5 ms·

One reason why it might _not_ happen - lack of demand. Clearly I have a very small sample so it's merely an anecdote, but I haven't met anybody that wants this

by blowski 13y ago

One reason why it might _not_ happen - lack of demand. Clearly I have a very small sample so it's merely an anecdote, but I haven't met anybody that wants this for themselves, even if they think other people will want it. I know some people will want it, but it would need to be near universal for something like Gattaca to become reality.

mchusma 13y ago
Hmmm...my wife and I are trying right now and we would 100% want it. Not for sex, eye color, or hair color, but essentially everything else I would want if given the option.
Apocryphon 13y ago
I'd think gene therapies for people who discover that they're predisposed to diseases after DNA screening would have greater demand. There's a lot more people currently alive than being born. Each generation cares about its own survival more than future ones.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Doesn't everybody do a chromosome check now? Lots of people (most people) want it and do it, or something like it. Its currently limited only by what is affordable.
- Jgrubb 13y ago
  Probably outing myself as the hippy around here, but my wife and I opted out for all 3 of our kids. The entire traditional / medical / western / whatever you want to call it model of childbirth in New Jersey is very much about making you acutely aware of the things that you should be afraid of during the pregnancy. All of these things are detectable with a litany of very expensive tests! And you will be lectured and browbeaten to hell and back if you decline, so I imagine that factors heavily into the popularity of chromosome tests these days.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    I hope it all worked out for you. Much of the testing has results that are not actionable (short of abortion) so that helps decide what's worth doing and what's not.
    - Jgrubb 13y ago
      "not actionable (short of abortion)" Exactly, which we weren't gonna do. It's a complicated issue for sure, but it did work out for us. Thanks.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    The value of information depends on how that information will change your actions. Current prenatal testing, in essence, warns you about some (not nearly all) harsh diseases, and people may choose abortion after finding that out. There are some diseases where it actually allows a cure/therapy even before the embryo is born; but currently that's rather rare; so in general, if someone has already decided that they won't do an abortion, then doing those tests has no practical value at all.
- blowski 13y ago
  What is a chromosome check? We're currently expecting (in the UK) but haven't heard of anything like that.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    I googled 'prenatal testing' for you: http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/prenatal-tests http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/prenatal-tests
redthrowaway 13y ago
If I had the financial resources, and the science was well understood, I'd definitely consider it. I hold no sentimental attachment to the "natural" way of doing things -- cancer is natural, but that doesn't preclude me from seeking chemotherapy. Similarly, why wouldn't you use new medical science to make your baby as healthy as possible? And, if you've accepted "screening for genetic defects" as an acceptable use of the technology, why would "selecting for the most desirable traits" not be? Nature and nurture are just two factors that contribute to a child's wellbeing and success in life. If you'd be willing to send your child to a private school in the hopes of giving them a better education and a leg-up on the competition, why not give them better looks and higher intelligence (were it possible), as well? I've yet to see any convincing ethical arguments as to why this would be wrong. So far, every argument made in opposition to designer babies seems to boil down to "it's not natural". Well, neither is agriculture, medicine, the Internet... as a species, we've gotten to where we are by changing nature to suit us. Why should procreation be any different?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- blowski 13y ago
  I think this is a very big conversation for me to fire off a quick HN comment. I'm mostly ignorant about this, and my Christian faith probably clouds my judgement, so it's difficult to say whether I'm being objective and rational. However, I'm not convinced that medical science is there yet, so my child is just an iteration for big pharma. Perhaps we produce a whole generation of intelligent children who develop Alzheimer's when they're 25. I realise that argument is made against every new technology (especially medical), but making an active choice somehow makes me culpable and it would be harder to live with it. Also, there's the idea of what happens if this becomes universal. Since some traits seem universally desirable, all parents will choose to grant them. So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? Then there's the quality of life argument, which makes me deeply uncomfortable. Essentially, choosing a fully-sighted embryo over a partially-sighted one implicitly says "partially-sighted people are likely to have lower quality of life than fully-sighted ones", and that sounds wrong both ethically and practically. This is a really difficult debate, though. Put in the hypothetical situation of having to choose, I guess I would end up choosing the best possible embryo, but I'd rather not have to make the choice to begin with.
PeterisP 13y ago
If you have a hereditary genetic disease risk that you need/want (depending on the disease) to screen against, then the process is about as follows: 1. Make up a few (say, 6) in-vitro fertilized eggs; 2. Extract a cell (or multiple cells at later stage, depends on the tech) to run the genetic tests; 3. Discard those who carry the mutation; 4. Depending on random factors, now you have 0-4 potential embryos. If you have many, you need to choose which one(s) will be put in the mother. And this is the interesting part. At that point you already know quite a lot about each of those genomes - at the very least you definitely know all of their genders, but you do know (or can easily know) much much more already with the current tech. You have to make a choice anyway from that 'menu' of the few genomes that were just created. And absolutely any choice other than complete randomness will be biased towards something. So, the question to society, what amount of choice is 'acceptable'? Is throwing dice ok? Is looking at simulated extrapolated portraits ok? Is looking at statistical data allowed before making the choice?
- blowski 13y ago
  I think part of the reason I'm uncomfortable with this is that those characteristics I would most desire for my chlid, are not selectable. For example, happiness, gratitude, tolerance, etc. It's not clear whether greater intelligence makes you more or less happy.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Is choosing a boy to carry on the family name ok? (never mind there are no/few girls to marry any more)
protomyth 13y ago
I think the demand is there. I don't think a goodly chunk of religious folks[1] will object to removing certain problems from their children. It might get dicy the farther you go, but there are some many things parents struggle with that removing birth defects and future problems would be pretty popular. Sex selection is going to be a problem though. I think the problem will be on the supplier side. I look back at the cloned cats that don't look like the original (different hair color) and think that genetic selection will be very interesting from a Tort point of view. 1) ok, Christians in US - cannot really speak for the others

by blowski 13y ago

mchusma 13y ago

Hmmm...my wife and I are trying right now and we would 100% want it. Not for sex, eye color, or hair color, but essentially everything else I would want if given the option.

Apocryphon 13y ago

I'd think gene therapies for people who discover that they're predisposed to diseases after DNA screening would have greater demand. There's a lot more people currently alive than being born. Each generation cares about its own survival more than future ones.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

Doesn't everybody do a chromosome check now? Lots of people (most people) want it and do it, or something like it. Its currently limited only by what is affordable.

Jgrubb 13y ago
Probably outing myself as the hippy around here, but my wife and I opted out for all 3 of our kids. The entire traditional / medical / western / whatever you want to call it model of childbirth in New Jersey is very much about making you acutely aware of the things that you should be afraid of during the pregnancy. All of these things are detectable with a litany of very expensive tests! And you will be lectured and browbeaten to hell and back if you decline, so I imagine that factors heavily into the popularity of chromosome tests these days.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  I hope it all worked out for you. Much of the testing has results that are not actionable (short of abortion) so that helps decide what's worth doing and what's not.
  - Jgrubb 13y ago
    "not actionable (short of abortion)" Exactly, which we weren't gonna do. It's a complicated issue for sure, but it did work out for us. Thanks.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  The value of information depends on how that information will change your actions. Current prenatal testing, in essence, warns you about some (not nearly all) harsh diseases, and people may choose abortion after finding that out. There are some diseases where it actually allows a cure/therapy even before the embryo is born; but currently that's rather rare; so in general, if someone has already decided that they won't do an abortion, then doing those tests has no practical value at all.
blowski 13y ago
What is a chromosome check? We're currently expecting (in the UK) but haven't heard of anything like that.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  I googled 'prenatal testing' for you: http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/prenatal-tests http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/prenatal-tests

redthrowaway 13y ago

If I had the financial resources, and the science was well understood, I'd definitely consider it. I hold no sentimental attachment to the "natural" way of doing things -- cancer is natural, but that doesn't preclude me from seeking chemotherapy. Similarly, why wouldn't you use new medical science to make your baby as healthy as possible? And, if you've accepted "screening for genetic defects" as an acceptable use of the technology, why would "selecting for the most desirable traits" not be? Nature and nurture are just two factors that contribute to a child's wellbeing and success in life. If you'd be willing to send your child to a private school in the hopes of giving them a better education and a leg-up on the competition, why not give them better looks and higher intelligence (were it possible), as well? I've yet to see any convincing ethical arguments as to why this would be wrong. So far, every argument made in opposition to designer babies seems to boil down to "it's not natural". Well, neither is agriculture, medicine, the Internet... as a species, we've gotten to where we are by changing nature to suit us. Why should procreation be any different?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
blowski 13y ago
I think this is a very big conversation for me to fire off a quick HN comment. I'm mostly ignorant about this, and my Christian faith probably clouds my judgement, so it's difficult to say whether I'm being objective and rational. However, I'm not convinced that medical science is there yet, so my child is just an iteration for big pharma. Perhaps we produce a whole generation of intelligent children who develop Alzheimer's when they're 25. I realise that argument is made against every new technology (especially medical), but making an active choice somehow makes me culpable and it would be harder to live with it. Also, there's the idea of what happens if this becomes universal. Since some traits seem universally desirable, all parents will choose to grant them. So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? Then there's the quality of life argument, which makes me deeply uncomfortable. Essentially, choosing a fully-sighted embryo over a partially-sighted one implicitly says "partially-sighted people are likely to have lower quality of life than fully-sighted ones", and that sounds wrong both ethically and practically. This is a really difficult debate, though. Put in the hypothetical situation of having to choose, I guess I would end up choosing the best possible embryo, but I'd rather not have to make the choice to begin with.

PeterisP 13y ago

If you have a hereditary genetic disease risk that you need/want (depending on the disease) to screen against, then the process is about as follows: 1. Make up a few (say, 6) in-vitro fertilized eggs; 2. Extract a cell (or multiple cells at later stage, depends on the tech) to run the genetic tests; 3. Discard those who carry the mutation; 4. Depending on random factors, now you have 0-4 potential embryos. If you have many, you need to choose which one(s) will be put in the mother. And this is the interesting part. At that point you already know quite a lot about each of those genomes - at the very least you definitely know all of their genders, but you do know (or can easily know) much much more already with the current tech. You have to make a choice anyway from that 'menu' of the few genomes that were just created. And absolutely any choice other than complete randomness will be biased towards something. So, the question to society, what amount of choice is 'acceptable'? Is throwing dice ok? Is looking at simulated extrapolated portraits ok? Is looking at statistical data allowed before making the choice?

blowski 13y ago
I think part of the reason I'm uncomfortable with this is that those characteristics I would most desire for my chlid, are not selectable. For example, happiness, gratitude, tolerance, etc. It's not clear whether greater intelligence makes you more or less happy.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Is choosing a boy to carry on the family name ok? (never mind there are no/few girls to marry any more)

protomyth 13y ago

I think the demand is there. I don't think a goodly chunk of religious folks[1] will object to removing certain problems from their children. It might get dicy the farther you go, but there are some many things parents struggle with that removing birth defects and future problems would be pretty popular. Sex selection is going to be a problem though. I think the problem will be on the supplier side. I look back at the cloned cats that don't look like the original (different hair color) and think that genetic selection will be very interesting from a Tort point of view. 1) ok, Christians in US - cannot really speak for the others