Britain does lead the world in one future growth industry

[sasguru]

From the first test tube baby, to the first cloned animal and now the first designer baby:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/0...aby/index.html

This is going to be a big growth industry (for those who can pay).
Who knows, maybe even Dim could get an implant that raises his IQ to 3 figures.

[DiscoStu]

From the first test tube baby, to the first cloned animal and now the first designer baby:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/0...aby/index.html

This is going to be a big growth industry (for those who can pay).
Who knows, maybe even Dim could get an implant that raises his IQ to 3 figures.

Or any luck a cure for AtW's autism.

[PM-Junkie]

From the first test tube baby, to the first cloned animal and now the first designer baby:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/0...aby/index.html

This is going to be a big growth industry (for those who can pay).
Who knows, maybe even Dim could get an implant that raises his IQ to 3 figures.

A bit disingenuous to call it a designer baby - this was selecting an embryo that didn't have a mutated gene that is known to cause cancer, and carriers of which often have a double mastectomy before they hit 20 to prevent them from developing breast cancer.

As such I see nothing wrong with it at all.

[bored]

A bit disingenuous to call it a designer baby - this was selecting an embryo that didn't have a mutated gene that is known to cause cancer, and carriers of which often have a double mastectomy before they hit 20 to prevent them from developing breast cancer.

As such I see nothing wrong with it at all.

From the article:

What's different about the girl born Friday is that she is the first infant known to have been tested in Britain as an embryo for a gene that is merely likely -- not certain -- to cause disease.

I also see nothing wrong with it, but I would say she is a designer baby, even though the DNA wasn't artificially manipulated.

[PM-Junkie]

"designer baby" is an emotive term generally accepted as referring to selecting nonsense like hair colour, eye colour, gender etc. This is patently something different which is why they are referring to it as selection.

[bored]

It's an interesting topic. Selecting for hair or eye colour might be nonsense, but is it acceptable to select/modify the DNA to improve resistance to disease, cancers etc? If yes, then is it acceptable to select for body composition, metabolism (tendency to gain weight and such)? If yes, what about intelligence? Do we have to subsidise the procedure for the poorer elements of the society? I have no answers...

[PM-Junkie]

Indeed - a very interesting topic. I lean towards if it cures a life-threatening disease yes, if not then tough.

I agree though...very fuzzy line between the two.

[Board Game Geek]

All I can think off is that whilst a particular gene, which may cause breast cancer, has been removed, that is no guarantee that the adult will be breast cancer free, due to other factors in the environment and biology which may trigger it as well.

But the whole eugenics thing is interesting and man manipulating himself is a self-propelled evolutionary advantage.