Two couples whose families have been ravaged by breast cancer are to become
the first to screen embryos to prevent them having children at risk of the
disease, The Times has learnt.
Tests will allow the couples to take the unprecedented step of selecting
embryos free from a gene that carries a heightened risk of the cancer but
does not always cause it. The move will reignite controversy over the ethics
of embryo screening.
An application to test for the BRCA1 gene was submitted yesterday by Paul
Serhal, of University College Hospital, London. It is expected to be
approved within months as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
(HFEA) has already agreed in principle.
Opponents say that the test is unethical because it involves destroying some
embryos that would never contract these conditions if allowed to develop
into children. Even those that did become ill could expect many years of
healthy life first.
Some critics fear that the tests move society farther down a slope that will
lead ultimately to the creation of “designer babies” chosen for looks or
intelligence.
However, the first patients say that the technology will allow them to spare
their children a devastating genetic inheritance. One couple in their
twenties, who would only be named as Matthew and Helen, have lost three
generations to breast cancer.
Last May, the watchdog ruled it acceptable for doctors to screen embryos for
genes such as BRCA1, which raise the risk of cancer in adulthood by between
60 and 80 per cent. Embryo screening was previously restricted to genes that
carry a 90 to 100 per cent chance of causing disease.
The application is the first to be made under the new regime after a year of
research to identify the precise mutations that affect Mr Serhal’s patients.
Approval is likely in three to four months, once the HFEA has confirmed that
the tests are reliable.
Women with a defective BRCA1 gene also have a 40 per cent risk of ovarian
cancer. It is linked to prostate and breast cancer in men, who can also
inherit it benignly and pass it on to their daughters.
Mr Serhal said that objections to screening ignored the harrowing family
histories of the patients he is seeking to help, who have a chance to ensure
their children avoid similar experiences. “We are talking about a killer
that wipes out generation after generation of women,” Mr Serhal said. “You
can have a preventive mastectomy, but this is traumatic and mutilating
surgery that does not eliminate the risk.
“What we are trying to do here is to prevent this inherited disease from being
a possibility in the first place. At least with these people’s children, we
can annihilate the gene from the family tree.” Genes have also been
identified that raise
the risk of conditions such as obesity, heart disease and mental illness.
However, more than one gene is usually involved and the HFEA will not
currently approve screening for these.
Supporters of screening point out that patients must use IVF even if fertile,
and that many couples carrying defective genes will not choose this option.
The HFEA code of practice also makes it clear that screening is allowed only
for serious conditions.
When the licence is awarded, the couples will have IVF. This will allow a
single cell to be removed from the embryo at the eight-cell stage, and
tested for the defective BRCA1 gene. Only unaffected embryos will then be
transferred to the womb.
Though the HFEA decided last May to accept applications to do this, after a
public consultation was supportive, it has taken Mr Serhal’s team a year to
develop a robust test for the specific mutations in the gene that each
family carries.
The HFEA will not reconsider the ethics of screening, but will ask independent
experts to review the reliability of the tests before awarding a licence.
“We are very confident because the HFEA has already said in principle that
this is OK,” Mr Serhal said.The HFEA said: “Each application for conditions
such as this must be considered on a case-by-case basis because of the
difference in the way that families are affected by these conditions.”
Josephine Quintavalle, of the embryo rights group, Comment on Reproductive
Ethics, said: “There has to be a better way of curing disease than this. It
is very likely that in the not-too-distant future there will be a way of
treating breast cancer that doesn’t rely on eliminating the carrier instead
of curing the disease.”
Last year, The Timesrevealed the conception of Britain’s first “designer
baby”, screened as an embryo for inherited cancer. The baby has since been
born healthy, free from the gene carried by her mother that would have given
her a 90 per cent chance of developing retinoblastoma, an eye tumour.
Life has an ultimate end. No matter how hard we try to prevent death, whether by means of cancer, accidents, murder, etc... it is inevitable. Instead of going through your embryos like going through a stack of playing cards be grateful for what you recieve.
sheena, san jose, ca
I'm all for this method of preventing offspring inheriting these dodgy defective genes but to call them "designer babies" is not misleading... thats what they are! It's just that we think of choosing babies with blonde hair blue eyes etc. when we hear that term. I'm in total support of finding ways to get rid of diseases such as cancer and this is a good way to do it. I just hope it doesn't reach the stage where people will use these technologies for cosmetic reasons.
Katie, York,
my grandmother and her little sister were dead in their early thirties. i am 29 and brca positive. i'm also an atheist, so am i allowed to comment?! until you live with it, how can you judge? i would love to spare my children. until you live with it, undergo screening every three months, knowing the screening is hardly perfect, that we get the most agressive cancers at the earliest ages... these mutated genes are tumor suppressor genes, my cancer preventer genes... they don't work... to live with this anxiety, this fear, undergo these surgeries... how can you judge what we want for our children. frankly, its disgusting.
Nicole, san diego, ca
Why do we strive to know more about our genetic material if we are reluctant to use the new discoveries and technologies to eradicate CANCER? As a breast cancer survivor I fully support the idea. It is very misleading to call these embryos "designer babies". As a parent why would you want your child to go through so much pain and emotional turmoil if you can do someting about it. In my opinion it would be unethical not to.
Mihaela, Coquitlam, Canada
I agree with James shame on you The Times,
i really am dissapointed to see that you are using these tabloid brands. Besides, they are not designer babies, they are genetically engineered embryo's. I personally feel that that title sounds more interesting.
xx cheers
Robert Geary, London, England
i am also a student doing GCSE coursework on the subject of designer babies and i disagree with it on principle - but then i don't have a genetic disease or a child with a deformity so i can't really give an appreciative opinion. But i do have a question - is there any real difference between designing a baby and human cloning for example and why are designer babies more socially acceptable?
isabella kerr, london,
Im doing a gcse coursework on designer babies, and i believe that "designer babies" should have a limit. Screening embryos, and removing ones which have genes linked with diseases is a great idea to begin getting rid of things like Breast Cancer, but i worry it will go to far. The parents have a choice whether to go through with this or not, but if its stop their children having to suffer then im all for it
Heather, Wallasey, Uk
Re use of term 'designer babies', how disappointing that the Times has to resort to tabloid headlines to draw attention. Incompetent and irresponsible journalism at its worst.
James, London, UK
I think that this is a matter of personal choice for the parents to decide. No-one can possibly know (or have the right to say) what is best in this case. If we allow IVF and abortion, I don't really see why this is so much different. It is a horrible position to be in, and I give all my best wishes to those having to make such heart-breaking decisions.
Katie Newens, Oxford,
1) Evolution has done a pretty good job at perpetuating the species by natural processes. Conscious selection of traits for the next generation will only limit our biodiversity, and that brings more costs than benefits to our species in the long run.
2) We should not confuse curing a disease with stamping out life at its very earliest stages.
3) Do these parents wish they had been destroyed when they were still in the embryonic stage?
4) It seems all too likely that when such procedures become popular, they will either be mandated or expected. Government and health providers will work against a family who does not believe it is right to destroy an embryo since such a family will appear to put an unnecessary burden on the society.
PeterTerp, Washington, DC, USA
Religion doesn't need to be invoked to discredit this method.
This test doesn't spare anyone - it allows a person to pick an embryo that isn't *at risk* for a disease. Those embryos that are found to have this gene are not spared, they're killed. So if there is a chance the baby will die of cancer, doctors will take that chance away and make death a certainty.
It's just pre-birth, pre-development euthanaisa. What's next, destroying embryos that contain a gene that makes them susceptible to disease? We can't flee trouble - strength will only come from facing and conquering it.
Jason, Colorado Springs, US
How many of you here have actually got or had cancer? My mother has just been diagnosed with Breast cancer, my aunt and sister also have had breast cancer, and two of my grandparents have died of lung cancer. It's not fun living your life knowing that whatever you do to ty to avoid it, you will more than likely get this disease. I don't have children yet but I would definately not want them to suffer such a horrible and slow death. The truth is that we don't have a cure for cancer which affects so many lives. The only way to ensure that this disease does not kill so many in the future is to ensure that those genetically predisposed to cancer do not pass it on.
God is irrelevant I'm afraid Nikko.
B, London,
"Opponents say that the test is unethical because it involves destroying some embryos…at the eight-cell stage"
First off, embryos are being destroyed all the time, often naturally.
The average sexually active woman who is fertile WILL have many embryos that do not become infants.
As the average woman only has 39 'fertile' days a year, these embryos will never attach to the uterus wall and will be passed out just like any other period. The woman would be none the wiser that she had a 'proto-life' inside her.
Even women who are on the Pill can have this happen to them - the Pill isn't 100% effective.
Secondly, if destroying embryos is unethical, then what about contraceptives that actively preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterus. They don't prevent fertilization - they destroy embryos.
Destroying unwanted embryos in a laboratory is as ethical as taking the Morning After pill or using a coil.
Will these people start campaigning against contraceptives next?
Natalie, Peterborough, England
Many women have babies abourted because they find out that they will be disabled in some way and it's perfectly legal and not generally frowned upon. The only difference here is that we are dealing with embryos, and in the normal IVF process most of these would die in the process anyway as often only one or two, or none, ever make it to term anyway. This way it is only embryos that are being destroyed, not unborn babies which are arguably more human, and it is less traumatic for the mother than having an abortion. These people have a natural desire to have healthy children even though the odds are aginst them. Other people's ideas about designer babies, Hitler and God should not prevent them from this.
BAO, London, UK
Don’t be so afraid of change that you never move forward. Not every sperm or egg gets a chance. Not every embryo survives. God gave us brains so we can better ourselves. Science needs to help the selection process. We need to eliminate illness, weakness and stupidity from our DNA in order to move forward as a race. If you feel otherwise, then you must be either sick, weak or just plain stupid.
Gene, Houston, Texas
I am always amazed when other humans believe they have a mission to interpret God for me according to their own level of understanding. One certainty is that intelligence is varied and those who have it save a large number of us.
Angela, Dallas, TX
Must not be done as it will create a lot of controversy
Ali, London, uk
Using a condom or birth control pill is MUCH different from screening babies and choosing only the healthy ones to live full term.
Donna, Allen, US, TX
I'm a twentyone year old, who recently was dignosed with stomach cancer,and so was my sister. We had already lost our father, grandmother, cousin and aunt all to the horrid condition, and it is only now that we have been told that there is a genetic link, therefore my sister and I will now be able to stop the stomach cancer gene being passed on to our children through this amazing new technology of screening embryos. I no that I am extremely grateful for this new technology, as I would not want my children to go through the pain that me and the rest of my family have gone through. I only wish that people would undersatnd the imporatnce of it, rather than describe it as "designer babies".
Ruth Bendle, Hemel Hempstead, Herts
If these procedures had been available years ago Matthew and Helen wouldn't be here (at least one of them) and this would not be an issue. Do they realize that?
Nils, Colorado Springs, Colorado
"God does not take kindly to those who attempt to one-up Him."
Lol, and how exactly do you know that?
BTW God is not saving us, so we better start taking responsibility.
Baddogroberto, San Francisco, CA
On the plus side...aren't we always saying it's better to PREVENT than to CURE? I don't know where I stand on this issue, but there are several things we have to think about...
- We could end up with a world where we screen all embryos pre-birth to make sure NO genetic diseases are carried
-But...Is this screening process avaiable to EVERYONE? Or are we going to end up with very healthy middle classes and cancer-ridden poorer classes, dependant on financial assets?
-And what about a pre-disposition to..ugliness, or unintelligence - both possibly subjective things, but both arguably "genetic defects"...It's like cosmetic surgery before birth!
-Could we end up in a nazist-like society such as the one fictionalised in the film "Gattaca" with prejudice against those with predispositions and hereditary defects.
-And the ultimate, materialistic question I hate to ask: How much will this cost?
Im very happy for this family, and proud of our scientists...but there are disadvantages!
Jennifer, York, UK
sounds ignorant of change , comparing hitler to serious investigation of health complications in a persons genes especially a different way of fighting disease if not eventually eliminating it is close minded. I guess the select few on the planet need to stop educating themselves generation to generation on science and technology and just consume things untill the savior shows up with a utopia for dummies book and says alright everybody you are free to move about the galaxy!!!!! Such a scary thought to imagine a future of people who can eventually eliminate diseases with science and technology.
Kurt, New York, USA / New York
I would feel better about this, if man knew everything about the human body. Unfortunately, he doesn't. The problem is there is no "exact science" Derivations always come into the equation eventually. As Darwin believed, natural selection wins out eventually. If you believe in experimenting on human beings this procedure shouldn't be a problem. One of my favorite meddling of scientists is Killer Bees. The desired effect isn't always reached, and sometimes can have severe consequences. Keep this in mind when brow-beating the so called "Religious Zealots" about their views. If you are omnipotent then you are above reproach.
Scott, Houston TX, USA
O'h how we deceive ourselves into thinking we are gods
without repercussions for our actions.
There is no medical alteration without a negative side effects.
i.e. In curing the cancer A.M.L., there is a lifetime of sterility, bronchial problems and myasthenia gravis [no cure].
*
Karen, Cherry Hill, NJ , USA
Too bad we can't find the stupid gene to remove stupidity.
Tyrone Likes Chicken, Harlem, USA
Genetic manipulation is only a tool. The ethics of using it depend on whether the result is good or harm. It won't go away. I'm glad there is a society to make decisions about the ethics of individual cases. We need more such societies.
J. Rhinehart, Spartanburg, usa
What is the problem with this? They are simply ensuring that their children will not suffer the way so many people have.
They are not creating designer babies, I don't recall them saying that they only wanted a boy or a girl, blonde hair or brown, high intelligence!
I may be Catholic, but I couldn't care less that they are destroying embryos that would never become babies anyway!!!
Cest Moi, North East, England
God did give us brains, and we should celebrate that, and with that comes responsibility to defend life. Killing innocent humans to "save??" another is not a "triumph for molecular biology". It is slaughter. I bet the people who agree with killing embryos are the same ones that defend animals against testing in the labs. What hypocrites! And besides, I have neither of these genes,(I've been tested), and I had breast cancer, just like the other hundreds of thousands who got breast cancer and DON't have the genes.
Tina Smith, USA/Ohio
Kristina Smith, Centerville, USA/Ohio
So instead of breast cancer killing women, we'll just kill them first. It just doesn't make any sense. Are we forgetting/failing to realize that these embryos are human too?
Ken, Washington, DC,
This is rediculous. Following the same principal we should execute those who are diagnosed with cancer. There are lots of people who die of cancer. These people have a low quality of life, and they die long painful deaths, but the legacy they leave behind is vital for our socioty. If you want to prevent suffering, why not kak all those curently suffering. It would make sense to those in favor of embryo screening to go up to a paraplegic and bludgeon them to death, to end their suffering. If you are a supporter, and disagree with this statement, tell me how it's any different.
Mark, Butte, Montana
Last year (2006) my 41 year old sister was diagnosed with, treated for and beat an aggressive breast cancer. She tested negative for BRCA I and BRCA II. We have a long family history of cancers that are allegedly related to breast cancer (ovarian and prostate), and some family history of breast cancer. Yet she didn't carry the gene. I'll leave it at that. Oh, and I am not an athiest.
Deb, Nashville, TN
One of the marks of first world countries is that fewer people are born and fewer people die. Most parents will use contraceptive measures to prevent having more children than they want. It's great that now they can chose to have only healthy children and stop these genes from destroying further lives.
This IVF treatment is nothing compared to the damage of having this gene. God doesn't want people to suffer, I guarantee you that much, and an IVF fertilized embryo is not a person yet and can't suffer. Many embryos gets started naturally that don't implant, and you would never know. Do you hold a funeral every time you or your partner has a period? Of course not, BUT this gene has caused moms with little kids to die young.
Lauren, California, USA
Catholics, christians...go and pray to your "god".
The rest of us will get on so this world finally beats this horrible disease that has killed so many.
There will be no cure found on your knees...
A.T.HEIST, NY/LONDON,
What lying terms. "Screening" embryos really means killing living human beings.
There is no need for religious arguments if you believe the value of existing life trumps that of future lives saved.
Its a no-brainer. Also the article was slanted towards the pro-death side. Only a few quotes by opponents to this utilitarian frankenresearch at the end.
But then as the former head of CBS news admitted: most of the media bats from the left side of the plate.
People in the U.K. and elsewhere need to resist this creeping evil. All human life has value - from conception to natural end.
If your ethos says it does not then that would be reflected in other laws which now recognize the inherent value of human life. Thus we are hypocrites -- protecting life in some circumstances and at some stage of development and not others.
all you atheists who live solely by logic had best chew on that.
Kevin G. McDonald , Halifax, Canada
I won't say too much, but if you want to see another side of this issue, watch "Gattaca" (1997).
Kenna, Kansas, USA
I have a fundamental problem with the HFEA making this decison. It is a Government (not Parliament) appointed body making an essentially moral (value) decision. I do not object to their role as medical overseers but I do object to their role as moral arbiters. The fact is that the law creating the HFEA is now 17 years old and the legislators creating the body could not have foreseen all that has occurred. The position needs to be revisited.
We need a debate about how far the power of the HFEA should extend into making moral judgements about new treatment options.
Raj Mohindra, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
J.D.Lees should try his "logic" again. The ladies comment was if screening had been available when her friends were "conceived". Birth Control has nothing to do with "conception" - unless you want to count abortion and the morning after pill as birth control, and he probably does - and certainly no Einsteins or Mandelas were thrown away in a condom since they had not been conceived yet!
This level of "logic" hurts the discussion.
Noodles, San Diego, USA/CA
1) This procedure only reduces the risk of breast cancer, not eliminate it.
2) The article is wrong when it states: "Last May, the watchdog ruled it acceptable for doctors to screen embryos for genes such as BRCA1, which raise the risk of cancer in adulthood by between 60 and 80 per cent."
It raises the risk from about 10% to between 60 and 80%. This raises it 6 to 8-fold, or about a 600 to 800% increase.
3) BRCA testing is available in 21 days in the USA. It is not at all clear why it took one year for this patient to get results.
4) Most of the posters seem to have no understanding what this procedure does. All people have two BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. In some people one of the genes has a mutation and significantly raises the risk or breast and ovarian cancers.
Many people in these families have watched relatives die because of this. It is totally a random chance which of the two BRCA 1 or 2 genes will be passed on when fertilization occurs. These people want to ensure tha
C.F. , Jackson, MS, USA
this is sick and effort to strive for "perfection" in the eyes of humankind. I guess this is only the beginning...what next, children with down syndrome? Who is to say they are not better than us? And suffering? Come on...I have been touched personally by breast cancer and I wouldn't want to go through it again, but the whole experience in an odd way has enriched my life and my family's and helped us to grow in positive ways. Sometimes our perspective is skewed to some idea of perfection that we miss out on the people who truly are perfect and remarkable (ie: those with what we as "perfect people" perceive as disabilities) Our world will be a pretty bland and cold place if we start cleansing our population of undesirables.
Sally, Centreville, VA
Wow; I thought this was some real breakthrough--only to find it offers just another reason to kill a baby before allowing her to be born. Oh, for the "best" of reasons to be sure.
How ironic if the parents would choose an embryo less likely to develop breast cancer (if you believe the premise) only to have the child grow up and have an abortion herself which would greatly increase her chance of developing breast cancer, i.e., if you believe real research on the subject. Sad comment on the state of the world today.
Rose, Indianapolis, USA/IN
We do not "help ourselves" by murdering some embryos and letting some live (yes, killing innocent humans, no matter how small (fertilized embryos) = murder). We help ourselves and make true medical advancements by finding cures and treatments which respects human life and allows ALL humans to live, no matter how small. God is the author of life and he should decide who is born through natural means, not by artificial fertilization methods. True human freedom is not the ability to do whatever we want, but it is the ability to do what is right. Since murdering humans (embryos) is inherently evil, the ends will NEVER justify the means.
Brad, Troy, USA / MO
Not everyone in the UK is, in fact, an atheist. It's just that atheists tend to have a more, shall we say, realistic view of things.
Kyrial Haicoryn, London, UK
O'h how we deceive ourselves into thinking we are gods
without repercussions for our actions.
There is no medical alteration without a negative side effects.
i.e. In curing the cancer A.M.L., there is a lifetime of sterility,
bronchial problems and myasthenia gravis [no cure].
karen, cherry hill, nj, usa
Yeah, I totally understand that! Just kill them right off, to "spare them from developing the disease later on in life...." What a crock! BABYKILLERS!
Stacy, Lyons, CO
We're treading on very thin ice. We're messing with God's will, and when we do that, we've made a very bad choice. You who consider Christians to be unreasonable or silly will be the ones to pay for your disbeliefs. As for me and my family, we'll worship the Lord, and let God, not man, be God.
Jo Ellen, Dallas, Texas
I am a Christian and do not believe in interfering with nature to the extent that now happens - I also do not impose my beliefs on other people. I work with Breast Cancer victims and I am sure that those who carry the BRAC1 or 2 gene would prefer to be alive and not have been terminated as an embryo ! The tests are becoming more sensitive as time passes and why eliminate a person to deter the disease.- It is a personal decision but we are going a step too far with genetic manipulation and are undoubtedly heading towards our own destruction. Just look at BSE and all that has followed - humans just couldn't keep out of interfering and the end result was more suffering for both humans and animals. THere is life after breast cancer for many many women and men - reduced in some but at least there has been a life with all that it can give to the victims, and their families whose lives would have been less rich had the person not existed.
Celia Lewis, Coventry, England
To be against such embryonic selection doesn't necessarily mean to be religious. Hitler's Germany was rationalism taken to its logical extreme. It began from a false initial thesis, and proceeded catastrophically from there. Surely it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that given this kind of choice, all too many parents will quickly opt for beauty, brains, skin color, and so on, rather than for the chance to produce simply a healthy child of sound character and values. Designer babies is exactly what these children will be. And you can thank science for it.
Martha , Orlando, Florida, USA
If your against embryo screening then you should also be against adopted parents being able to "choose" a healthy child out of the adoption pool. Most of us would love to only have healthy children and we are doing our best through science to even the odds. Maybe we should focus on our health care system rather than condemn parents who are trying to stop a major medical condition that is a financial hardship.
Julie, Austin, Texas
Finally! A way to identify the strong and eliminate the weak and undesirable. Wait ... wasn't that Hitler's goal?
Pat Maguire, St. Marys, KS
John Snow-
I wish this was a secular state ! (Though I wouldn't want it to be one that is intolerant of individuals religious beliefs)
Karen, Edinburgh, UK
First of all, these are not designer babies. Culling is not design. We are a million miles from the point of true design, where we add or remove features from an embrio.
Doug Forbes, Wheeling, USA
Why is it that any opinion that is wary of the notion of unrelenting "progress" is seen as dogmatic or backward. Expansive change is not always the way forward...it is a different path entirely that takes on a character of its own. Human reason has indeed led to great breakthroughs in medicine, scientific progress. But an uninhibited faith in "human reason" is just as dogmatic, not to mention arrogant. Such genetic screening allows the criteria of fallible reason to dictate who (a unique conglomeration of interacting genes...not simply an individual defined by a single gene) gets a chance to live and who is deemed unworthy of life. In addition, what begins as the intent of reason easily gives way to the misguided priorities of popular culture.
Jackie, Miami, FL
I laugh at people like the woman who said she has lovely friends with breast cancer and that they would never have been born if screening had been in practice when they were conceived. By that "logic" there should be no birth control because it prevents even more lovely people from being born. Think of all the friends you never had because of birth control pills and condoms. Who knows how many Mandelas and Einsteins ended up trapped in the end of a condom and thrown in the garbage?? Ban birth control! Every sperm is perfect!
J.D. Lees, Steinbach, MB, Canada
maybe you people should JUST NOT BREED. obviously your genes and DNA suck --- so stop now, do the race a favor!!!!!!!
jamie, nyc, usa
Screening is the way of the future - My sister was born with cystic fibrosis - perhaps not as serious as breast cancer, but still something that could have been stopped, and can be stopped through screening - I myself am a carrier, and there is a good chance my child will be born with this disease (if i marry another carrier...) surely prevention is better than cure?
Would you choose for your child to go through harrowing surgery and chemotherapy - just so you can stand tall and say i did it gods way?
Man has been responsible for some terrible things, and im the first to agree that not everything that can be done should be done - but i will say this, if doing it can help to alleviate the suffering of one, or many people. then go for it! BUT step carefully.
Richard, shanghai,
There are other solutions that don't involve taking lives that will substantially reduce breast cancer. I also think of severeal women who've gotten breast cancer, and to imagine they would be denied any life, rather than a perhaps less long or one that involved reducing their breast size seems rather small-minded.
Science is also working on preventatives that work without taking a life. I prefer to applaud those. The headline is patently dishonest. They haven't really designed anything, just pushed screening and elimination to its earliest stages.
EKS, Chicago, USA
Nikko, why should your sister use medical treatments to fight against cancer? Maybe God has decided her to die, and you're fighting against his word. God can't be used as argument, simply we have to decide if it's correct to kill the other embryos and if the child won't have diseases in future.
Jorge, Madrid, Spain
Intersting debate surfacing. In the words of Bill O'Rielly "What say You?"
Cathy, Missouri City, TX
Doesn't anyone else get alittle sick to their stomach when they hear things like "embryos discarded". Do you honestly not care that everyone of those embryos should have a chance to grow into a fully developed human with their own personality.
Also, we should look at what genetic modification has done in other animals. In cattle when altering for desired traits there have been many problems, such as dwarfism and being born blind.
With cattle this is not much of a problem because the animal is just destroyed. Are we to the point now (or will we be soon) where we will destroy babies with maladies such. I don't see that it is much of a stretch.
Why don't we focus on treating diseases, and preserving life.
Clyde, Idaho, US
1) This test takes three weeks to complete in the USA. I can't imagine why it took one year for this family.
2) This procedure will only reduce the risk of breast cancer, not eliminate it entirely.
C., Jackson, MS,
Finally, a technological breakthrough that will positively select against those who are dogmatically religious in favor of those who use reason.
Paul Allen, menlo park, ca, usa
Just a small step, or perhaps a giant leap, toward brand-name people. Medical progress or a fundemental shift in what it means to be human, or even natural for that matter. It can go without saying where the environmental zealots fall on this issue. Against nature.
Bill, Toronto, CA
It's interesting that adoption wasn't mentioned as a way to break the cycle of inherited diseases. Surely there are still orphans in England.
Shauna Milligan, Powder Springs, United States of America
Can anyone comment on this article other than atheists?
Is everyone in the UK an atheist?
How weird it must be to live in such a place!
David, Miami, FL USA
There are other solutions that don't involve taking lives that will substantially reduce breast cancer. I also think of several women who've gotten breast cancer, and to imagine they would be denied any life, rather than a perhaps less long or one that involved reducing their breast size seems rather small-minded.
Science is also working on preventatives that work without taking a life. I prefer to applaud those. The headline is patently dishonest. They haven't really designed anything, just pushed screening and elimination to its earliest stages.
EKS, Chicago, USA
My family has also been devasted by breast cancer, my mum being diagnosed last year, I am awaiting genetic results for myself. I think this is a good thing. Testing to prevent a baby carrying a gene that increases the risk of cancer dramatically is hardly a 'designer baby' chosen for looks or intelligence and is most definately not "Hitler - like".
Kelly, Perth,
Nikko
What makes you think that everyone believes in God? People should be able to make there own decision on this matter. We don't bother worshipers about there choices. I am sure that it will never be mandatory that everyone would have to have this screening done. That would be a different story. But we should all have the choices some day. I agree that these screening should only be for health reasons such as disease. Not for cosmetic and intelligence.
Regards,
Scott, Onatrion, Canada
Get out of your medieval backwaters. God doesn't exist and it's up to us to help ourselves. I am sick and tired of neurotic irrationalists restricting medical progress, hiding their fear of technology behind so-called ethics.
Also - "The cost is unknown, and will certainly be too high when all is said and done.". Simple logic dictates that if the cost is unknown then it can not be predicted to be too high or low!
Richie Hatchet, Dublin, Ireland
If your going to be involved in a discussion regarding embryo screening and other gene manipulation methods (or indeed any given scientific advancement), don't use the phrase 'playing god', as it makes you sound like a small minded zealot or you got the phrase from popular media and you think it sounds reasonable. I understand the meaning behind the phrase, in that we need to understand the long term effects of something before it is applied to humans, but in practice nearly all medical advances have been 'playing god', in fact, science as we now know started out primarily as a method of understanding our world, and thus, knowing what God is.
Daniel, Dundee, UK
This is a secular state, please don't let the godbotherers interfere again.
Their god gave mankind brains to use, lets celebrate that, not remain in the dark ages which appears to be their time of greatest influence.
John Snow, Thetford, England
Good for them! Another triumph for molecular biology and a rare defeat for inherited diseases.
ben, Philadelphia,
Man is tampering in things best left along, or to God. My sister is fighting aggressive breast cancer, but designer babies are Hitler-like in far too many respects, and she would not want herself or her children to be made immune to breast cancer in this manner. The cost is unknown, and will certainly be too high when all is said and done. Just because it can be done does not mean that it should be. The long term effects of this tampering with God's creation is a disaster in the making. God does not take kindly to those who attempt to one-up Him.
Nikko, Keizer, USA / Oregon
How do they know that the chosen embryos don't have a gene that makes them more sustible to other medical conditions that may be more deadly or appear at a much earlier age than the breast cancer they are screening for? If they detect other defects (nobody is perfect) do they discard all the embryos or choose a "prefered defect" that they deem acceptable.
Ray Blinn, Dublin, Oh
This is an example of inaccurate journalism. These are not "designer" babies in the sense that someone decided to remove some gene and replace them with other genes in order to "design" the child to order. This is simply an application of PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) to select which embryo did not carry the genes for for breast cancer. Calling such screening "designer" babies is not correct.
kurt, Portland, USA
A woman never got breast cancer and had a complete hysterectomy at 45. She lived to 84 years of age, a very healthy life. She had the BrCa1 gene. She lived longer than many of her cousins, who didn't have the gene.
A woman had a dozen children but died of ovarian cancer in 1920. She didn't know she had the BrCa 1 gene. One of her grandchildren became a prominent oncologist who discovered the cures for many thousands of patients for a specific type of cancer.
However, if Mr. Serhal had counseled the 2 females parents, they would have been aborted. Contratulations, Mr. Serhal, you just condemed many thousands of people to death because of what you've done.
Bob Baker, Cherry Hill, USA/NJ
This is fantastic news.
Carriers of these defective genes in our day and time would think twice before passing the genes on. With this breakthrough they are given the opportunity of eliminating the curse of passing genes predestining mothers to die of cancer with still young children - or having breast removal operation in their early twenties to prevent cancer.
Eight cells are not - and never will be - a human being. Nature aborts probably 40-50% of all embryos at the first stages. Probably all left-handed are one half of a pair of identical twins - as is my left-handed daughter. I can not grieve for her possible twin - probably aborted in the first 2-3 weeks of pregnancy by mother nature - unnoticed, and for natural reasons presumably due to genetic defect
If designer-baby means eliminating genetic fault - and is not otherwise used, welcome advance in science.
Gerald , Aarhus, Denmark
"Some critics fear that the tests move society farther down a slope that will lead ultimately to the creation of “designer babies” chosen for looks or intelligence."
People choose mates for looks and intelligence all the time, with the unconscious desire to see same in their hypothetical offspring. Who are these luddite mandarins to say that enhancing the genetic stock of their offspring is forbidden?
Paul Allen, Menlo Park, USA, California
"we can annihilate the gene from the family tree.” Genes have also been identified that raise the risk of conditions such as obesity"
This is fantastic, but late. Imagine the world could have been spared the likes of Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore ...
Matt, Atlanta, GA
Orwell would nod to that euphemism.
"Screen" really means kill the ones you don't want.
Another foot down the slippery slope in a new post-human future.
Kevin G. McDonald , Halifax, Canada
How many have to die to get a "perfect" baby. This is just another way to cheapen human life, i.e., show that the test "saves" the child from some horrible disease even though they will never know if the child would have contracted the illness. But the promise of safety apparently warrants the taking of other human life. This promise is the same one offered for embyonic stem cell research. No results to date, no rug companies willing to fun the research but lots of promises of miracle cures in the future. All they need is the okay to destroy human life to get the stem cells needed for the research. And ignore the successes in adult stem cell research. This just promises to move us away from our basic humanity in a search for a "painless" happy life. An is anyone thinking of the cost?
John, Webster, New York
Humans know too little and assume too much about genetics to assume these "techniques" will yield tangible benefits. And that's ignoring the contra ethical arguments.
chris, new york city,
Is this a joke??? So what will they do with the higher risk embryos? I'm sure there's someone out there that is willing to birth them. Maybe they'd still have a chance to beat cancer. Maybe they'd never have cancer at all!!!!! Unbelievable. Wow.
Jill, Austin, Texas
Quoting the article,
"At least with these people’s children, we can annihilate the gene from the family tree.”
If they were honest they would say
"We can annihilate at least these people's children before a sickness we have little control over might appear"
Always dancing around the real issue that an embryo is a human life fully capable of all stages of development, i.e. a human being.
David Sutherland, Lake Forest, CA
Wait till the baby Girl later takes oral Contraception and then develops Breast cancer..... the scientist will already be dead! July 29th 2005 the WHO stated that Oral Contraception is a Group one Carcinogen causing agent!
Let see how gene removal effects that! Lets see if the see that this Gene doesn't control something else in the Body as a secondaty Job... This is Bad!
Kevin in Kuwait, Kuwait City, Kuwait