Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Couples to test embryos for cancer gene
UPI ^ | 04/27/07

Posted on 04/28/2007 7:43:29 AM PDT by nypokerface

LONDON, April 27 (UPI) -- Two British couples want to use an embryo selection technique to eradicate a breast cancer gene that runs in their families.

Scientists say screening for the defective BCRA1 gene would reduce the likelihood of cancer, The (London) Guardian reported Friday.

The London Times said an application to test for the breast cancer gene was submitted Thursday by a doctor at University College Hospital.

The newspaper said Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority has already agreed to it in principle. The application is expected to be approved within four months.

The couples will have in vitro fertilization, and a single cell will be removed from the embryos at the eight-cell stage and tested for the BRCA1 gene. Only unaffected embryos would be transferred to the women's wombs, The Guardian said.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: babykillers; bravenewworld; embryoselection; eugenics

1 posted on 04/28/2007 7:43:31 AM PDT by nypokerface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

Just wait for the outcry if parents start testing for the ‘gay’ gene.

2 posted on 04/28/2007 7:47:22 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside (Rudy Giuliani is just another "Empty Dress Republican")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

And how does the removal of 1/8 of the total cell affect the embryo? The doctors supposedly know what and how they are doing, but for a layman it would sound better were they to wait till 32-64 cells stage.

3 posted on 04/28/2007 7:48:17 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

I was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 46. Do these people think the previous 4 years of my life weren’t worth living because eventually I’d get cancer?

4 posted on 04/28/2007 7:49:45 AM PDT by pgkdan (Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
previous 4 years

Should be 46 years.

5 posted on 04/28/2007 7:51:38 AM PDT by pgkdan (Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cgk;; Salvation; wagglebee; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; NYer; ...

Here we go again...

You’d think eugenecists would understand the consequences of what they’re doing...but nope.

6 posted on 04/28/2007 8:11:20 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Why vote for Duncan Hunter in 2008? Look at my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
I don't believe the methodology they're using is acceptable (I don't believe in fertilizing embryos and then consigning them to a permanent state of suspended animation or destroying them) BUT I do (1) understand a woman's desire to screen out these BRACA mutations that often cause early-onset breast cancer and (2) believe that if less morally dubious methodologies of screening out BRACA 1 and 2 mutations are developed, they should be widely used.

I know two women who had the mutation and developed cancer in their mid-20s, one of whom died at 27, the other of whom had a double mastectomy and an oomphorectomy at 29 in order to decrease her estrogen levels and the chance of a recurrence and of course, now cannot have children.

7 posted on 04/28/2007 8:12:27 AM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cammie

Did both wish they had never been born?

8 posted on 04/28/2007 8:15:40 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace

Did you read my post? I said I was not in favor of creating embryos and then destroying them or placing them in suspended animation. HOWEVER, I can tell you with absolute 100% confidence that both of them wished that they had been born WITHOUT the mutation, and if they were offered the option to screen out the potential of BRACA 1 and 2 in offspring (of course, neither can have offspring now) they would have done it. My point is that although this methodology of screening out the mutation is not, to me, morally acceptable, we should not dismiss the possibility of using genetic manipulation to achieve substantial good results, such as fixing genetic mutations such as BRACA 1 and 2. God gave us a problem solving brain for a reason, and IMHO genetic manipulation is not inherently wrong.

9 posted on 04/28/2007 8:23:40 AM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface
Medical failure to understand natural selection bump. Eugenics is as antithetical to natural selection as the welfare state. How do they know whether or not this mutation bestows a metabolic or regenerative advantage during the fertile years which results in an overall increase in evolutionary fitness, an advantage which could possibly feature with more prominence during times of food stress or physical duress? If it is completely deleterious, the loss of fitness associated with reduced nurturing time (for children and grandchildren) will ensure (save for the welfare state) that the mutation will not persist. Nature itself is the best integrator of these variables.

This is a game best played on the creatures mankind has dominion over, not on mankind itself. For mankind, the stakes are far too high for error (error in process is immaterial long-term; far more critical is error in fundamental understanding).

10 posted on 04/28/2007 8:29:41 AM PDT by M203M4 (Constitutional Republic has a nice ring to it - alas, it's incompatible with the communist manifesto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Later Moral Absolutes pingout, thanks for alerting me.

11 posted on 04/28/2007 10:01:04 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for truth can know truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

With current technology, waiting until the 32+ cell stage does not yield results in time to transfer the embryo into the mother while it’s still viable. When the embryo reaches a stage where it’s ready to start implanting in the uterine lining, it needs to be a uterus. But there is no need for concern about the effects of removing a cell from an 8 cell (or even slightly smaller) embryo. Not only are there thousands of healthy children who have already been born after this procedure, but in the natural process of twinning, and embryo breaks into two parts and both develop normally after each has lost a lot more than one cell (this procedure has also been done routinely in cattle breeding for at least 30 years, to increase the number of offspring of highly desirable mothers — an embryo is created, deliberately broken in half at the 8 cell stage, and then the two embryos are transferred into different cows). Much as anti-abortion extremists like to claim that an 8 cell embryo is a “person”, it’s not — it can still become more than one person, or (less often, but still can occur naturally) part of a person, when it merges with another embryo that’s in the uterus at the same time (resulting in a person with mosaic chromosomes).

12 posted on 04/28/2007 10:11:07 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; ...
Couples to test embryos for cancer gene
First designer babies to beat breast cancer (couples allowed to select screened embryos)
Disturbing trend: Designer children designed to be disabled

Pope Benedict XVI speaks out against "designer babies"

Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer 

Many U.S. Couples Seek Embryo Screening (designing the dream child Alert!) 

Ethicists debate issues about beginning of life 


'Embryo Bank' Stirs Ethics Fears (Clients Pick Among Fertilized Eggs) 

Idea of 'designer' babies with defective genes stirs ethics questions

13 posted on 04/28/2007 2:20:46 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, insects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson