What kind of genetic engineering should be allowed to correct defects and imperfections?

Question

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Kurt Weidemann, 83, Stuttgart, Germany. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/13356.page

Answer 1

This one really depends on who gets to decide what constitutes an imperfection and if it is enforced or voluntary. At what stage do we decide not to correct but to terminate.
That's the theory. In practice (like so many other things) the will of the people, as represented by whatever executive organisation used, will be usurped and it will excercise it's power in a twisted pastiche of what could have been and what we never intended. Recent examples are the UN the war on "Terror", the fight on climate change etc.

Answer 2

Dang you ask alot of Q's, and you get them all fetured too LOL!

Anyways,
Hmmm that is a good Q though...

I think genetic engineering should be watched with a close eye, and in most cases not used (like on plants we eat), however...
When it comes to genetic defects I would like to hope that we don't use it or overly use it to solve defects WE created in the first place. I'll be just like ban aiding a problem again. I mean look how much cancer we're getting from all these nuke waste dump sites, you can't just fix it by altering our DNA to make us immune, then we're not REALLY solving the problem.
Anyways,
If it's something that criticly impares someone or is life threatening... I would hope that we do not mess with babies BUT I would hope that the individual who has such defects would be given a choice for themselves to get genetically altered or not.
Now this might not be genetic engering, but like in some SciFi (like Batman Beyond) it would be "slicing".
I just don't like the idea of us altering our evolution because we think we're being "good parents", we should leave it to the person who has the choice to live like they will or to change it.
Just because someone is blind doesn't mean they see it as a disability, some blind people have even said when they finally could see they DIDN'T like the seeing world/experience.
;-)
It's all about the person, so lets not dictate other's futures
=D

::: Peace :::

Answer 3

To tell you the truth, none. There are too many variables that people are just too unaware of to safely state that genetic manipulation would be a positive thing. No one can be sure that the manipulation would be okay, and there is no telling the side effect of this procedure. If there are more than one trait per gene, what then? Who says the next generation will not suffer? Or that it will not lead to the creation of some other disease? The world does not even know what effect creating roads has had on the environment, besides the obvious cutting down of trees (did they consider the effect of covering open land? I don't think so.). Yet this can be just as important in the storms and types of storms that touch a particular area.

Answer 4

Increasingly, since the advent of modern medicine, genetic 'defects' that would normally be limited by natural selection are allowed to be passed on when without medical care that person would not survive to have kids. Without some form of intervention (pre-natal screening or "gene therapy" if there is such a thing), our species will decline in fitness until one day we disappear. It is in our best interest to do the job that natural selection no longer does, but how do you know when to stop? I'd define a defect as something that decreases a person's fitness to survive (in the biological sense), which is quite easy to deal with, but 'imperfections' are subjective and trying to correct 'imperfections' in our genome leads to Eugenics, a concept made famous by the Nazis.

So I'd allow pre-natal screening for recognised genetic diseases, and 'gene therapy' (if it ever works) on sick individuals, but I would not allow parents to choose the look and features of a baby, or allow an indivdual to change themselves genetically without reason, not that it's possible, but who knows what the futute holds?

Answer 5

I really do not mind what type is used be it stem cell or other. however I do think we should look/think about the final result are we all going to follow Hitlers ideals of blond hair blue eyes? or do we leave hair or hair colour out of the final result? I personally think we should end at cure for disabling illnesses and leave the rest up to nature.
That said however I would not be against a cell reprogrammed if say a girl was pregnant through rape, if the offspring would not look like the rapist or even better share the same genetic make up as a loved partner this could be a good thing.
I think things will be going to far if parents can decide what moles children can have and the final sex of a child is also going to far. we need to leave some natural selection.

Answer 6

I don't feel I know enough about genetics to answer this question properly.

I mean how many types of genetic engineering are there? What do they involve? Stem cell or skin cell? Plant or animal? What can be acheived through it and what do we believe may be?

Not only that but whose or what's defects and imperfections and who decides which is which and what is needed?

The ambiguity of this question is what makes it interesting.
I don't know about you but I would like to know more.

Answer 7

There was a time when body transplants, though becoming possible, found many objectors. Is anything for the good of an individual wrong, if not causing harm to another? On those premises I would say emphatically that I agree with the principle of genetic engineering. Incidentally, I'm an active Christian, to make my standpoint clear.

Answer 8

All genetic engineering. I wanna see some freaks. Not just natures mistakes, but some real sick science mistakes. Yeah. Some real sick 8 armed 5 legged genetically engineered sewing machine operators. Yeah. We should genetically engineer everyone for a predeterimed task in life, whether they want it or not. Yeah. No more hard choices. No more fat old people at the beach. Everyone the same color with the same voice with the same techno-science-god directing their every movement. Maybe we can engineer the idiots of the world to breath less of my air. Life should be easy. Yeah.

Answer 9

The genetic enginerring that should be allowed should be based of sever birth defects.....there are sooo many illnesss like MS, Down Syndrom, and thousands more that deal with gentic problems....and all that needs to be corrected is one allel or one exon and intro splitting...because of those minor problems people face alot of hardship...and if it was allowed then getetic engineering should be allowed to correct those smalll imperfect strutures.

Answer 10

I personally feel that if they can detect something like a Down Syndrome baby, severe cleft pallette, or other debilitating defect that would seriously impact on the child's development and day to day life, and it can be safely fixed, then the parents should be given the option to do so. They should be under no obligation, however if they choose not to fix something that could have been fixed then they will have to sign a form stating that they will pay for all care and health costs themselves throughout; if they want to give birth to a child that will die within six years then that's their right, but don't expect me to pay for it when the technology exists to prevent all that suffering and extra burdon on the health service.

Answer 11

Hello, Kurt! I am not a fan of genetic engineering. HOWEVER, I think it is unconscionable for intermarriage of persons of a high degree of consanguinity, because it inevitably results in children with afflictions aused by recessive traits.

The solution is necessary in todays environment of people marrying without knowing enough about their backgrounds, people not necessarily knowing who their real parents are, and especially, the fallout of issues like fertility clinics (using mass numbers of genetic material into a lot of families), repeated "distant" cousin marriage (in rural southern areas, and among the Amish), and in the American west, the fallout of polygamy.

There should be blood testing for consanguinity prior to marriage. This would put a damper on the increasing rate of recessive afflictions.

It should be completely illegal to use unborn babies as vessels of genetic material for others, because it violates right to life. Where it is possible to withdraw renewable cells from an infant (like blood or marrow, for instance), then it should be permitted only when needed to save the life of a person who is compatible (say, a sibling). It should not be permissible if it represents a serious risk to the infant.

Controlling consanguinity in relationships is the key to preventing recessive trait birth defects. In the course of the next thirty-five years, if steps were implemented to universally control for consanguinity, we would see such a dramatic reduction in genetic defects, that this issue would greatly diminish in importance.

I think transplants are OK so long as they do not involve aborted infants, or injured infants whose life supports are removed primarily or solely for the purpose of transplantation. I do not believe in removing life supports on any individual unless unavoidable brain death has occurred.