News Genetically modified babies born

Mr. Laz · 02-07-2014, 06:48 PM

A beginning or the beginning of the end?

====================
World's first GM babies born
The world's first genetically modified humans have been created, it was 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/news/arti...#ixzz2sge0RylE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

DJJasonp · 02-07-2014, 06:56 PM

Gattaca comes to life.

**CrazyPhuD** · 02-07-2014, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJJasonp

Gattaca comes to life.

Sorry stuff like Gattaca has been happening for at least 50 years. People that really think this is the first time are being naive. For this procedure maybe but I'd say safely there are 10s of thousands of people who have been genetically enhanced already.

**Bowser** · 02-08-2014, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJJasonp

Gattaca comes to life.

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem with that.

My problem would be the sustainability of the planet. All these people would grow up disease free and live 100+ years of healthy living. I guess if it did get to that point, we would have to be compelled to travel to the stars to search out other livable worlds.

GloucesterChief · 02-08-2014, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem with that.

My problem would be the sustainability of the planet. All these people would grow up disease free and live 100+ years of healthy living. I guess if it did get to that point, we would have to be compelled to travel to the stars to search out other livable worlds.

You are assuming that with a longer life span and greater confidence in survivability would not alter birthrates.

History has shown that it does alter birthrates, it makes them lower and people have kids at an older age.

**Bowser** · 02-08-2014, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

You are assuming that with a longer life span and greater confidence in survivability would not alter birthrates.

History has shown that it does alter birthrates, it makes them lower and people have kids at an older age.

Point.

I guess the question would become would the sum of the population that was not able to receive the genetic therapy continue to procreate at the same rate?

I guess it raises a number of questions, mainly would the therapy be offered worldwide, or only to the first world countries?

Valiant · 02-08-2014, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

Point.

I guess the question would become would the sum of the population that was not able to receive the genetic therapy continue to procreate at the same rate?

I guess it raises a number of questions, mainly would the therapy be offered worldwide, or only to the first world countries?

I would think it would reflect now. Well off families have a few kids, welfare families have five plus. Homo Superiors would have one or two, norms would have twice that.

Hopefully to just first world. But it would eventually leach to 3rd. Those people would conquer and control with a iron fist. Just think of Africa now, now imagine a select few warlords genetically splicing their kids to control easier.

**AustinChief** · 02-07-2014, 07:03 PM

I have an issue of OMNI magazine (anyone remember that???) from like 1985 that discussed many of the "ground breaking" techniques we here about now in the mainstream media. Hard to imagine we just sat on the tech for the last 30 some years.

EDIT: Ok I just checked it was 1988. And yes I know that OMNI was the trashy tabloid of science mags but what was great about it was they would publish ANYTHING and let you decide what had merit. You got tons of garbage but also tons of stuff that was ahead of its time. Oh and I was 13/14 in 1988 so don't judge me!

**CrazyPhuD** · 02-07-2014, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I have an issue of OMNI magazine (anyone remember that???) from like 1985 that discussed many of the "ground breaking" techniques we here about now in the mainstream media. Hard to imagine we just sat on the tech for the last 30 some years.

you know the soviets, chinese, east german's haven't, hell probably not even the Nazi's. The only saving grace for that one is that they wouldn't have had much time.

Deberg_1990 · 02-07-2014, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I have an issue of OMNI magazine (anyone remember that???) from like 1985 that discussed many of the "ground breaking" techniques we here about now in the mainstream media. Hard to imagine we just sat on the tech for the last 30 some years.

EDIT: Ok I just checked it was 1988. And yes I know that OMNI was the trashy tabloid of science mags but what was great about it was they would publish ANYTHING and let you decide what had merit. You got tons of garbage but also tons of stuff that was ahead of its time. Oh and I was 13/14 in 1988 so don't judge me!

Cool old magazine. Bob "Penthouse" Guccione started it.

suzzer99 · 02-11-2014, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I have an issue of OMNI magazine (anyone remember that???) from like 1985 that discussed many of the "ground breaking" techniques we here about now in the mainstream media. Hard to imagine we just sat on the tech for the last 30 some years.

EDIT: Ok I just checked it was 1988. And yes I know that OMNI was the trashy tabloid of science mags but what was great about it was they would publish ANYTHING and let you decide what had merit. You got tons of garbage but also tons of stuff that was ahead of its time. Oh and I was 13/14 in 1988 so don't judge me!

I liked when they had the sexy surrealist paintings.

Mr. Laz · 02-07-2014, 07:08 PM

we are going to **** our species up.

We aren't even smart enough to govern ourselves. What is going to happen when we really start altering our genetic code only to find out in 3 generations those modifications aren't compatible and we are going extinct.

Hammock Parties · 02-07-2014, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

we are going to **** our species up.

We aren't even smart enough to govern ourselves. What is going to happen when we really start altering our genetic code only to find out in 3 generations those modifications aren't compatible and we are going extinct.

in 20 years nothing will be able to live in the gulf!

Fish · 02-07-2014, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

we are going to **** our species up.

We aren't even smart enough to govern ourselves. What is going to happen when we really start altering our genetic code only to find out in 3 generations those modifications aren't compatible and we are going extinct.

We've been altering our genetic code since the caveman days, just in a slower manner. This is simply taking a shortcut. There's really no such thing as incompatibility. That's the beauty of the human body. It will simply adapt. There's no defined point where the human genetic makeup could change so much that it just wouldn't work anymore. That's just not how it works. It's actually more the opposite. The more diverse the genetic makeup, the better the odds of overall survival for the species. We don't really want our DNA to remain static. Life must change and adapt. This is simply giving it a little nudge.

The article makes it sound pretty Frankensteinish. But I'd disagree that the scientific community shuns it. I'd bet a considerable amount that this shit has been going on for decades with all kinds of species.

Sannyasi · 02-07-2014, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

we are going to **** our species up.

We aren't even smart enough to govern ourselves. What is going to happen when we really start altering our genetic code only to find out in 3 generations those modifications aren't compatible and we are going extinct.

Maybe we'll genetically modify humans that are intelligent enough to use genetic modification responsibly.

02-07-2014, 06:48 PM	Topic Starter
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	Genetically modified babies born A beginning or the beginning of the end? ==================== World's first GM babies born The world's first genetically modified humans have been created, it was 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/news/arti...#ixzz2sge0RylE Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter \| DailyMail on Facebook
Posts: 95,626

02-07-2014, 06:56 PM	#2
DJJasonp My work speaks for itself!!! Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: So Cal Casino cash: $-1894800	Gattaca comes to life. __________________ Its easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he's been fooled.
Posts: 13,984

02-07-2014, 07:03 PM	#8
AustinChief Administrator Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Austin Casino cash: $-744998	I have an issue of OMNI magazine (anyone remember that???) from like 1985 that discussed many of the "ground breaking" techniques we here about now in the mainstream media. Hard to imagine we just sat on the tech for the last 30 some years. EDIT: Ok I just checked it was 1988. And yes I know that OMNI was the trashy tabloid of science mags but what was great about it was they would publish ANYTHING and let you decide what had merit. You got tons of garbage but also tons of stuff that was ahead of its time. Oh and I was 13/14 in 1988 so don't judge me!
Posts: 20,021

02-07-2014, 07:08 PM	#12
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	we are going to **** our species up. We aren't even smart enough to govern ourselves. What is going to happen when we really start altering our genetic code only to find out in 3 generations those modifications aren't compatible and we are going extinct. __________________
Posts: 95,626