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
Your gut reaction is probably that the question is irrelevant; what parent would choose for their child to have a genetic disease. That was my reaction.
Apparently, however, some parents with genetic diseases that make them lead relatively normal lives but isolate them into special social groups…
A few years ago the developmental geneticist Armand Leroi burst on to the scene with the engaging book, Mutants, and a controversial op-ed where he attempted to rehabilitate the concept of race. Leroi's op-ed spawned a rebuttal website which brought together a variety of scholars from disparate…
Some interesting news about the breast cancer patent lawsuit I wrote about for Slate's Double X Magazine a few months ago: A federal district court has just agreed to hear the case. When the lawsuit was first filed, many legal experts I talked to said they were sure the case would get thrown out…
In August, there was a big press tizzy about so-called ethical stem cells. In the paper, a group headed by Robert Lanza working at a company called Advanced Cell Technology claimed that they could take a single cell from a human morula and create a embryonic stem cell line from that cell.…
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.