revealed last night.
The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of
experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about
ethics.
So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to
contain genes from three 'parents'.
Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result
of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive
Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.
The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes
from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were
fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.
Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that
they have inherited DNA from three adults --two women and one man.
The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and
incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn,
be able to pass them on to their own offspring.
Altering the human germline - in effect tinkering with the very
make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority
of the world's scientists.
Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new
races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength
or high intelligence.
Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by
fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this 'is the first
case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal
healthy children'.
Some experts severely criticised the experiments. Lord Winston, of the
Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told the BBC yesterday:
'Regarding the treat-ment of the infertile, there is no evidence that
this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was
even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not be allowed in
Britain.'
John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of
Unborn Children, said: 'One has tremendous sympathy for couples who
suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further
illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro
fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being
regarded as objects on a production line.
'It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for
humanity.' Professor Cohen and his colleagues diagnosed that the women
were infertile because they had defects in tiny structures in their
egg cells, called mitochondria.
They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of
the internal material - containing 'healthy' mitochondria - and
injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive.
Because mitochondria contain genes, the babies resulting from the
treatment have inherited DNA from both women. These genes can now be
passed down the germline along the maternal line.
A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
(HFEA), which regulates 'assisted reproduction' technology in Britain,
said that it would not license the technique here because it involved
altering the germline.
Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist
who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies.
He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own
children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab.
Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF.
Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to
clone children --a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream
scientific community.
'It would be an afternoon's work for one of my students,' he said,
adding that he had been approached by 'at least three' individuals
wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From this, we can tell that scientists have already tried and experimented creating Genetically Modified babies and succeeded. However, they do not wish to continue this process as they feel that it is morally unacceptable.
Should genetic modification be encouraged? Do you think the parents are selfish to choose whatever genes they want in their child which might be against their child's will? Will there be more pros than cons if this service is affordable to every family? What are the impacts genetic modification would probably causes to this society? How does genetic modification affect the people and society?-Zhi Yuan
ReplyDeleteGenetic Modification should be encouraged up to a certain extent. Parents shouldn't be deemed as selfish as some of them simply want the best for the child and his/her future. However, parents shouldn't cross and line and modify too many genes in their child. If this service is affordable to every family, personally, I think that this would serve more cons than pros. This is because many families would be able to afford this process and wouldn't think twice before actually opting for it. With the high price currently, this wouldn't be encouraged for the low and middle income family and even the high income family would reconsider it as it will cost them an leg. Genetic Modification will improve the standard of living in the society although it shouldn't be overdone as in that way, many people will have an unfair advantage over other. What do you think about this?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Millie (Katherine Cartier) before, in life, there are always challenges and providing the children with genetic modification will only prepare them for these challenges better. As a parent, wouldn't you want the best for your child, to be better equipped against the harsh world? -Chloe
ReplyDeleteIn recent years, there have been several deaths due to genetic engineering. Since the first cloning, Dolly in 1996 (died in 2003), the safety of cloning and genetic engineering has been heavily questioned .. Another safety argument is that when transgenes become inserted into the genome, they may disrupt functional genes and cause mutations. This has been seen in mice and thus may be applicable to humans also.
ReplyDeleteSwedha Balachandar (03)
@Swedha, the case where Dolly died happened and the argument that inserting transgenes into the genome may disrupt functional genes and cause mutation was valid and took place in 1996. Who knows, maybe scientists have learnt from their mistakes and done more safety precautions to ensure that this does not happen again. Also, due to the advancement in science and technology now as compared to a decade ago, more scientific experiments and ideas csn be invented and will eventually exist in real life. In this case, genetic modification. -Millie (37)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your statement"I think that this would serve more cons than pros. This is because many families would be able to afford this process and wouldn't think twice before actually opting for it." as my stand is that human engineering should not be accepted in the modern society.However, I would like to justify your point on parents are not selfish in choosing their child's genes.If your parents want you to be a athlete in the future,therefore you have modified genes which could enhance your performance in this area. If later on you have discovered that you have no passion in this area,you would surely get into a situation whereby you would let your parents down if you don't become a athlete since they have already spent so much money trying to give you more advantage. Hence you have to live your whole life doing a job that you have no passion in in order to please them. This would only cause pressure and unhappiness.-Zhi Yuan
ReplyDelete@Zhi Yuan. I agree with you point on that what your parents want you to be may not necessarily be what you want to do in the future. Using your example, if a child is being genetically modified to be an athlete, the child would naturally have more interest in sports once he/she realises that he/she has a higher advantage as compared to others in that area although this may not necessarily be the case. On this point, I agree with you that it is unfair that the child doesn't have a say in what he/she wants to be. -Millie
ReplyDelete