World's first genetically modified children confirmed - Water Fountain - SECTalk.com

Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.

World's first genetically modified children confirmed

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1
cocky4ever

cocky4ever
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    15,668
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Dec 2004
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    11,868
http://www.dailymail...abies-born.html


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 *** 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.
all your bases are belong to us

#2
WayzUp

WayzUp

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    6,980
  • Age:
    40
  • Joined:
    Dec 2004
  • Location:
    SW Michigan
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    1,433
The one chick I would not Posted Image with is Mother Nature.  Slippery slope is so long on this thing, it's scary....and now that Pandora's Box is open, who knows what they're willing to try.  Scary, to say the least...

Let me get this straight. We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and will be fined for if we don't, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts itself from it, signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that's broke.

What could possibly go wrong?


#3
AUskip07

AUskip07

    Time to make History

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    7,716
  • Age:
    30
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Location:
    Atlanta, Ga
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    1,933
Great  now  Kentucky's football team will even have 5* athletes
"Sometimes you need to decide which mountaintop you want to die on." John Dixon

Posted Image

#4
MCD

MCD

    His initials are Boyd Crowder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    3,594
  • Age:
    25
  • Joined:
    Aug 2008
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    1,323
Read Dan Brown's latest book, Inferno.  A good portion of the book is dedicated to some geneticists' belief that altering our own DNA is the next step in evolution.
Posted Image

#5
JDawg

JDawg

    I'm from the LANDMASS

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,732
  • Joined:
    Mar 2005
  • Location:
    Mississippi
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,566

View PostWayzUp, on 08 February 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

The one chick I would not Posted Image with is Mother Nature.  Slippery slope is so long on this thing, it's scary....and now that Pandora's Box is open, who knows what they're willing to try.  Scary, to say the least...

I agree. Humans can be conceited. Thinking we can control the natural Earth and all.

FIRE EVERYONE


#6
JDawg

JDawg

    I'm from the LANDMASS

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,732
  • Joined:
    Mar 2005
  • Location:
    Mississippi
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,566
Let's put it this way.... No matter what breakthroughs we have in modifying the weather, modifying our species/other species, etc etc Mother Nature will always win out. She will correct herself when things become out of whack, no matter what we try to do.

FIRE EVERYONE


#7
cocky4ever

cocky4ever
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    15,668
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Dec 2004
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    11,868

View PostJDawg, on 08 February 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

Let's put it this way.... No matter what breakthroughs we have in modifying the weather, modifying our species/other species, etc etc Mother Nature will always win out. She will correct herself when things become out of whack, no matter what we try to do.

Agreed. I think this type of technology could be beneficial to get rid of harmful genes that cause disease and other things though. But like you said it will balance itself out if we aren't responsible. If people are living longer and the world gets even more overpopulated there will just be new diseases and problems with food shortages/other resources.

Like most technology it could be great, but there will certainly be people who use it for the wrong reasons.
all your bases are belong to us

#8
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Dirty White Boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    5,295
  • Age:
    47
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Location:
    Skinem Tennessee
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    2,235
We need diseases...

#9
SECorBust

SECorBust
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    6,845
  • Age:
    36
  • Joined:
    May 2007
  • Cash:
    9
  • High Fives:
    1,203

View PostMCD, on 08 February 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Read Dan Brown's latest book, Inferno.  A good portion of the book is dedicated to some geneticists' belief that altering our own DNA is the next step in evolution.

If you have a hereditary disease and you don't want to aflict a child with that you can adopt, but it will never be your child.  If you can alter some genes and correct an illness why wouldn't you.

We are getting to the point where we don't have to wipe out people to evolve the species.  I don't see much of a problem with making better humans.  I can see us getting to the point where companies start selling "good" genes though and our diversity will suffer.  Then it might only take one good virus to wipe us all out.

Posted Image


#10
cocky4ever

cocky4ever
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    15,668
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Dec 2004
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    11,868

View PostSECorBust, on 08 February 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

If you have a hereditary disease and you don't want to aflict a child with that you can adopt, but it will never be your child.  If you can alter some genes and correct an illness why wouldn't you.

We are getting to the point where we don't have to wipe out people to evolve the species.  I don't see much of a problem with making better humans.  I can see us getting to the point where companies start selling "good" genes though and our diversity will suffer.  Then it might only take one good virus to wipe us all out.

I agree about the good aspects of eliminating certain diseases...but it would ultimately be one more gap between the rich and poor. It would be the upper class creating much more advanced/healthier humans. We aren't gonna get rid of the diseases unless everyone has access to it, and not everyone will be able to afford what will certainly be expensive procedures. So the lower class(who usually reproduces more anyway) will still be popping out tons of kids who genetics are left up to chance, while the rich will expand the gap with every generation.
all your bases are belong to us

#11
SECorBust

SECorBust
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    6,845
  • Age:
    36
  • Joined:
    May 2007
  • Cash:
    9
  • High Fives:
    1,203

View Postcocky4ever, on 08 February 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:



I agree about the good aspects of eliminating certain diseases...but it would ultimately be one more gap between the rich and poor. It would be the upper class creating much more advanced/healthier humans. We aren't gonna get rid of the diseases unless everyone has access to it, and not everyone will be able to afford what will certainly be expensive procedures. So the lower class(who usually reproduces more anyway) will still be popping out tons of kids who genetics are left up to chance, while the rich will expand the gap with every generation.

Agree.

Posted Image


#12
GatorUnvrsty

GatorUnvrsty

    AdminisGator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    24,632
  • Joined:
    Dec 2006
  • Location:
    The Beach
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,921
The inherent problem, and almost always the most glaring shortcoming with these "brilliant" pioneers, is hubris.

They can often predict or limit potential disasters in the lab with safeguards; but they never seem to consider the repercussions once they're no longer in control of the situation.

Nobody knows or can predict what natural or social consequences will result from their brilliance; and sadly, sometimes even horribly, they're so engrossed in their work and determined to reach their goal, they don't recognize that their tunnel vision is preventing them from fully examining those other considerations or weighing the myriad costs.

So far (I hope) this guy is only conducting experiments on willing participants; but once the technology is out there for consumption, it's not hard to envision unscrupulous, for-profit scientists engaging in the practice en masse for corporations or private individuals.

Additionally, if this researcher didn't have the willing guinea pigs, would he still be doing the experiments on individuals who don't know any better, like the homeless and/or mentally ill? And, are there other scientists already out there doing just that behind closed doors in private labs? That would mean we have multiple Mengeles currently working in this country, and will likely have many more if there's money to be made from the practice.

I'm reminded of some pretty sound advice this guy might be ignoring... "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users