Baby to be born free of breast cancer after embryo screening:
The couple produced 11 embryos, of which five were found to be free from the gene. Two of these were implanted in the woman's womb and she is now 14 weeks pregnant.
By screening out embryos carrying the gene, called BRCA-1, the couple, from London, will eliminate the hereditary disease from their lineage.
Obviously the headline is hyperbolic in this specific case. Changing probabilities is not necessarily a guarantee. But I think the bigger picture here warrants serious notice. Armand Leroi has outlined the major issues, so I won't review them again....
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In the last century infant mortality has declined precipitously in the Western world, thanks in large part to the development of antibiotics and vaccination. Yet as the suffering and death from infectious disease has reduced, the burden from genetic disease has become proportionately greater:…
Nature News has an intriguing article
on the next three decades of reproductive medicine: essentially a
series of short musings from scientists working in the field about the
issues we will be facing in 30 year's time.
It's worth reading through in full, but this statement from Susannah Baruch at…
A Nature News article describes the growing availability of technology that allows the screening of human embryos for hundreds of different genetic disorders prior to implantation.
The technology is based on the same type of chips used by personal genomics companies like 23andMe, but the chips…
I debated for a while about whether or not I wanted to comment on this one. The reason, of course, is that, to some extent, I've commented on a similar article before. Also, given the utter contempt that the blogger who posted this series holds me in and his delusion that I am somehow "obsessed"…
I tell you, what will really change society for good is in vitro gestation. Once that becomes possible, all hell is going to break loose.
...angelina jolie would raise an army of her own offspring....
I've never understood the controversy over this issue. Of course people will choose to eliminate deleterious genes from their offspring if given the chance. And of course they should.
In nature, selection ensures a minimum level of health for the majority of a given species. The bad genes that would otherwise tend to accumulate are selected against, and hence the numbers of those bad genes stays small.
But humans, because of the safety net of culture, have relaxed these selective pressures which would otherwise have been placed upon us. If we don't use science to strip away the accumulating deleterious mutations, then how are we supposed to get rid of them?
Harmful mutations happen constantly in a species. We must either accept that we will accumulate more and more of these harmful mutations that occur, or we must find some artificial means by which to rid ourselves of them.
In my family there is a history of serious macular degeneration. Basically, for the version in my family, if you inherit the gene, you go blind in your 50's or 60's. I don't want to go blind. I don't want my children to go blind. I don't know if I inhereted that gene or not (The odds are 50/50), but I damn sure know that I'd eliminate it from future generations if I could.