Well it will be enlightening to see all the things that go wrong when you pick some genes for something else to go right.

Spot on. Is this another case of scientists not stopping to think about whether they should do this, even though they probably can do this? I'm no bioethicist, that's for sure, so it's beyond my ken.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

It would seem like the logical place to start is with babies of parents where there is a chance of passing on a simple genetic disease (e.g. Cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, sickle cell, etc.).

it's probably the only way our species isn't going to become weaker/dumber. Ethics aside.

I think if you're hoping genetics is going to address either of those you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I'm not hoping for it at all.

Not the first time some big claim is made. Not peer reviewed yet, so I'll withhold judgment for now. But it definitely shows some breaking down of monitoring of ethics at the international level (from what I understand, China is very very lax when it comes to IRB...)

And this is where it gets interesting. If we can determine before birth a child will be born with a genetic defect should parents be allowed to proceed with the birth and then should society be forced to pay for its care? As we conceivably move to a world where birth defects can either be treated or the fetus aborted to avoid them it's just a few steps from choosing how you want your kid to look. And let's not be naive here. Govt.'s around the world will look at genetic engineering to see if it can give them a competitive edge. As will parents.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Rich parents

Don't we already see some version of this in re: amniocentesis revealing whether a fetus has Down Syndrome?

Spot on. Is this another case of scientists not stopping to think about whether they should do this,//

Pretty sure scientists have been thinking about this for 50 years at least, and others have been postulating it since the turn of the century. You can just go back to selective breeding to see the beginning of where we are now...


You know who hasn't though about it, are the politicians who are now tasked with making laws to regulate this, they are the ones behind the eight ball. So now there will be all sorts of emotional rhetoric and knee jerk reaction, instead of thoughtful dialog and some deep thinking on the subject...

Yeah I think we can already determine if genetic defects are present before birth. I think what would be new is removing the genetic defect in the first place. For example, Huntington's disease is caused by an excessive number of CAG repeats in the Huntington gene. It's an autosomal dominant gene so your kids have a 50/50 chance of getting this awful disease. Just going in and removing those extra CAG repeats should prevent the transmission.

My understanding of this specific case was that in addition to impacting the immune system, the genes also have been shown to play a role in memory functions. So the HIV thing might just be a cover.

Yeah just so I'm not understood I'm not saying that there aren't genetic bases for things like intelligence and strength. All I'm saying is I think nurture is far more important than nature most of the time.

We do. I wonder what percentage of parents get this test and what percentage of those positively ID'd abort?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I think the answer is a lot. I seem to recall reading somewhere that in some countries the number of kids being born with Down's has dropped off sharply since this technology became available.

Fair point. It’s tinkering to “improve” rather than a binary keep/end the preganancy decision.