Couples Cull Embryos - P.G.D. (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis)

[Eurobabe]

What thinks ye about this?

Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer (NY Times)

As Chad Kingsbury watches his daughter playing in the sandbox behind their suburban Chicago house, the thought that has flashed through his mind a million times in her two years of life comes again: Chloe will never be sick.

Not, at least, with the inherited form of colon cancer that has devastated his family, killing his mother, her father and her two brothers, and that he too may face because of a genetic mutation that makes him unusually susceptible.

By subjecting Chloe to a genetic test when she was an eight-cell embryo in a petri dish, Mr. Kingsbury and his wife, Colby, were able to determine that she did not harbor the defective gene. That was the reason they selected her, from among the other embryos they had conceived through elective in vitro fertilization, to implant in her mother’s uterus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/health/03gene.web.html?ei=5094&en=56d2e2bde7909ba7&hp=&ex=1157342400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1157276192-lyR6HueTdGq2Unqj7UgWCw

[Kutjara]

1. Well, as someone who suffers from...

...a form of muscular dystrophy that has a 50% chance of being passed on to any children I may have, I'm faced with the unappealing choice of either using a similar technology (when and if it becomes available) to 'select' embryos that don't carry my mutation, or not having 'natural' children at all.

For the time being, my wife and I have accepted the latter option but, if a testing and selection procedure becomes available, I confess we'll be sorely tempted.

[pooja]

2. There are many children out there in this world who would enjoy the

love of a family. It is inherently wonderful to have children of your own, but truly greater to love that of not your own as your own.

[Kutjara]

15. Yes, absolutely.

Adoption is a thing we're actively investigating now. Thanks for pointing that out. I accidentally omitted it from my post.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Kutjara -- is your hesitation because of uncertainty?

Just curious. Do you object to genetic testing or have doubts about the reliability?

[Kutjara]

14. No, I don't object to testing.

It's just that the test for my disease doesn't exist yet, and there's no cure for what I have. So, if I decide to have children, I'm essentially putting a gun against their head with a 50% chance of shooting them. That's something I just won't do. Bring on the test, I say.

[ikojo]

3. I suggest people rent or buy the movie

Gattica. It came out in the late 90s..here is a blurb..will workers of the future have to submit proof of genetic screening and freedom from certain diseases, with only those not predisposed to disease being hired or provided company provided health insurance?




http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767805712?v=glance

Confidently conceived and brilliantly executed, Gattaca had a somewhat low profile release in 1997, but audiences and critics hailed the film's originality. It's since been recognized as one of the most intelligent science fiction films of the 1990s. Writer-director Andrew Niccol, the talented New Zealander who also wrote the acclaimed Jim Carrey vehicle The Truman Show, depicts a near-future society in which one's personal and professional destiny is determined by one's genes. In this society, "Valids" (genetically engineered) qualify for positions at prestigious corporations, such as Gattaca, which grooms its most qualified employees for space exploration. "In-Valids" (naturally born), such as the film's protagonist, Vincent (Ethan Hawke), are deemed genetically flawed and subsequently fated to low-level occupations in a genetically caste society. With the help of a disabled "Valid" (Jude Law), Vincent subverts his society's social and biological barriers to pursue his dream of space travel; any random mistake--and an ongoing murder investigation at Gattaca--could reveal his plot. Part thriller, part futuristic drama and cautionary tale, Gattaca establishes its social structure so convincingly that the entire scenario is chillingly believable. With Uma Thurman as the woman who loves Vincent and identifies with his struggle, Gattaca is both stylish and smart, while Jude Law's performance lends the film a note of tragic and heartfelt humanity. --Jeff Shannon

[mcscajun]

5. "Gattaca" was my very first thought when I read the whole article.

Especially this paragraph:

The process is also difficult and expensive. P.G.D., which requires in vitro fertilization, can cost tens of thousands of dollars. While insurance companies often pay for the more traditional uses of the procedure, they have not done so for cancer-risk genes, fertility experts say. The barrier to affordability, some critics fear, could make preimplantation diagnosis for cancer risk the first significant step toward a genetic class divide in which the wealthy will become more genetically pure than the poor.

If this took hold as a common procedure (granted, it would take some time for that to happen, and it's not a certainty that it would) you'd have your genetically pure elite, and your ever day working force, relegated to the janitorial and other menial staffs.

There's also this consideration, of which we will not know the impact, if any, for decades yet:

Prospective parents who want to avail themselves of P.G.D. must first undergo the same in vitro fertilization process often used to assist infertile couples, in which eggs are extracted from the mother and fertilized with the father’s sperm in a petri dish. When the resulting embryos are three days old, doctors remove a single cell from each and analyze its DNA. Only embryos without the defective gene are then considered candidates to implant in the mother’s uterus.

The out-of-pocket costs often exceed $25,000, depending on how many in vitro cycles are required. Because embryos are selected for their genetic status, rather than solely by which look the healthiest, the chance that they will fail to develop after implantation is higher. And despite the birth of thousands of apparently healthy babies after P.G.D., there is still concern that the long-term effects of removing a cell from an eight-cell embryo have not been studied enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/health/03gene.web.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=56d2e2bde7909ba7&hp&ex=1157342400&adxnnl=0&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1157288785-qNUDia1D/oSKDhSQA0b1mQ

A brand-new developing human embryo has eight cells at the point at which they remove one. How does the body develop missing 1/8th of its intended makeup? What unknown effects might this lack of material mean to the body, long-term?

[Hav]

6. .

Of course, one doesn't want to see his own child getting cancer, but these points are remarkable indeed.
I think it was similar with pediatric oncolgy. The results were pretty good first but after 10 to 20 years, there were enormous late time effects.
One can only imagine what happens when we suddenly find out, that they will probably just drop dead after 30 or 40 years.

[Nobody]

9. I thought of GATTACA also

More testing should be done to see what the long term effects are for Chloe and others like her. No matter what the advance, there's always going to be someone who will pervert it. Because some women voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, that wouldn't justify repealing the 19th Amendment.

People don't need complete DNA testing/designing/certified cancer-free to discriminate based on likelihood of disease. They do this now. Just look at smoking. There are companies right now who do nicotine tests at random, and even if you smoke on your own time in your own home when no one else can breathe your exhaled air, you will be fired. You'll still test positive even if you quit smoking three weeks ago. Nicotine doesn't clear out of your system for a month, but after that month, quitting becomes easier. And even then, if you quit and use Nicorette or the Patch or anything other than cold turkey, you'll still test positive and it's bye bye job. Corporations shouldn't do this, but the two companies I know of are getting away with it.

I'm very curious to know what the long term effects. Will this reduce life expectancy? Will it increase vulnerability to other diseases? Will it breed true? Have they tested this on animals?

----

A few thoughts on GATTACA.
This was a treat to watch, but they really could have addressed a lot more. Instead they went down the predictable Brother vs Brother path.

I wanted to know whether this future had a vastly skewed sex ratio. Hollywood has a tendency to showing few women anywhere, so having only two female characters throughout the whole movie wasn't very informative. In a book, it would have been obvious, but not in a Hollywood movie where women only make up about 20% of the population anyway.

Would Vince have had the option of emigrating to a less developed country where this kind of discrimination was unheard of? Would he want to, given his goal of space travel? The movie skipped his adolescence and it wasn't made clear where he was educated. He learned how to do the job somehow. Perhaps he studied in France, Russia, or India, maybe even China. How about the rest of the world? India might have latched onto DNA selection technology and limited it to Brahmins only, maybe Kshatriyas as well, but not lower castes. Other countries might have laws limiting the procedure to certain things. Hollywood is very US centric.

What were the percentages for natural births in the general population. Vince's parents when they conceived him naturally vs his brother Anton who was cooked up in a petri dish never made any references to whether they were pioneers or doing what everyone else was doing.

At least it wasn't a constant chase scene or a pick them off one by one bloodbath. It's too bad this wasn't a book first. A book would have addressed more of the social ramifications than the movie did (or would have time to). On the other hand Matrix wouldn't have worked as a book as well as it did as a movie.

[mcscajun]

10. I have one answer for you, but only one, and that a partial answer.

and that's to this:
What were the percentages for natural births in the general population. Vince's parents when they conceived him naturally vs his brother Anton who was cooked up in a petri dish never made any references to whether they were pioneers or doing what everyone else was doing.

It's clear that there were no percentages given, but the practice was certainly common; Vincent's parents were not pioneers at all. The ubiquitous nature of the practice is brought out in the walk-up windows where full genetic scans of anyone you've got a sample on can be gotten on the spot. In additon, these quotes make it a commonplace:

Vincent: I'll never understand what possessed my mother to put her faith in God's hands, rather than her local geneticist.

Dr. Lamar: Jerome, never shy, pisses on command. Beautiful piece of equipment you've got there Jerome. I ever told you that?
Vincent: Only every time I'm in here.
Dr. Lamar: Occupational hazard. I see a great many on the course of any given day. Your's just happens to be an exceptional example. Don't know why my folks didn't order one like that for me.

What else is not made clear is who does not have this done: those who oppose it philosophically, or those who cannot afford it? You're right; we aren't seeing all of Vincent's world, just a slice of it.

[Eurobabe]

7. I can see both sides of the coin

but the article had a kind of creepy feel to it like, well, so now we've gotten rid of said dread disease, I want a boy that has blond hair and blue eyes, is 6'2", slim, yada-yada. My gut says this is just man trying to outwit Nature again, and we all know what happens in the end with that...9 times out of 10, said manipulation usually backfires. Look at cloning? How many animals suffered terrible fates down the road from this miracle discovery.

Honestly, I guess this is why I have a bit of an issue with stem cell research, I think for bioethical reasons it is going to create more problems than good, we just don't know in what way yet. And I fear it (genetic selection) will be used against us by those in power (govt. or corporations) in some fashion.

I better shut up now, before I get pummeled.

[alarimer]

8. False sense of security

Just because they eliminate that gene does NOT mean that she won't get sick from something, even colon cancer. Most diseases, even if they have a genetic component,are not entirely due to genetics. Exposure to various things in the environment is certainly a huge factor.

I think these tests should only be used for the most dire afflictions. The problem becomes defining those. And it isn't a very large leap to "designer babies".

[mcscajun]

11. "There's no gene for fate."

Also from Gattaca.

[Odin2005]

12. This is a good thing.

If we can get rid of genetic diseases we have the moral obligation to do so.

[The2ndWheel]

13. Only makes sense

There is only one end to this, and that is to live forever. What would be more progressive than to let each person live a full and happy eternity? We must destroy death at all cost, because it has taken far too many lives already.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. I am completely in favor of this technology and this usage.

[SoCalDem]

17. Frankly, this is one application that's a plus side of embryo cultivation

If there is a test on a blastsocyst that can possible rule out a genetically inherited disease, why NOT test for it and implant embryons that are "safe"..


There is no 100% safe procedure, nor a guarantee that any child will be healthy, but I would ceratinly not refuse an offer of ruling out a devastating disease..

I think it's a stupid thing to do if one is trying to create a "beautiful" child or a specific feature, but as a tool to eliminate a deadly disease in the family, why not?