Genetically modified child to eliminate cancer gene?
December 19, 2008 by Marijke Durning, RN
Filed under Diseases & Conditions
If you could go through a process to genetically modify your child so he or she would be sure not to get a specific cancer gene, would you? Two couples in the United Kingdom did and one mother is due to give birth next week.
According to this article, Couple to have Britain’s first baby genetically modified to be free of breast cancer gene, the couples used in vitro fertilization (IVF) so the doctors could screen the embryos for a gene that most likely would cause any of their daughters to develop a very aggressive form of cancer. The gene also would give affected daughters a 60% chance of developing ovarian cancer and sons would have a higher than usual risk of developing prostate cancer. After the embryos were screened, only those without the gene were used to impregnate the women. To me, that’s not really genetically modifying, that’s weeding out. And I’m not sure how I feel about it.
The problem, I think, is that although they are eliminating the risk of breast cancer, I am a believer in we all have our time to go and if we try to avoid it one way, it will happen in another. I use the examples of people who live to be 90 despite very unhealthy lifestyles and those who are the fittest of the fit could drop dead at 35. While it may seem too simplistic put that way, I do believe there’s something to it. So, is weeding out the "bad" genes a good idea? And, if this works, what’s next? I can see why more people would want to weed out other illnesses, but then will we start weeding out unwanted characteristics?
What do you think?
~~~~
Do you like this post? Could you Stumble It for others to see?
Tags: cancer blog, genetically modifying children, in vitro fertilization, IVF
Hmm. I don’t know. If you’re that worried your kids will be sick, then go ahead and adopt a waiting child. Of course, anyone can get sick at any time, so we do all need to accept some risk in life.
Hmmm. Good discussion. I have to say though that weeding out is technically already done in America, to an extent. When a pregnant woman has the AFP test, and it comes back positive…if that woman aborts the pregnancy, is that not weeding out the gene? Now, granted those tests are not 100% accurate as to whether a disorder will show up, but seems to me if the choice were to weed out an embryo or weed out a fetus (there is a difference, no?)…the first option would be better. This doesn’t mean I’d do it, or I think it’s morally right…
I do think genetic testing for individuals wanting to have a baby is important. For instance, when there is an increased chance of autism, mental disorders, or aggressive cancers. What parents want to do with the results of testing is another thing…
oh Diane, that’s an excellent point. I didn’t think of that. Genetic testing is a good idea; it gives you the choice of deciding not to get pregnant. I’m just really not sure about the checking for the “right” embryo.
Peggy, I lean towards your way of thinking, but it is an interesting topic.
Yes, totally interesting. I can see using this tech to help prevent a disease you’re almost sure the baby will have, but it’s getting into questionable waters to do much more than that.