Baby Born After Genetic Screening of Eggs

[Khephra]

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- A woman has given birth to what her doctor calls central New York's first genetically selected baby after her fertilized eggs were screened in a lab for a hereditary disease.

The healthy baby girl, Taylor Michaels, was born in early June after embryos created in a lab from the mother's eggs and father's sperm were tested for cystic fibrosis a deadly genetic disease that causes respiratory infections, breathing difficulty and permanent lung damage.

Dr. Robert Kiltz, director of the CNY Fertility Center in Syracuse, said they used pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, to screen the embryos, a procedure that has been available for about five years at fertility clinics in big U.S. cities.

The parents, Mary and Mike Michaels, are both cystic fibrosis carriers. Although they don't have the disease, there is a 25 percent chance their offspring will. The Michaels found they were carriers when their 4-year-old daughter, Tess, was born with cystic fibrosis, Mary Michaels said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-genetic-selection,0,7446382.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[Robb]

1. It begins

Man, I just don't know how to feel about this. I mean, cystic fibrosis is nothing to brush off, but here comes that slippery slope we were all talking about.

[NashVegas]

2. Just As Long As It Doesn't Replace Sex

I'm not so bothered.

[D-Notice]

3. What's the problem?

They've prevented a person from having a horrible genetic disease...

[hightime]

4. Next they can prevent a person from having a female baby......

or a male. Then maybe anything but a blond haired baby, don't forget the blue eyes.

[trotsky]

5. And they need to be tall.

Oh, and good looking.

Yes, slippery slope indeed.

[SoCalDem]

7. In theory, yes....but let me tell you this

the psychic , financial, and physical pain that accompanies a child born less than perfect is horrendous.. If there is a procedure that will identify the healthiest eggs, why on earth would they NOT at least try to avoid having a handicapped child?/

You do not "bond" with a 4 celled zygote in a petri dish, so it's not truly a conflict..

The whole issue is moot anyway, since only a select few will be able to afford this procedure, and I would suspect that most insurance companies will not even cover it, so there is really no need for the uproar..

Most people only want a healthy child...boy or girl..

[Robb]

9. Oh, I agree with you

...but you raise an interesting issue with the fact that only a select few will be able to afford the procedure. Historically, folks with money (taken as a group) don't have a good track record with keeping things ethical.

But I agree, most people just want a healthy child; as ever, though, it's the fringe that will define the debate.

[treepig]

11. but what is the cost of this procedure

compared with the cost of treating a patient with a chronic disease such as this? i suspect it's less.

perhaps insurance companies will not only pay for this type of analysis/procedure, but will actually insist on it.

[SoCalDem]

13. If insurance companies DO start requiring it, I doubt that it would

used for "frivolous" selections.. Insurance companies are famous for being "frugal", so I don't think they will be jumping on this bandwagon anytime soon..

Eventually, people may be screened routinely for "inherited" problems, but people will have to fight this because it will be most likely used as a way to DENY any coverage..

[Th1onein]

28. My son had cystic fibrosis and died of it at the age of 21.......

But if you were to ask him if he would rather have not lived, I think that you know what the answer would be. He loved life. Loved it. And he gave so MUCH to everyone who knew him.

This is a slippery slope, indeed.

[Voice_of_Europe]

6. I feel good with it as long as the selection is not "cosmetic" or racist

I feel good about it. Certainly almost every people with such a disease would prefer to be born without it. I weigh 1 healthy born person more than 1 some discared sperm or 8-cell clump.
Every drop of blood or 1 hair or a dicarded toenail has more cells or more LIFE in it.

Why do people weigh so much that this one 0,00001 milimeter egg and this one 0,000001 sperm COULD evolve into a human being!?
Imagine wanking off makes you a MASS MURDERER!!


So I feel quite comfortable with the selection process as long as the choice is between a healthy child and a child that will suffer all his life.
But the world certainly needs a consense about what is a disease and what is cosmetic or racist.

[treepig]

8. could you please elaborate on how this procedure could be racist?

considering that the race of the parents is pretty much known in advance?

or do embryos randomly assume different nationalities and ethnicities?

so there's so much about biology i still need to learn . . .

[GinaMaria]

14. Here's an example

Being of Italian decent, there are people in my family with extremely fair skin, Northern Italian, red hair, blue/green eyes and people with darker olive skin and brown eyes. Guess which genetic combination was prefered in my family? The fair skinned, red or blond hair, and light eyes. My mother asked the doctor every time she was pregnant what her chances of having a fair baby were. It's real.

Here's another example from another family, also Italian. This family was Sicilian. In Sicily you will find many 'dark' Italians. Let's face it the trade routes were established years ago between Romans and Eotheopeans. They traded more than cattle and gems and wheat. They also traded genetic material. I know someone born in a Sicilian family who carried the African traits going back generations and generations. He looked different from his family. If they could have changed him, they would have. They did not accept him or their own ancestry.

I can't remember the % of southern 'white' Americans who have 'black' ancestors. It's fairly high. This is real and it's a legitimate concern.

[treepig]

15. ok, if you consider skin and hair color to racial indicators . . .

but since geneticists don't really even recognize that "race" has a genetic basis per se, that's maybe stretching things a bit.

anyhow, if somebody does prefer to have blond hair, i suggest that a genetic selecton at the embryo stage (if it's ever possible) is probably a better option than a lifetime of using semi-toxic hair coloring dyes.

but people tend to be irrationally squeamish about genetic alterations, even though at their root they're just simple chemical changes to a cellular component.

[GinaMaria]

25. strange logic

If geneticists don't recognize race as genetic then there can technically be no racism? Not buying that. Racial classifications are found on census forms and polling information. Races: Asian, Caucasian... ethnicity is something different, it appears to be more about self identification like African American, Native American... Nationality, I believe, describes citizenship.

Who cares if geneticists don't recognize race? Other people do and given the chance there are those who will choose some 'racial' traits over others. I believe that's what the other poster was refering to.

"ok, if you consider skin and hair color to racial indicators . . ."


Um this isn't about me. It's about the world we live in and the people that inhabit it. Race is clearly defined in our culture by visible traits and features, like eye color and hair color and skin color.

[NickB79]

26. Treepig is right

Geneticists generally do not consider race to have much, if any, genetic basis. Our concepts of race are primarily socially constructed, not based on specific genes. Thus, there can be racism, even if the concept of race itself is not supported by science. Hell, when has sound science ever stopped wingnuts from spewing illogical crap like racism, creationism, trickle-down economics, or global-warming-is-a-lie?

[treepig]

27. what i'm talking about . . .

from CNN:

There's no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all," said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford geneticist and author of "The Seven Daughters of Eve." "I'm always asked is there Greek DNA or an Italian gene, but, of course, there isn't. . . . We're very closely related."

Likewise, The New England Journal of Medicine once editorialized bluntly that "race is biologically meaningless."


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/11/nyt.kristof/



or the atlantic:

"Race has no genetic or scientific basis," said Craig Venter, whose company, Celera Genomics, has been sequencing and analyzing human DNA.


http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/04/olson-p1.htm

the point being, if science cannot identify race-specific genes, how could they ever be manipulated/selected by these in vitro fertilizatoin technologies?

[GinaMaria]

32. if there is a way to id blue eyes or

blond hair, these are the traits that many will hope to exploit. Is it your position that these genes or traits are not and will never be identified?

What difference does it make if science says skin color is not a trait of race, if skin color is what makes humans racists? If humans can identify it, they will exploit it.

I think our main difference here is you are defending geneticists as not racists and my position has very little to do with geneticists and everything to do with non-geneticists human beings. So while skin color to a geneticist may not be an indicator of race, skin color is an indicator of race to many non geneticists. Let me know if I have not understood your position correctly. It struck me we might be focusing on two different groups.

BTW, loved the Seven Daughters of Eve. Sykes enthusiam for his chosen field made me wish I had had him for biology lectures instead of the professorial equivelants of Bob Dole. In reference to your Sykes quote, Greek and Italian are not races. They (Greeks and Italians) would be considered caucasian, which is a race classification. It may not be a race classification to geneticists but to government census takers and many others in our world it is.

Sykes explanation of mitrochondrial DNA is spectacular in his book. I believe he said something like 2% of our DNA is what accounts for the differences we see between ourselves and others. Unfortunately, most people do not think like geneticists, they see the 2% difference as much larger. I remember relating this factoid to a freeper associate who responded by saying 'So, there's only 4% genetic difference between us and frogs!'

My husbands sister found someone here in the states who does similar research. They examined DNA from her, her mother and her mother's mother and found they are of Native American ancestry. They had found an old picture of a woman they were related to in a Native American headress. They also had traits found more often in Native Americans. So out of curiosity they pursued it. My SIL loves geneology and spends countless winter hours tracing her roots. Like anything, it's all in how it's used.

[Voice_of_Europe]

39. true...

Well, basically you are right...

But lets say the mother got some jewish genes/allels and the afther doesnt and you want the embryo which does not have those genes...

Or the usual thing: will my child be blond and blue eyed?

Of course a black man and a black woman will have a more or less black child. But if the mother has 1 white ancestor this will already influence the degree of the blackness of the child depending on which gene set she passes on to the child.

Remember; you have TWO sets of genes in you and they are not the same, and only the "stronger" set (allel) of genes shapes how you look:

Example:
My mother is dark haired, my father is dark haired, my sister is blond??!! No, it was not the milkman but the supressed genetic heritage of my parents... my mother has a "blond" gene in her and my father too... my sister has the combination of 2 blond genes, therefor she is blond.
I got no blond gene, or maybe only 1 and the dark gene is stronger, therefor I'm darkhaired.

All I know: Racists WILL find a way to use this... ^_^
And racists will randomly define how you have to look to be "one of them"

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. don't worry, this will only affect rich people

The rich will have the superbabies and the rest of us will be normal. Luckily, there's still more regular people than there are rich people.

[donsu]

23. the slope is not slippery, it has stepping stones of hope

you'd have to be insane to want to produce a baby that in probability will be damaged.

but, oh, the happiness to produce a wanted, healthy baby with the help of medical scientists.

[Barrett808]

10. The first Gattaca baby.

Cool.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

[Mace]

38. My thoughts exactly

[chimpy the poopthrower]

16. my thoughts...

First, I don't like the idea of relying on the tightfistedness of private insurance companies to protect the world from the dangers of new technologies like this. It's a bad thing to let companies with no conscience and only a strong profit motive be the gatekeepers for medical technologies with controversial ethical issues. Though it may seem workable in the short term, sooner or later it's going to break down.

Second, and related, I see a lot of fear in some responses here -- not of the technology itself but of the people in the world who might misuse it. As a liberal progressive, I tend to be cautiously hopeful of society as a whole, respectful of the rights of individuals to make decisions regarding themselves and their offspring, and wary of the inevitable "bad apples" who need to be reined in.

Being a progressive means welcoming progress and accepting the responsibility that comes with it. It's easy to cite slippery slope arguments to dismiss this technology as anything but a potential evil. It's tempting to look at the potential (and in this case very real) benefits and ignore the ethical perils. But what we really need to be doing is coming up with a framework for this technology that includes sensible regulations designed to honor private decisions while considering the well-being of society. The way that is done is by electing public servants who display wisdom, integrity, and insight, and by having honest and intelligent open debate about this topic that includes input from medical ethicists and others.

(Ahem...stepping off soapbox now.) ;-)

[undergroundpanther]

17. This is eugenics people

Perfect babies,
Babies with perfect eyes, limbs or looks. Everyone will be just perfect...Except for the underclass who will be marred by pollution damaged genes, diseases,and disabilities.
People have fear/fascination about the different or disabled.
They fear"mental defectives" more than a mere missing hand.

Genetic screening will make us the same..
Those of us who are not"normal" will be treated as less than human because the genetic faults,destine them to be less.People rationalize this,and feel a kind of fear looking at a person who is not like them.

Did you know some people who are born blind don't feel this joy if they get sight like "normals" have.Some ex blind people get depressed when they finally get to see.

Blind people sometimes can easier tell a liar than sighted people can because appearances don't get in the way,they hear what is being said,without visual distractions like attractiveness,body cues,conscious covering up ect...

It's the myth and pursuit of this "normal" that will destroy this world in all it's nessary living diversity. Mono culture is not a way to evolve or survive.Normal is the most unnatural man invented horrific idea ever forced upon this world.

Disabled people are worth existance.
We are all different and we are all equally worthy of life and have a right to be who we are ,as we are..

[SoCalDem]

18. Do YOU have a handicapped child??

I do, and if there had been a way to determine it from a pre-implanted egg, I would have loved to have known..

Does that mean I do not love my firstborn?? No.. I love him desperately, admire his courage for what he had to endure (and still does).. Would I have spared him the suffering, if I could have had foreknowledge?? You bet.. He is who he is because he was BORN to us.. When he was a 4 celled zygote, we did not KNOW him...

[TexasBushwhacker]

29. I totally agree with you

First off all, if the technology is there, shouldn't the parents have the right to use it if they wish? Who are we to say otherwise? We aren't the ones who will have to love and raise this child, pay for their care, watch them suffer, etc. I would think this kind of screening would be preferable to having a pregnancy and doing genetic testing on a fetus, then aborting if the fetus shows evidence of a defect, whether it's cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, sickle cell anemia, Down's Syndrome or countless other genetic conditions. The parents have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, shouldn't they have the right to choose which zygote is implanted?

[treepig]

19. this is not eugenics

eugenics is government (or society)- mandated policies that encourage/force the "more fit" to reproduce and prevent the "less fit" from doing so.

individual people making individual choices is not eugenics. not any more so than taking advantage of (mainly superstitious) methods of selecting the gender of your offspring by the help of helpful web-based-rip-off services such as:

http://www.mpbm.com/English/home.html

[smirkymonkey]

22. Just wait...

it's only a matter of time.

[Pithlet]

31. It is no more eugenics

then my decision to have no more children is. You don't know what the word means. If I knew that there was a good chance that my next child would suffer from a horrible disease, and I decided to have no more children based on that knowledge, is that eugenics? If technology allowed me to be certain that my next child would not suffer from that disease, and I availed myself of that technology, what is wrong with that? Why would it be better to take a crap shoot and possibly have a child that suffers in extreme pain and lives a short life? This will allow people to have children who otherwise would not want the risk.

This is no different ethically than people who use IVF and have multiple embryos created. If we're going to decry this technology, then we should decry ALL of it. These people aren't selecting children for their gender or looks.

[The Commie]

34. It is not Eugenics...

...because the parents aren't forced to do it. Also, not everybody wants kids with blond hair and blue eyes, that is just a northern european thing, probably related to sexual selection.

[Kadie]

20. As someone who has gone through infertility treatment

and in vitro, I think this is great. The parents in this case had a 25% chance of passing along cystic fibrosis to their child.

Before going through IVF in the first place they test you for many things including HIV. If they are able to make an accurate determination, then it is great that the parents have the opportunity to decide if they want to use the eggs or not.

Fertility rights is one of the reasons I am pro-choice. Not just the right to end a pregnancy, but also the right to go as far as you feel comfortable to get pregnant.

As far as the slippery slope, I am sure that congress will step in and make laws about choosing eye color etc..., also, most doctors out there are pretty good. I am sure that most wouldn't let their patients go that far. Of course, there are some bad doctors out there and I am sure there will be laws.

[primavera]

50. I think legislation could help

It goes without saying that this sort of procedure could not be performed through a take-home kit purchased at your local drug store: you would need expensive facilities with lots of equipment and highly trained professionals to do the procedure. Such professionals are going to be reluctant to risk their medical licenses just because some deranged basketball fan wants his son to be a mutant, ten foot tall giant. I mean, to some degree, that holds true already, doesn't it? Medical science is capable of performing some operations, yet refrains from doing so because they contradict established medical ethics and existing law. Why assume that genetic screening would be any different?

[enki23]

21. good

now we need to make such technology available to people on a much more equitable basis.

[Pachamama]

24. Great news in the battle against Cystic Fibrosis...I'm happy for the them.

...and other carriers and families suffering from CF, a terrible disease and killer...

[Malva Zebrina]

30. If I had a choice of whether to bring a child into the world that would

suffer and whose family would also suffer pain and grief, I would choose not to inflict that on any one of my children.

as a mother, I would do everything possible to spare my child suffering from any chronic disease. My baby would, as far as I am concerned, be entitled to begin life without this disease looming over it and inevitable sickness and suffering.

Why would anyone want to birth a child knowing they would inflict suffering upon it with that decision?

[GinaMaria]

33. don't know but as a former peds RN

I can tell you there are families out there who after receiving genetic counseling after the birth of a first child with CF will continue to have children. There are families in which all (3 or 4 children or more) the children have CF.

This might not be an answer to your question, but I think it's a personal decision on the part of the parents and I don't judge whatever they decide to do. I probably would not make the same decision as they did, but it was their choice to make.

[Malva Zebrina]

43. perhaps as a former ped nurse, I saw too many of them suffering or dying

I think it not a judgement as much as an opinion. I would not make that decision either.

Gina , I think there are some situations in this world that allow me, even require me, to make a judgement on the behavior of others.

We navigate through this life by making judgements on others when necessary and it is not unethical to do so and sometimes it is expedient to do so. So I am walking out of that sermon today. :-)

My personal feeling is that by calling every pregnancy a "miracle" bestowed on persons by a god, or by attributing something mysterious, sacred and spiritual to it, is counterproductive many times and is the reason why women will tough it out even though there is certain predictable suffering ahead. To be honest,I think the "pro-life" view is destructive and not constructive or conducive to a healthy, happy life here. I think it, the pro-life at any cost view, even cruel or perhaps self destructive , or perhaps the result of some other ego driven wishes or fantasies.



I could make the case , from my own personal opinion, that it is even negligent for a parent to do so, knowing the pain and suffering caused by the disease, now that we have the technology that would allow parents that screening.

We have parents accused of child abuse all the time and prosecuted and sent to jail.

[GinaMaria]

48. understood

I look at the situation as a decision I would never want to have to make. I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes. I support parent's decisions because I am Pro choice. I want to be free to make my own decisions, free of anyone else's judgement and opinions. No one knows my history, my feelings, my capabilities or my beliefs and therefore cannot rightfully make the decision for me.

Witnessing the death of someone with CF is horrendous. It is a terrible way to die. I never worked with a child with CF who didn't want more life not less. If you asked them if they would rather not have been born, I don't think their answer would be yes.

However, If this could be prevented in the first place, I don't see any reason for subjecting someone to life long disease that will eventually take his or her life.

[bleedingheart]

35. This is a good application of this technology

I have not walked in the shoes of a parent whose child has CF but both my children have asthma and I know that it can be very stressful for us when our kids have had serious attacks or been hospitalized. Until you have to wait for an ambulance to arrive at your home because your son is gasping for air...and a minute seems like an hour...and you are crying and you have to leave the house so that your child won't see your anguish...you can't tell me that these people are wrong.... now asthma runs in both my husband's and my family and I now I have a stethoscope always available along with a host of meds including an emergency dose of steriods....but...

My heart goes out to the parents of the children who suffer from CF but it takes a rare individual who would knowingly bring a child into the world who may or may not live past the age of 13....it is just too much hurt.

My kids will most likely (God/Goddess willing) a long life...but those poor children without a cure are doomed..so the only solution to the genetic screening is to find the cure.

[Rex]

36. As long as she doesn't develop mutant powers.

I'm down with it.

[Hekate]

37. Huntington's disease, hemophelia, Tay-Sachs...

How wonderful for this new baby and her parents that technology can now be used to screen for inherited diseases that can kill, cripple, or maim. What an incredible blessing for all concerned.

Bioethics is a fertile (pardon the pun) field in this country -- we need to keep a healthy dialog going between science and the humanities as we enter largely uncharted territories.

Re: gender selection. Much, much simpler technology is used for sex-selection -- and in certain Asian countries a slight but discernable shift has already taken place over the past two decades. Left to nature, there should be slightly more boys born in a given population and slightly more women by adulthood. China and Korea both now have more males than females entering adulthood -- social problems already developing in China, where the "one-child" law means families will choose to give birth to a boy if they can.

Hekate

[ze_dscherman]

40. Very mixed feelings about that

I suffer from a hereditary type of diabetes (MODY, most probably, can't affor the testing, but symptoms and the fact my father got it as well match perfectly).

Now, this is nothing like cystic fibrosis, but of course a costly disease that probably also shortens my life expectancy and may cause me much suffering.

I did have children before the onset of my diabetes (they may also have inherited it) and will not have more children. But would I have liked them to be selected? Would I like to have been sorted out because, among the many gifts I inherited from my parents, I also inherited diabetes?

Of course, if I carried genes of one of the more deadly diseases, I would probably greet the opportunity to test my "future" children. But where's the limit?

Slippery slope, indeed.

[SoCalDem]

41. Technology like this can never be retroactive, BUT it could offer YOU

a chance to "stop the disease in its tracks".. You chose to not have more kids because of the chance of transmitting it...but if you could have a test that would eliminate the transmittal of it, you could be more or less assured that it would end in your family..

That's a positive..

Screening like this can not be 100%, but it might allow families to have children, who might not have before..

[ze_dscherman]

44. No, I did not chose ...

to stop having more kids because of the chance of transmitting a (not so major) disease - I just thought two of them were enough. I made the choice before I even knew I was a "hereditary" diabetic - and I would not have let that knowledge influence my decision.

It would probably be different with a real bad disease.

[SoCalDem]

45. I have a friend whose husband had polycystic kidney disease

and he did not know he had it until they had 4 kids.. He died of it before he was 36, and Tammy had the boys tested for it and the 5 yr old and the 10 yr old tested positive.. The doctor suggested that she not even tell them until they are older..

Rick's dad died from it, so did his uncle, and that's when he got tested, but he did not get tested til he was 25, and he already had the 4 kids....

another friend has the same disease, and she decided early on to not have kids.. it's sad, because she would have made a great mom.:(
They tried adopting, but had no luck because her husband had a brush with skin cancer, and her medical prognosis, made it a no-go.. The adoption counsellor, as much as told them to forget it..

[treepig]

46. you mention that your diabetes is "costly"

exactly what do you mean by that?

1) it "costs" you - not in the financial sense, but in the sense that you suffer physical pain?

2) it "costs" you - because it prevents you from obtaining as good of a job as you could otherwise get?

3) it "costs" you - because you have to purchase medications?


if option #3 is true - aren't you directly going against what mother nature intends for you? tsk, tsk, tsk - who knows where that slipperly slope will lead. why, next you might be seen riding in one of those new-fangled horse-less carriages. that's not natural at all - and, btw, if they ever catch on, who knows what havoc they'll wreak on good ole mother earth . . .

[ze_dscherman]

47. Sorry, I don't get your point

Science and progress is nothing wrong in itself - it just depends on what is done with it. I work in the biotech sector myself.

I just expressed my opinion that the screening of embryos for hereditary diseases might become slippery slope. I do think it can be valid in cases of diseases like cystic fibrosis. But my question is where one is supposed to draw the line? I have chosen myself and hereditary diabetes as an example: this is a costly disease(in terms of medication) and potentially crippling (if not treated properly)disease, but one can learn to to live with it. Should my children, if they inherit the disease, screen their potential children? What about people that have other genetic dispositions to "minor" diseases?

[treepig]

49. my point is how is this latest development the "slippery slope?"

if we are indeed on the dreaded slippery slope, didn't we get there back when the in vitro fertilization technology was first used in the 1970s?

or when synthetic DNA was first synthesized back in the 1960's that ultimately led to the development of PCR-based diagnostic techniques?

or even when the early common ancestors of humans/apes first learned how to use a tool (a twig to get ants out of an anthill) to thwart mother nature's sense of "how things should be"? i suspect the man-apes had agonizing discussions about the use of twigs - sure, they could be used for good (increasing the food supply) - but couldn't they also be used for great evil (poking out your sibling's eye?). if only they had eschewed the use of this early technology, how different things could be today . . .

[ronabop]

42. Racism!

Against blue-eyed, blond, fair skinned, people!

Unless they're people in africa....

Maybe it's...

Racisim!

Against people with immunity to malaria...

Unless they live in the tropics, and deal with scikle cell anemia....

*sigh*

There is no perfect human.