World's first GM babies born

[combat_man]

by MICHAEL HANLON, Daily Mail
The world's first geneticallymodified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.
The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.
So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three 'parents'.
Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.
The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.
Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults --two women and one man.
The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.
Altering the human germline - in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world's scientists.
Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.
Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this 'is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children'.
Some experts severely criticised the experiments. Lord Winston, of the Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told the BBC yesterday: 'Regarding the treat-ment of the infertile, there is no evidence that this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not be allowed in Britain.'
John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: 'One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line.
'It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for humanity.' Professor Cohen and his colleagues diagnosed that the women were infertile because they had defects in tiny structures in their egg cells, called mitochondria.
They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of the internal material - containing 'healthy' mitochondria - and injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive.
Because mitochondria contain genes, the babies resulting from the treatment have inherited DNA from both women. These genes can now be passed down the germline along the maternal line.
A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates 'assisted reproduction' technology in Britain, said that it would not license the technique here because it involved altering the germline.
Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies.
He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab.
Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children --a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community.
'It would be an afternoon's work for one of my students,' he said, adding that he had been approached by 'at least three' individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.

What are your views and thoughts?

[LibertyHarkness]

sounds good to me i have no problem with it personally at all , cloning etc .. personally i think its where we will end up with enhancing human lifespans, removing diseases etc ..

[nysprod]

What are your views and thoughts?

I think what you'll have here is another "must have" for the super rich, who definitely will be eager to pay big bucks for genetically modified children.

It's only a question of time before Wall St. turns this into a commodity and I can see a time when genetic traits are bought "al a carte," with high intelligence and supermodel looks being most in demand. Athleticism too.

For the other 99%, the government might make "GM" loans available (at inflated interest rates, just like with student loans) as Wall St., politicians and lobbyists frig themselves all the way to the bank.

[Merkurie]

Sounds like very bad idea to me.


Aside from the obvious eugenics/Nietzschean superior man issues; who is to say that we wont genetically design our way into an evolutionary dead end?

[trish]

Every time we mix our genes, either by in vitro fertilization, the old fashioned way or some more sophisticated technique, we're altering the human germ line. Altering the germ line is just a natural consequence of human reproduction. It's nothing to fear in and of itself. Cloning is the opposite; i.e. not altering the germ line. If there is cloning involved in the procedure described it obviously only plays an intermediate role in producing a genetic recombination.

With seven billion people in the world I can only imagine that any genetic innovation, however it is achieved, will be swamped by competing genes within the pool. If not it, it will be because of its beneficial attributes.

[Amy Gray]

Yeaaaaah, I'm just going to link this.

[Amy Gray]

By the way, for reference, the Daily Mail IS a tabloid and a really anti trans one too.

[LexusFire]

Good shout Amy, sounded a little familiar...
However, still a worthy conversation

[trish]

Thank you Amy.

[LilyRox]

Yeah lol. Actually seen this when I was doing an APA paper on human cloning. I'll post it if it's still on my old laptop.