4 ms·

It shows the value of rare genetic disorders for biological and medical research, but I'm not sure it speaks for or against eugenics, it's a complex question...

by jkn 13y ago

It shows the value of rare genetic disorders for biological and medical research, but I'm not sure it speaks for or against eugenics, it's a complex question... Look at it from the point of view of an eugenics proponent: this disease is a good example of a genetic condition that you don't want spreading in future generations. Once we have treatments for the 7000 rare diseases mentioned in the article, we will have removed the evolutionary pressure that was keeping these diseases rare. Some eugenics supporters are afraid we are heading towards a society where everybody has to undergo a dozen lifelong treatments due to medicine effectively undermining the process of natural selection. I can also imagine parents suffering from this disease, not wanting to pass it on to their children. So people affected might strongly disagree with you...

Ygg2 13y ago
I guess you could say taking any position to an extreme is bad. However each of these diseases opens paths to future cures. It helps us understand human body better. And those cures will open ways to more ideas, etc. Without diseases we'll never have a chance to explore. I'm not negating those defects don't leave their parents in despair, but I speak from a position of a similar though magnitudes way milder defect (hip displacement). Eugenics taken to extreme would have discarded me. Eugenics on small scales does have some advantages, though I fear it would bring advantages in a way that will only widen inequalities i.e. only people with money would have enough money for it. Rich people wouldn't just have money, but also best looks and best health. Eugenics on large scales is on the other hand simply disastrous as it leaves monoculture and erradication of anything perceived as abnormal.
guard-of-terra 13y ago
We should use genetic engineering to fix known problems. In an embryo, probably.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
>Some eugenics supporters are afraid we are heading towards a society where everybody has to undergo a dozen lifelong treatments due to medicine effectively undermining the process of natural selection. So if you get cancer and there is a cure for it, you won't forego treatment to help natural selection work? What type of twisted logic is that?
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  I just hate downvotes without explanation. It's like, yeah you have a valid point here, but I don't like it, so here we go. Pathetic. Downvotes seemed to me to be designed to cut off rude remarks, not to silence valid points that someone may not be able or willing to handle.
  - jeltz 13y ago
    I interpreted your comment as a rude remark dismissing a long explanation from jkn for why this article could easily be used as an argument for eugenics. EDIT: BTW, down voted your comment above for being offtopic. So is this one so I wont blame anyone if they downvote.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      As long as you explain, I'm fine. Thanks!
- jeltz 13y ago
  Cancer is a very poor example when talking about eugenics since 1) most forms of cancer are non-hereditary and 2) cancer also rarely requires lifelong treatment, instead you either get cured or die (it can resurface though even when you think you are cured). And for eugenics to work you do not need to die, just not get any kids, which is why Sweden used to have people sterilized. One of the strongest arguments against eugenics is that when it has been applied in practiced it has brought out some of the worst sides in humans.
- jkn 13y ago
  The eugenic view I was referring to is not saying People should not be treated because it would spoil the gene pool but rather We certainly want to treat diseases, but this will spoil the gene pool unless we prevent the spread of bad genes Solutions to prevent the spread of bad genes range from quite evil (forced sterilization has been used extensively before WWII but I have never heard of something as bad as denying treatment) to slightly controversial, e.g. screening of embryos [1]. By the way, I have just stumbled on the Wikipedia page on dysgenics [2], which is more specifically what this argument is about. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnos... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics
kls 13y ago
This assumes that by removing the disadvantage that it automatically confers an advantage to those that are treated. They still need a genetic advantage to flourish. Granted there may be an uptick in people that carry the defect by the shear fact that it is no longer an disadvantage but that does not translate into a society where everyone suffers from this defect. Unless they carry some latent advantage that could not be recognized because of the sever genetic disadvantage. I prefer to look at it as we have moved past that disadvantage in much the same way that we moved passed smallpox, some of smallpox was nature and immunity the other half was eradication. I see us doing the same thing, just speeding up the timetables now that we know some of the mechanics to do so.
- jkn 13y ago
  I know next to nothing about the dynamics of gene transmission (if someone does please shed some light), but it seems quite obvious that the less evolutionary pressure you have against a gene, the more prevalent it will become. My intuition is that evolutionary pressure works against entropy. Without the pressure, the genome would evolve towards a state of maximum entropy, i.e. a particular mutation would reach a prevalence of about 50%. But of course there will always be some sort of evolutionary pressure.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I would expect more of a random walk. I suppose that very slowly genes would mutate by themselves, but as far as having certain genes spread, two kids multiplied by 50% chance equals the same number of people with the gene, generation after generation.
    - jkn 13y ago
      Well I was actually thinking about mutations :) Let's consider a simplified model, where there are only two different bases (A and G instead of A, T, G, C) and assume that the probabilities of mutations A->G and G->A are the same. Let's consider a single base mutation[1]. No matter what the mutation probability is, and no matter what the initial distribution is, I expect that the population will converge to about 50% A and 50% G. I guess you would agree. Now if we make this very wrong model a bit less wrong by including the four base types A, T, G, C, we can expect that each allele will be found in about 25% of the population. And that is for single base mutations only. A mutation that depends on the precise value of 5 different bases would be displayed by a much smaller share of the population (1/4^5 = 0.1% I guess). Of course people don't get born with fully random genomes like that, the vast majority of these mutations would not yield a living embryo. But still, the intuition we can get from this is that without evolutionary pressure, a particular mutation will eventually be found in a fraction of the population that is inversely proportional to the complexity of the mutation (in most cases that would be far from the 50% of my initial intuition). No idea how close these layman's speculations are from the reality... [1] Such as the gene that determines the type of ear wax: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythearwax.html http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythearwax.html

by jkn 13y ago

Ygg2 13y ago

I guess you could say taking any position to an extreme is bad. However each of these diseases opens paths to future cures. It helps us understand human body better. And those cures will open ways to more ideas, etc. Without diseases we'll never have a chance to explore. I'm not negating those defects don't leave their parents in despair, but I speak from a position of a similar though magnitudes way milder defect (hip displacement). Eugenics taken to extreme would have discarded me. Eugenics on small scales does have some advantages, though I fear it would bring advantages in a way that will only widen inequalities i.e. only people with money would have enough money for it. Rich people wouldn't just have money, but also best looks and best health. Eugenics on large scales is on the other hand simply disastrous as it leaves monoculture and erradication of anything perceived as abnormal.

guard-of-terra 13y ago

We should use genetic engineering to fix known problems. In an embryo, probably.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

>Some eugenics supporters are afraid we are heading towards a society where everybody has to undergo a dozen lifelong treatments due to medicine effectively undermining the process of natural selection. So if you get cancer and there is a cure for it, you won't forego treatment to help natural selection work? What type of twisted logic is that?

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
I just hate downvotes without explanation. It's like, yeah you have a valid point here, but I don't like it, so here we go. Pathetic. Downvotes seemed to me to be designed to cut off rude remarks, not to silence valid points that someone may not be able or willing to handle.
- jeltz 13y ago
  I interpreted your comment as a rude remark dismissing a long explanation from jkn for why this article could easily be used as an argument for eugenics. EDIT: BTW, down voted your comment above for being offtopic. So is this one so I wont blame anyone if they downvote.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    As long as you explain, I'm fine. Thanks!
jeltz 13y ago
Cancer is a very poor example when talking about eugenics since 1) most forms of cancer are non-hereditary and 2) cancer also rarely requires lifelong treatment, instead you either get cured or die (it can resurface though even when you think you are cured). And for eugenics to work you do not need to die, just not get any kids, which is why Sweden used to have people sterilized. One of the strongest arguments against eugenics is that when it has been applied in practiced it has brought out some of the worst sides in humans.
jkn 13y ago
The eugenic view I was referring to is not saying People should not be treated because it would spoil the gene pool but rather We certainly want to treat diseases, but this will spoil the gene pool unless we prevent the spread of bad genes Solutions to prevent the spread of bad genes range from quite evil (forced sterilization has been used extensively before WWII but I have never heard of something as bad as denying treatment) to slightly controversial, e.g. screening of embryos [1]. By the way, I have just stumbled on the Wikipedia page on dysgenics [2], which is more specifically what this argument is about. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnos... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics

kls 13y ago

This assumes that by removing the disadvantage that it automatically confers an advantage to those that are treated. They still need a genetic advantage to flourish. Granted there may be an uptick in people that carry the defect by the shear fact that it is no longer an disadvantage but that does not translate into a society where everyone suffers from this defect. Unless they carry some latent advantage that could not be recognized because of the sever genetic disadvantage. I prefer to look at it as we have moved past that disadvantage in much the same way that we moved passed smallpox, some of smallpox was nature and immunity the other half was eradication. I see us doing the same thing, just speeding up the timetables now that we know some of the mechanics to do so.

jkn 13y ago
I know next to nothing about the dynamics of gene transmission (if someone does please shed some light), but it seems quite obvious that the less evolutionary pressure you have against a gene, the more prevalent it will become. My intuition is that evolutionary pressure works against entropy. Without the pressure, the genome would evolve towards a state of maximum entropy, i.e. a particular mutation would reach a prevalence of about 50%. But of course there will always be some sort of evolutionary pressure.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I would expect more of a random walk. I suppose that very slowly genes would mutate by themselves, but as far as having certain genes spread, two kids multiplied by 50% chance equals the same number of people with the gene, generation after generation.
  - jkn 13y ago
    Well I was actually thinking about mutations :) Let's consider a simplified model, where there are only two different bases (A and G instead of A, T, G, C) and assume that the probabilities of mutations A->G and G->A are the same. Let's consider a single base mutation[1]. No matter what the mutation probability is, and no matter what the initial distribution is, I expect that the population will converge to about 50% A and 50% G. I guess you would agree. Now if we make this very wrong model a bit less wrong by including the four base types A, T, G, C, we can expect that each allele will be found in about 25% of the population. And that is for single base mutations only. A mutation that depends on the precise value of 5 different bases would be displayed by a much smaller share of the population (1/4^5 = 0.1% I guess). Of course people don't get born with fully random genomes like that, the vast majority of these mutations would not yield a living embryo. But still, the intuition we can get from this is that without evolutionary pressure, a particular mutation will eventually be found in a fraction of the population that is inversely proportional to the complexity of the mutation (in most cases that would be far from the 50% of my initial intuition). No idea how close these layman's speculations are from the reality... [1] Such as the gene that determines the type of ear wax: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythearwax.html http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythearwax.html