50 or 100 years we had researched the ins and outs to it, then not many people would have difficulties. but we are taking big risks in these moves and it worries me.

How exactly do you propose that we research the issue without carrying out tests?

I have to say that this whole area sares me. I started the topic last week on GM kids from same sex partners and at that point I stated that I didn't like the idea of GM babies, but this situation has provided some good (to the extent that the sisters life will be saved). But the media, and individuals have bemoaned the "precedent" which has been set, and I begun to wonder how we might prevent designer babies (or indeed if we should) and i arrived at a similar conclusion to that of the siamese twins case.

that is: if parents are acting in the interests of the child and not in their own interest then we should accept genetic modification (and being appauled at the "pervertion" of nature will not make this issue go away)

Shinji

This is a fair bit away from designer babies, in fairness. I think it makes sense, now that we know how to genetically modify our own race, to muck about a bit with genes before birth; to prevent diseases, to extend life, to cure disabilities before they even form. If we could immunise someone against AIDS and cancer by pre-natal genetic modification, I think we should do it. If we could diagnose and fix Downs Syndrome or major physical deformities with pre-natal genetic fiddling, I think we should do it. Basically, if we can improve the health and standard of living of people by messing around with their genes; I think we should do it.

On the other hand, genetically picking the colour of a childs eyes or the tone of their skin is going a little too far, I feel. A race of humans with near-perfect health, long life spans and next to zero infant mortality would be a good thing. A race of kids who were designed, not concieved, would not be.

Humanity stepped out of the evolutionary ladder when we invented medicine; evolution is, after all, survival of the fittest, so when you learn how to make the unfit survive, you break the whole evolutionary system. Genetic engineering is our chance to restart evolution - in a controlled and accelerated way. It doesn't rest easily on our minds, but I have little doubt that the next generation will accept it as a commonplace part of life. After all, it DOES make logical sense.

Ja,
Rob

C B

Originally posted by Shinji:

Humanity stepped out of the evolutionary ladder when we invented medicine; evolution is, after all, survival of the fittest, so when you learn how to make the unfit survive, you break the whole evolutionary system.

How arrogant can you get? Our ability to deal with certain natural conditions does not take us out of an "evolutionary ladder" it simply improves our ability to survive on that ladder. All animals attempt to allter themselves and their environment to increase their chances of survival.

Excelsior

"Genetic engineering is our chance to restart evolution "

what? evolution is not stalled. evolution moves on as we speak. my nureoscientist friends will tell you about cranium enlargement, an aged doctor here in dublin has records to prove digit divergence.
evolution is not something that was designed with us, today, in mind. we haven't peaked, we haven't ascended, we have no control over it.
darwinism is balls. full stop. evolution today, as supported by the likes of stephen jay gould or edward o. wilson is about as close to watertight a theory we have. it exists on genetic mutation. you want to strike a balance between too many mutations and static genetic material. as i see it, you will wipe out genetic anamolies by eliminating things like down syndrome, or any other condition. eventually we will be stuck in static mode. rather than "restarting evolution" this will leave us prone to all sorts of mishaps in stalled genetic mutation.
furthermore, and more immeadiately relevant is the fact that gene therapy is genetic mutation cancelling out another genetic mutation. that sets our evolution off in a direction we can't fathom. (remember that evolution is governed by complexity)

in this century we moved before ourselves in reining nuclear power. we have lived in its shadow since.
this is not an improvement. this is not going to be a development. we are playing this game of life in the arena of evolution. in that context, genetic therapy is not logical. it is demanding too much. and it is one of the four things that challenge our generation. we all need to have well developed ideas on this topic and our own opinions. because whereas secret governments may not have done it yet mills, you can be sure that it will be used to favour them. and their corporations.
one last thing- read Brave New World. and the last time humans tried eugenics was in rwanda, i think.

Hobbes

If genetics can get me leopard skin and eyes and some extra arms (tentacles would rock!), so much the better. Change everything.

Excelsior

the rwanda link was just a thought. the purifying of our genes is, to me, a fallacy.

can someone give me some links to web articles on this case. i gotta print some stuff out.

---

http://www.challenge-ie.com/columns/excelsior

C B

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/gene-therapy.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/science/
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62318-2000Oct2.html

thats all I have for the moment (you may need to register to see the sites)

Mills

Genetic Modification may provide a short term answer to disease such as HIV and Cancer and eliminate a lot of suffering in the process, but if disease isn't going to kill us, what is? I think Castor was right in saying that it's going to increase the "eliteness" for want of a better word, of the rich. Overcrowding is already a problem for the planet and removing "nature's way" of cancelling out the spiralling birth rates where are all the people going to go and what is going to feed them?

---

I am inflatible !

C B

Originally posted by Excelsior:
and the last time humans tried eugenics was in rwanda, i think.

If you are trying to compare genetic modification and genocide you are being ridicolous for two reasons.
1) GM has an obvious and indisputable upside in eliminating much suffering.
2) Gm does not necessarily result in the sumpremacy of one race. If all parents begin making "designer" babies this does not mean we will all be the same. As long as individuals are making the choices the results will be varied.

Hobbes

Originally posted by C B:
2) Gm does not necessarily result in the sumpremacy of one race.

Except that race of GM people. I watched GATTAGA, I know what's going to happen.

TwoShedsJackson

GM would probably mean supremacy of the rich, as let's face it, it ain't going to be cheap.

Canaboid

Read Darwins Radio by Greg Bear. A plausible alternative to Darwinian theory and a damn fine yarn.

Hobbes

I see the Japanese already have done some GM! *YUM*

Shinji

Right, to clarify my point on evolution.

The proper course of evolution is simple. Genes mutate with every iteration of the birth cycle, in a pretty much random fashion. Really bad mutations are cleaned up by virtue of the fact that these strains cannot survive as effectively as good mutations, and hence they die out before reproducing. As a result, a species improves and evolves. Simple, yes?

Now... what happens when you start mucking around with this by preventing the weaker mutations from dying out?

Your species goes to sh1te is what happens. The gene pool becomes contaminated with weak gene mutations which, in a natural environment, would not have survived. I explained myself badly previously - you're correct, evolution has not stalled. It's carrying on just as fast as ever - but it's going BACKWARDS.

Evolution is natures own form of genetic screening; if your genes don't make you intelligent or strong enough to survive, your genes die out and are cleaned from the pool. When we approach this from a bleeding-heart point of view, and start developing medicines that cure people of potentially lethal illnesses, we break this cycle. Humanity becomes weaker and weaker; we become host to a variety of different and nasty diseases, such as AIDS, cancers, Ebola and what have you. The general intelligence of the race goes down as well; naturally there is no way to prove this, but logically, from a genetic standpoint, humanity must be getting stupider and weaker.

So how do you solve this problem? Well, we COULD round up all the people with weak genes and kill them, that would work. Bit harsh though. Or alternatively, we could use the wonderful knowledge of the human genome which we have acquired to take over from nature, and FIX weak gene strains rather than eliminating them - a much more humanitarian approach to survival of the fittest.

Or, we could sit here and watch as millions of years of evolution are gradually undone, and we steadfastly refuse to save ourselves because of outdated belief systems.

Ja,
Rob

Excelsior

evolution isn't simple.
evolution is not something concerned with "moving forward."
shinji, i really like your posts, but you're knowledge of evolution is theory is very off target.
to evolution, you, and i, and the human race, mean nothing.
evolution does not operate to someday reach a final conclusion of perfection.
humans are one branch on a tree of infinite variety. we are not the trunk. we are equal to the pterodactyls, and the colencanths and the caterpillars.
that is fundamentally something the vast majority of people i talk to misunderstand.
evolution doesnt lead to "better" things in time. often it is advantageous to lose facilities and abilities in the evolution arena. understand this: there isn't some final conclusion to evolution.
it is not a simple system. it is a chaos system ruled by random mutation. but even that is not simple. evolution will amble along happily for 10s of millions of years (natural progression ideas stem from this part) but then sudeenly in 1000 years a species will completly evolve (this is what happened to humans).(1000 years isnt accurate. it merely literally implies the rapidity of change.)
how then, if evolution a) isnt concerned with us as humans and our posterity
and b) isnt naturally progressive towards a grand design, ie- forward moving, then how can it move backwards.
that is a fallacy.
evolution isn't individual. it deals with species and large populations. your gammy leg does not mean you will fail to succeed. so i can't see how you can say we are getting stupider or weaker.
our lives are inflated high above our "natural" ages and our skulls are undergoing one of those rapid enlargements evolution throws up now and again. what do you mean "weak" mutations. some mutations (ie- weaknesses in genetic coherence) are judged by evolution on the same basis as you judge them and it somehow decides which are "good" and which are "bad"

grrrr!
the idea that we are somehow "undoing" evolution with medicine and that genetic therapy will re-do evolution is baffling.
how?!? where is that logic hiding from me?
why do you fear we are going to die out now?
where does that imained fear come from?

the flaw here is that you talk about "fixing" our code. come on, the arrogance must be clear for all to see.
when you wipe out our flaws where does our evolution arise from?
while you are "fixing" those mutations with cancelling mutations, what directions will these new gene formats take inside evolution?
this is a serious issue. shinji, if that is how you feel, still, then at least you are taking a standpoint. we all should have one here.

what are the outdated beliefs?


one more thing- mills, are we sure that the earth can't support more people? there is alot of open discussion still to go on that point. not least from certain evolutionists who would expect nature to throw up its own guards when overpopulation is approached.

Shinji

Sorry Excelsior, your talk about "misunderstanding" evolution is well off the mark. You clearly have some romanticised view of how it all works; evolution is actually a very simple system of random mutation followed by pruning of those newly mutated strains which don't work. Read some of Richard Dawkins work on this area; he's one of the most concise and dispassionate commentators on the whole field of human and natural evolution.

You make some silly assumptions about my comments on evolution.

Firstly, I never said that evolution is working towards a grand design; that is a ridiculous concept. What evolution DOES do, however, is to refine and perfect a species to their environment by removing those genetic strains which are weaker, and promoting the stronger ones. Hence, in this way, evolution is a brute-force way of achieving a near-perfect organism for a particular environment and set of parameters.

Secondly, we are discussing human evolution here, not animal evolution. I realise that human evolution previously was closely tied to that of the rest of nature, but the development of farming and building, followed by more minor developments such as transport networks and food processing, have removed us almost entirely from the natural world and its foibles, so human evolution can be considered as a seperate case to natural world evolution.

You mention rapid spurts in evolution. This is a common misconception about the evolutionary process; the rate of genetic mutation is fixed, and does NOT change. However, when a creatures environment changes suddenly, the genetic strains which survive are different to those which would have survived in the original environment, so the mutation of the creature appears to occur at an accelerated rate - when all that has actually happened is a change in direction, not an acceleration.

I am not suggesting that our evolution has stopped. It is, however, completely messed up because our biological sciences and technologies have been at a level for several generations where we are preserving weak gene strains in the genepool (thus hampering the natural selection process), but not promoting the spread of strong genes (resistance to AIDS or cancer, elimination of Alzheimers, etc.). Humanity hits a dead-end here; mutation of genes still happens, and always will, but without the careful pruning of each generation, this mutation is dangerous rather than helpful, producing weak genetic strains which live on for generations rather than dying off.

Given this situation - and you cannot argue that this is not the case, as it is well-established fact, and quite easy to understand from a logical standpoint - I fail to see any argument against the replacement of the normal evolutionary structure with a human-driven mechanism, wherby rather than killing off people with weak gene strains (as nature would do!), we genetically screen embryos for weak genes and replace them. This isn't designer kids, folks; this is the prevention of disease and disability.

Where we go from there, who knows. Perhaps we may decide to make humanity stronger, faster, more intelligent as a whole; perhaps we may choose to utilise carefully created genes to allow us to regrow damaged limbs, or to give us greater control over our own minds. This tech is still years in the future, but they are all possibilities that must be explored. We have the option of taking the biological development of our race into our own hands - and to me, that seems like a damned good idea.

Blitzkrieger

I'm not getting into all the arguments about the ethics involved (mainly cos the college internet connection is down and I'm surfing on my own buck ), but in this case at least it looks like they're doing it for all the right reasons?

C B

Shinji,

AIDS, Cancer and Ebola are all incredibly modern diseases and there existance cannot be used as proof of your theories. If your theoryt was true it would still take many many generations for humanity to become immune to these diseases.

Mills,

Do you believe that we live in a non-elitist society without GM. The scarce food and resources you mention are not evenly shared as we speak. If GM becomes a tool of elitism itwill be because we live in an elitist society not because it is an inherently elitist technology.

Shinji

C B - I'd go back and look at much older diseases, except, urr, I can't, because we became properly immune to them, so we don't have any surviving records...

Yes, these are modern diseases (with the exception of cancer, I don't know WHERE you got the idea that that's a modern disease), but the point is that we aren't developing immunity to them, and we should be. Instead the viruses are developing immunity to our cures - now THAT is evolution in action.

Ja,
Rob

Hobbes

Evolution is a belief system, in much the same way religion is.

But here is my take on evolution...

5 birds. 4 die from eating poisoned berries, the 5th one has an aversion to the berries colours so doesn't eat them, hence that gene survives.

Now I personally think evolution is more then genes. Saying that another race should be exterminated to improve the human race is evolution in action. Sending countless millions to die in a pointless war is evolution.

Now before everyone starts looking at me werid, I never said evolution was nice or I agree with where it's going. But genetically altering ourselves or changing our childrens genes is evolution. If nature thinks the changes aren't correct for the eco-system it will wipe us out.

Excelsior

stephen jay gould, richard o. wilson and a list of prominent evolutionists will disagree with you on a whole load of things rob.

the idea that the system that surrounds and defines us, evolution, would be a simple one, makes absolutely no sense.
why would it not reflect the complexity exhibited in nature as a whole?

this is getting off topic. regardless of whether you accept the version of evolution i put forward, rob put forward or your own, the risk of being invloved in "gene therapy", the danger that poses our genetic viability is clear to anyone who'll think about it.

the topic is wandering a little. do people not see that although this one case is a beneficial one, that the greater risk could render it unwise? or do people reject that it is unwise at all? or do people feel that the individual should be ranked higher than a "cause," and that saving this little girl's life was justified regardless of cost?

C B

Excelsior,

i think those of us in favour of GM have put forward a number of points in favour of our stance (not all of which i agree with). All that you can retort with are rhethorical questions.
Yes I believe that GM is a good thing in the long run.
Why do you believe it is not?

---

C B

Shinji,

You are proving my point AIDS is but one generation old and we don't (and will not for some time) know whether humans will develop an immunity to it. It therefore cannot be used to prove your point.

Also we erradicated diseases such as TB and smallpox by use of medicine, why not use these "old" diseases as examples? Could it be that they disprove your point.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 09-10-2000).]

Shinji

Excelsior :-

Evolution is only complex if you make it complex. All complex systems are based on simple concepts. Dawkins blew a lot of traditional evolutionists out of the water by simply pointing out that in fact, the workings of evolution are blindingly obvious, and that the answers to many of our questions regarding evolution are so simple that we don't believe they can be true.

Naturally evolution as a SYSTEM is complex. But as a MECHANISM - an abstract - it is remarkably simple. The binary system is simple to understand and explain; a modern computer processor is nigh-on impossible for one brain to comprehend. Yet by understanding the binary system, we really know as much as we would by analysing the entire structure of the processor.

As Hobbes mentioned... is the development of our brains to the stage where we are now intelligent enough to know how to modify our own genomes not just another evolutionary step? Natural selection disappears, so evolution continues in a different way - by our own hand.

Ja,
Rob

C B

Shinji,

i agree with the basics of your point but yet again you display a bewildering arrogance. Meddling with the geneome will not rid us of natural selection. only those who contain the genes best suited to our environment will survive.. All GM will have to pay attention and respect to a wider environmental context.

Slaanesh

There was a guy on the radio the other day who was convinced that there was no such thing as evolution, Eg. You goto a foreign country and you see various different kinds of swallows, thats not evolution. They are still swallows ..... arent they ?
So he said anway. He seemed to be able to put down any point made but he always came back with an answer with lots of holes in it.

Slaan.

Shinji

Meddling with the geneome will not rid us of natural selection. only those who contain the genes best suited to our environment will survive..

Er. My point was that natural selection is already gone from the human lifecycle, more or less. Natural selection is one of the processes of evolution, and is weakened greatly by the development of medicine. Genome modification is another one of those processes, and could effectively replace the natural selection system in the human race.

I'm unsure why you insist on continually using the word "arrogance" in completely bizarre contexts...

Ja,
Rob

C B

Yes we are able to control the production and transfer of human genes. this does not remove us from the vagaries of natural selection. If we decide to produce and transfer genes which are not suited to our environment we will die out. we are using GM to improve our chances of nature continuing to "select" us for continued existance. But all of this is done with due respect to natural selection not in an intellectual vacum.

I use the word arrogant because it best describes the belief that gene-therapy need pay no attention to natural selection.

Shinji

Oh, sorry. I thought you were trying to say something intelligent, my mistake. I mean... "If we do it wrong we'll end up killing ourselves" isn't exactly a profound insight, now is it?

(Joking, joking, don't jump down my throat!)

Excelsior

gene therapy is the creation of genetic mutations that cancel out our current genetic mutations.

we are not dealinmg with abstract biosphere evolutionary ideas. we exist in the envioronment of earth and as such we are subject to the evolutionary system and all that goes along with it. technology has not and never will remove us from it:

because, in the process of gene therapy over the coming generations, there will be further mutations. ones that are created by the mixing of our current defects, with our protecting measures. these are not going to be unforseen, by nature of the chaos system.

if that doesn't happen and our gene defects all disappear, how will we exist inside natural selection? we will be hooked on gene therapy like a drug, totally dependant on it for survival.

and without defects to create variance we will disappear quickly.

do i know rhetorical means?

just a note- cb i always enjoy your posts. you are clearly a very clever guy. keep it up.

LoLth

Evolution aside, how about precedence when it comes to the ethics or Morality of the originally posted situation.

The couple had another child so they could get cells to save the first child.

There was a case before (a film was based on it I think) where a divorced couple got back together to have a child to give their first child (who they had while married) a shot at a bone marrow transplant. Both adults were remarried at that stage, and the whole film was about the ethics of the situation. As far as I know, the ex-husband's wife left him, the ex-wife stayed with her new husband and kept both children. Pretty ****ed up situation altogether.

As for evolution, I'm all for it, on condition that it evolves in my favour

Left Handed Peeps are the next step in Evolution!!!

C B

Originally posted by Shinji:
Oh, sorry. I thought you were trying to say something intelligent, my mistake. I mean... "If we do it wrong we'll end up killing ourselves" isn't exactly a profound insight, now is it?

(Joking, joking, don't jump down my throat!)

It's just so hard when you always leave it so wide open

Lolth,
You want to turn this into a discussion on the "morality" of the situation (Finally this seems to be coming back to one of my original comments.) morality is not some eternal constant anchored in the hearts of the righteous. it is a social constuct designed on a subjective basis by individuals to suit their needs (not always selfishly). As such the points I made in the discussion on the siamese twins issue are relevant here. To save you reading the topic I'll summarise them
- if parents believe that they are doing the best thing for their family the rest of society shouldn't intervene

the difficult issue here is will their decision have knock on effects for the rest of society/nature.
a number of useful points have been made here to show that it won't.
those who believe that it will (yourself included) have simply responded with fear of the unknown 9which may not be altogether ungrounded)

(by the way thanks for the compliment excelsior )

Shinji

if that doesn't happen and our gene defects all disappear, how will we exist inside natural selection? we will be hooked on gene therapy like a drug, totally dependant on it for survival.

Well, the general idea is that you apply genetic mutation to people, and that carries through the generations. Then yes, we use further gene therapy to deal with any unforseen problems that arise, or changes needed in the environment.

For example, if we establish colonies in lower gravity environments, we'll need the people there to be built slightly differently in order not to suffer from massively brittle bones. Genome alteration ahoy!

Besides, without this, we will be completely hooked on medicine for survival. If you want to look at it in this negative light, then gene therapy is the lesser of two evils.

Ja,
Rob

Excelsior

the medicine thing just brings you down shinji. i can't agree with my understanding of the state of play.

besides the moral issue is far moore interesting for me.
i feel it is a step too far too soon.
but i see why people perceive the benefits to outweigh risks.

Greenbean

Current advances in technology have made those who are suitable to survive in the current enviornment a much wider range than usuall. Eventually though this would/will stop as the enviornment catches up. We can't sustain current advances in population and we are having one hell of a time sustaining the new "world-wide" killer viruses.

We are version v3.45 of primate homoerrectus and as such are ideally made for medium to large gatherings (our incomprehensibly natural belief in a god/higher being makes it extremely easy to package us in larger groups than just a small tribal family). Our ability to utilitise structures outside of the brain/body makes us advance in ways that seem horrendusly unnatural - but this was only a small step in the change of our brain structure, but it has massively changed our relation to the enviornment. We can, if genetics do not interferre, expect natural selection to find another suitable advance in the close future. These changes always happen, its just not usuall that they are helpfull - with such a changed (relation to) the enviornment we can expect to find some helpfull ones.

BUT for the first time we are about to take the control away from the gene in determining the randomness and variations (the gene has it set at the ideal rate for animal evolution - but its a bit unused to this very strong use we have of external structures). The gene itself is about to lose out on a game of natural selection to an external structure is created by accident. This is pretty weird when you think about it, but its been happening in small ways all the time.

eg... Tribal gathering 250,000 years ago. Some alteration of the brain of a primate. He knows melody - music. The tribe likes it - he becomes a popular male and thrives (basic/simple way of putting it). A musical external structure has been created. Musicans must compete for their skill to become the best. Music itself evolves and improves - the gene now must take into account this external, almost demanding new master - its more than just brute force and a sense of kinship. Its about satisfying culture and peoples tastes. This feedback is now a necessary part of a successful gene.

The thing is, that in genetic engineering natural selection won't change, it will just happen a helluva lot quicker and much more dramatically. The gene will loose its control to call the changes at random but it still doesn't mean humans don't have to answer to their envoirnment - no matter what. If you exist you must answer to some form of enviornment - even if its just an intellectual one with your brain downloaded onto a computer; you'll die out if you can't cope; you'll survive if you can.