Print  Email  Subscribe  RSS  Help
 Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening
Author Post

JDM SLEEP3R




Offline

566 posts [100%]
Mises.org
11-5-2005
  Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening« » Reply  Edit


Quote »
A woman has conceived Britain’s first baby guaranteed to be free from hereditary breast cancer.

Doctors screened out from the woman’s embryos an inherited gene that would have left the baby with a greater than 50% chance of developing the cancer.

The woman decided to have her embryos screened because her husband had tested positive for the gene and his sister, mother, grandmother and cousin have all had the cancer.

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.
Related Links

* Public want more debate on human embryo research

* Embryo test may lower chances of pregnancy

By screening out embryos carrying the gene, called BRCA-1, the couple, from London, will eliminate the hereditary disease from their lineage.

About 5% of the 44,000 cases of breast cancer diagnosed in Britain each year are estimated to be caused by the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes, both of which can be detected in embryos.

Doctors say thousands of cases of breast cancer could be avoided by screening embryos using the technique called preimplantation diagnosis (PGD).

Many women who test positive for the gene have their breasts surgically removed to avoid the disease. Only one other woman – an Israeli mother-to-be – is thought to have become pregnant after undergoing the embryo screening.

The 27-year-old British mother, who asked not to be named, says that after seeing all her husband’s female relatives suffer from breast cancer, she felt she had to take action to save their children from the same plight. Any daughter born with the gene would have had a 50% to 85% chance of developing breast cancer.

She said: “For the past three generations, every single woman in my husband’s family has had breast cancer, as early as 27 and 29. We felt that, if there was a possibility of eliminating this for our children, then that was a route we had to go down.

“It has been successful for us which means we are eliminating the gene from our line.

“We had been through his sister being ill, so it was something we had seen first hand. I thought this was something I had to try because, if we had a daughter with the gene, and she was ill, I couldn’t look her in the face and say I didn’t try.”

The woman and her 28-year-old husband had to go through IVF (in vitro fertilisation) even though they are fertile, in order to create embryos that could be screened.

Tests on the 11 embryos were conducted by removing just one cell when they were three days old. Six of the embryos carried the breast cancer gene. Two embryos that were free of the gene were then implanted, resulting in a single pregnancy.

The couple have also been able to freeze two healthy embryos for future use.

The woman said she felt a responsibility to put herself through the invasive IVF procedure. “The treatment I had to go through was nothing in comparison to what I have seen members of my husband’s family go through.”

In addition to breast cancer, women carrying the gene also have a higher risk of ovarian cancer and male carriers are at greater risk of developing prostate cancer.

The couple’s doctor, Paul Serhal, medical director of the Assisted Conception Unit at University College London hospital, said the breakthrough gives parents the option of avoiding passing a high risk of breast cancer on to their children.

He said: “Women now have the option of having this treatment to avoid the potential guilty feeling of passing on this genetic abnormality to a child. This gives us the chance to eradicate this problem in families.” Serhal added: “It may be devastating psychologically and emotionally for a young woman to have her breasts removed.”

Serhal has treated other couples to create babies free from less well known cancer genes, including one that causes eye cancer and another that carries a high risk of bowel cancer.

Some critics say it is wrong to destroy embryos because there is only a chance women with the gene may develop breast cancer in adulthood. They argue that, increasingly, breast cancer can also be successfully treated.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...3.ece

I'm curious to see what some of you guys thought about this. Could this lead to greater things like "custom babies" where we can make are new borns super human?

Modified by JDM SLEEP3R at 12:40 PM 6/30/2008



Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much



Superhatch




Offline

3114 posts [100%]
Straight Edge
5-22-2001
 « Re: Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening (JDM SLEEP3R)« » Reply  Edit


I guess the views are going to be "perfect" human or "not" human. I think the fact that there is no natural selection in the human race means that we basically have been letting bad genes propagate, unchecked since modern medicine.

I view gene correction as un-natural natural selection. It allows the human race to become something it should be, not something it is. It allows for the mitigation of disease, deformity, and possibly enhancement.

I think modern medicine has played "god" just as much as gene manipulation would. I view it, in a sense, as the ultimate preventative medicine...the modern day vaccine if you will.



"The truth [the truth?] is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on [settled on?] the one issue that everone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." Paul Wolfowitz

JDM SLEEP3R




Offline

566 posts [100%]
Mises.org
11-5-2005
 « Re: Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening (Superhatch)« » Reply  Edit


Quote, originally posted by Superhatch »
I guess the views are going to be "perfect" human or "not" human. I think the fact that there is no natural selection in the human race means that we basically have been letting bad genes propagate, unchecked since modern medicine.

I view gene correction as un-natural natural selection. It allows the human race to become something it should be, not something it is. It allows for the mitigation of disease, deformity, and possibly enhancement.

I think modern medicine has played "god" just as much as gene manipulation would. I view it, in a sense, as the ultimate preventative medicine...the modern day vaccine if you will.

Yeah i think you bring up an interesting point when it comes to the human race. I dont want to sound harsh but the dumb/non productive people are reproducing at a way higher level then the smart/responsible/productive people so what does that tell us about our future?



Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much

Superhatch




Offline

3114 posts [100%]
Straight Edge
5-22-2001
 « Re: Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening (JDM SLEEP3R)« » Reply  Edit


Well, I think that even in natural selection you will rarely see a truly gifted individual. What I would hate to see this come to is a Huxleian world with Alphas, and Betas. To use genetic manipulation to create a working class and an elite class would be a horrible use of the technology at hand. I know that there are some gene laws being passed at the moment, and I think more should go on the books -before- the possibility of misuse is ever realized.



"The truth [the truth?] is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on [settled on?] the one issue that everone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." Paul Wolfowitz

JDM SLEEP3R




Offline

566 posts [100%]
Mises.org
11-5-2005
 « Re: Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening (Superhatch)« » Reply  Edit


Quote, originally posted by Superhatch »
Well, I think that even in natural selection you will rarely see a truly gifted individual. What I would hate to see this come to is a Huxleian world with Alphas, and Betas. To use genetic manipulation to create a working class and an elite class would be a horrible use of the technology at hand. I know that there are some gene laws being passed at the moment, and I think more should go on the books -before- the possibility of misuse is ever realized.

I agree that a divided world with elites and non elites would be a terrible thing but what can we do to curve the trend of dumb, irresponsible people having more dumb, irresponsible people? Also what about the parents who have sub normal kids? These families get massive subsidies from the government and sometimes that money goes to luxury items. So should we let said family have another child that we pay for or should we use the technology we have to take care of these problems before hand?



Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much

Superhatch




Offline

3114 posts [100%]
Straight Edge
5-22-2001
 « Re: Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening (JDM SLEEP3R)« » Reply  Edit


I think the basic idea to curb ignorance is education. Granted there will always be people who aren't as bright as others, but I think with a good education everyone can contribute to society.

My brother has downs syndrome yet he has graduated high school as per state regulations, and has worked in a productive manner doing work for the last 8 years for one company. Granted he isn't involved in politics, or world events, but he does get involved in community events, and imo is a contributing member to society.

I think that curing cancer through gene manipulation, and curing a sub 100 IQ are two totally different ideals.



"The truth [the truth?] is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on [settled on?] the one issue that everone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." Paul Wolfowitz

artifex




Offline

8428 posts [100%]
Champaign IL
10-19-2001
 « Re: Baby to be born free of cancer after embryo screening (Superhatch)« » Reply  Edit


Gene manipulation is nowhere near advanced enough to design humans for greater intelligence. We don't even know where to start looking yet, so that shouldn't be an immediate (as in, within the next 50 years) concern. I think it's a great idea that should have more money thrown at it. The ability to engineer genetic advantages (which have a questionable amount of value outside of removing hereditary diseases) is something that should be encouraged to develop.

Society is already divided and it hasn't played out like all the idealistic sci-fi movies people reference when discussing this and similar topics.

Remember people, life =/ movies.



Quote, originally posted by GK »
Obedience of a de facto king is not treason, it is survival.


Quote, originally posted by hu »
After the 8 years of suffering through Clinton's hell, the 8 years of Bush have been quite refreshing

Quote, originally posted by njn63 »
Ho-ly shit


Johnny.
It don't cost nothin' to pay attention



Offline

3862 posts [101%]
GDD, Politics, and Music Moderator Maryland
12-30-2002
 « « » Reply  Edit


Unless they are going to screen the baby's DNA every year for mutations, it's impossible to determine if the child will get cancer down the road.

"Nature ALWAYS finds a way"





2003 Track Edition 350Z
1996 Civic DX (hatchback)

Superhatch




Offline

3114 posts [100%]
Straight Edge
5-22-2001
 « Re: (Johnny.)« » Reply  Edit


Quote, originally posted by Johnny. »
Unless they are going to screen the baby's DNA every year for mutations, it's impossible to determine if the child will get cancer down the road.

"Nature ALWAYS finds a way"

True. I think right now were at a stage where they are talking about removing a gene that reduces the risk. In this case it's breast cancer, but that baby could totally still get any of the other cancers out there due to who knows what.

At the core of all of this, I think we need to get people to stop smoking, exercise and eat better before we really focus on trying to use gene manipulation to stop disease. Although, the 2nd is probably more likely to happen than the first



"The truth [the truth?] is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on [settled on?] the one issue that everone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." Paul Wolfowitz
   


» Return to Politics
Forum Jump
Quick Reply

Powered by ZeroForum 2.1.2b. ©2008 RelyNet, Inc.