Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Monday, 22 April 2013
TitanPad Link (Discussion)
Most of the discussion was done in school but the rest are done on TitanPad.
Here's the link:
http://scienceandtechnology.titanpad.com/2
Here's the link:
http://scienceandtechnology.titanpad.com/2
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
About PGD
I cannot post the whole article here since there are a lot of links in the website but I think you guys should read about it.
Here's the link: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis.html
http://www.genea.com.au/Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates
http://www.pgd.org.uk/conditionstested/successrate.aspx
Here's the link: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis.html
http://www.genea.com.au/Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates
http://www.pgd.org.uk/conditionstested/successrate.aspx
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
How is PGD (Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) HELPFUL?
The benefits of this medical intervention are boundless. It would allow a family to virtually eradicate a genetic disease in only a few generations. Muscular Dystrophy is an excellent example, and a great subject for PGD.. Muscular Dystrophy (MD) is a group of genetic and hereditary (see picture left for gene flow pattern) muscle diseases that weaken the muscles of the body, sometimes very severely. If two parents decide to use either IFV or PGD, doctors can test each of the eggs for the gene for MD. If they find an egg that does not carry the gene, they can implant it and reduce the chances for this disease greatly. This also means less money will be spent in hospitals for medical treatments needed for a sick child in the future.
Designer babies may also be created to help another in need. Parents may have a child suffering from a disease and in need of an organ or blood transplant. Imagine you have a child suffering from Leukemia, a cancer of the blood/bone marrow. He needs a bone marrow donation, or he will die young. You and your husband/wife are not matches for his bone marrow. You are, however, able to have another child. Through designer babies, they could create a perfect match for your child's blood, bone marrow, or other organ.
Genetic screening on embryos has the potential to wipe out genetic disease by virtually removing the alleles from such disorders. When it is used in correct form, for medical treatment, children born in the future have the potential to be purely "healthy" and carry no signs of genetic disease.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Cons of designer babies
society
- A society of pretty, healthy, and intelligent people may sound reasonable and even favorable, until the full social implications are considered. Designing a baby costs money, and will most likely continue to cost lots of money; Genetic engineering for non medical reasons is not necessary for living life and it is doubtful that those who could not afford it would get reimbursed by insurance companies. This cost will mean that not everyone will be able to pay to design their baby, and suddenly people will encounter prejudice, not for their race, but for their inferior genetic makeup. It creates a new class system made up of genetically designed people and naturally made people. The people who were not genetically engineered would experience a loss of opportunity based on a chance that their defective genes will be expressed. In this new society, people with a 50% chance of cancer would get passed over for a job in favor of the person with .01% chance of cancer. That kind of social stratification can be frightening. Even if privacy laws the way they are now stay in place and people’s genetic information is not shared, it could be obvious which children were designed and which were not, creating the same stratification
one gender or other important characteristic is favored over the other.
-In countries such as China and India where boys are favored over girls, this technology could be used so that every set of parents that wants a baby boy will get one. However, that is not evolutionarily favorable. If a generation of only boys were to be made, the human race would die out.
-Without diversity in the species, adaptation to the new environment is more difficult without a wide range of individuals to choose from. The evolution of humans has spanned about 2 million years and has resulted in the types of people we see today: people who have imperfections and people who are very different from one another. A large scale of organisms in a particular species is necessary for that species to continue to be competitive with other species and be successful. By creating a generation of genetically similar people, the human species loses its ability to adapt to changing environments
going against ethical values.
-Furthermore, on moral grounds, whether it is believed that humans evolved or were created by God, it is wrong to try to perfect something that has been perfected over a large span of time or made by God. This is also considered as going against ethical values.
The Embryos
society
- A society of pretty, healthy, and intelligent people may sound reasonable and even favorable, until the full social implications are considered. Designing a baby costs money, and will most likely continue to cost lots of money; Genetic engineering for non medical reasons is not necessary for living life and it is doubtful that those who could not afford it would get reimbursed by insurance companies. This cost will mean that not everyone will be able to pay to design their baby, and suddenly people will encounter prejudice, not for their race, but for their inferior genetic makeup. It creates a new class system made up of genetically designed people and naturally made people. The people who were not genetically engineered would experience a loss of opportunity based on a chance that their defective genes will be expressed. In this new society, people with a 50% chance of cancer would get passed over for a job in favor of the person with .01% chance of cancer. That kind of social stratification can be frightening. Even if privacy laws the way they are now stay in place and people’s genetic information is not shared, it could be obvious which children were designed and which were not, creating the same stratification
one gender or other important characteristic is favored over the other.
-In countries such as China and India where boys are favored over girls, this technology could be used so that every set of parents that wants a baby boy will get one. However, that is not evolutionarily favorable. If a generation of only boys were to be made, the human race would die out.
-Without diversity in the species, adaptation to the new environment is more difficult without a wide range of individuals to choose from. The evolution of humans has spanned about 2 million years and has resulted in the types of people we see today: people who have imperfections and people who are very different from one another. A large scale of organisms in a particular species is necessary for that species to continue to be competitive with other species and be successful. By creating a generation of genetically similar people, the human species loses its ability to adapt to changing environments
going against ethical values.
-Furthermore, on moral grounds, whether it is believed that humans evolved or were created by God, it is wrong to try to perfect something that has been perfected over a large span of time or made by God. This is also considered as going against ethical values.
The Embryos
The choosing of embryos brings to the forefront a large moral issue with designer babies. Many embryos are created, and not as many are implanted into the mother. The embryos that do not fit the specifications set by the parents will get thrown away. Had these embryos have been allowed to grow, they could have had long and fulfilled lives, however the ones that are thrown away lose that potential life. Many people, especially those who are pro-life, view this aspect as a huge problem in the creation of designer babies. If many embryos are going to be thrown away, they should not be created.
Author's POV
"Genetic engineering and designer babies could potentially be a very good thing; however, like any technology, it cannot be abused without rampant ramifications. It is true that many of the scenarios mentioned are worst case. On the other hand, any degree of the scenarios above is still somewhat terrifying. We do not think that the ideas surrounding designer babies are all bad though as there are also advantages to it"
Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD/Designer Babies) Ethics
Research Article
Screening for fetal and genetic abnormality: social and ethical issues.
G R Dunstan
Author Affiliations: University of London.
Abstract
In answer to questions raised by practitioners, an ethics of genetic screening is located in a tension between liberty and responsibility in three respects: (1) to nature and biological processes; (2) to the disposal of human life; and (3) to the relation of persons to society. Under (1), the obligation to pursue research, fundamental as well as applied, is affirmed, offering the benefit of economy with fetal life, but requiring discrimination between the beneficial, the trivial, and the bizarre. Under (2) the abortion question, when relevant to diagnosed abnormality, is discussed, not in the language of conflicting rights, but of the relation of duties to interests. Under (3) the familial and social dimensions of screening raise questions of the disclosure of information and the keeping or extending of confidences. Last comes the value placed on truth in two related areas of developing practice. In infertility treatment, the donors of gametes are required to remain anonymous. Gene tracing through families requires for its effectiveness some correspondence between assumed identity and genetic identity. This conflict of social policies should be resolved.
http://jmg.bmj.com/content/25/5/290#related-urls
Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debateEthical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis
John A. Robertson
Author Affiliations: School of Law, The University of Texas, 727 Dean Keeton Street, Austin, Texas, USA. e‐mail: jrobertson@mail.law.utexas.edu
AbstractThe use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for aneuploidy and genetic disease is growing. New uses of PGD have been reported in the past year for screening embryos for susceptibility to cancer, for late‐onset diseases, for HLA‐matching for existing children, and for gender. These extensions have raised questions about their ethical acceptability and the adequacy of regulatory structures to review new uses. This article describes current and likely future uses of PGD, and then analyses the ethical issues posed by new uses of PGD to screen embryos for susceptibility and late‐onset conditions, for HLA‐matching for tissue donation to an existing child, and for gender selection. It also addresses ethical issues that would arise in more speculative scenarios of selecting embryos for hearing ability or sexual orientation. The article concludes that except for sex selection of the first child, most current extensions of PGD are ethically acceptable, and provides a framework for evaluating future extensions for nonmedical purposes that are still speculative.
Ethical issues in current and expanded uses of PGD
Two main sets of ethical objections make PGD and proposals for its extension controversial. One set of objections arises from the need to create and then select embryos on chromosomal or genetic grounds, with the deselected embryos then usually discarded. Other objections concern the fact of selection itself.
Objections to PGD based on its effect on embryos replay debates over abortion and embryo status that have occurred in many other contexts, from abortion to embryonic stem cell research. People who think that the embryo or fetus is a person will object to creating and destroying embryos, and oppose most uses of PGD. Others believe that preimplantation embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests or rights, but that they deserve special respect as the first stage toward a new person (American Society of Reproductive Medicine, 1994). Under this view PGD is ethically acceptable when done for good reasons, such as preventing offspring with serious genetic disease. Indeed, PGD may prevent selective abortions for those diseases. A major issue with new uses of PGD is whether they sufficiently benefit important human interests to meet the demands of special respect for embryos that supporters of PGD may require.
A second set of objections arises from the fact of selection itself, and the risks of greatly expanded future selection of embryos and children. Sometimes based on religious views about the nature of human reproduction, ethical objections to selecting offspring traits raises two kinds of ethical concerns. One kind is deontological—the ethical judgement that it is wrong to choose traits of offspring, no matter how well intentioned. Dr Leon Kass has articulated this view, as has the President’s Bioethics Council in the United States, which he chairs. They argue that human reproduction is a ‘gift’ and that any form of selection or manipulation turns the child into a ‘manufacture’ and thus impairs human flourishing (Kass, 1998, 2000, 2002; President’s Bioethics Council, 2002). The second kind of concern is consequentialist. It arises from fears that increasing the frequency and scope of genetic screening of prospective children will move us toward a eugenic world in which children are valued more for their genotype than for their inherent characteristics, eventually ushering in a world of ‘designer’ children in which genetic engineering of offspring becomes routine.
While recognizing the strong objections of some people to PGD on these grounds, the following discussion assumes that the use of PGD to screen for aneuploidy and serious Mendelian disorders is ethically and legally acceptable when performed according to applicable regulatory guidelines. It concentrates instead on new indications for PGD, and asks whether they would also meet ethical standards of acceptability.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/465.full
Posted by Sherissa Chua (29)
Screening for fetal and genetic abnormality: social and ethical issues.
G R Dunstan
Author Affiliations: University of London.
Abstract
In answer to questions raised by practitioners, an ethics of genetic screening is located in a tension between liberty and responsibility in three respects: (1) to nature and biological processes; (2) to the disposal of human life; and (3) to the relation of persons to society. Under (1), the obligation to pursue research, fundamental as well as applied, is affirmed, offering the benefit of economy with fetal life, but requiring discrimination between the beneficial, the trivial, and the bizarre. Under (2) the abortion question, when relevant to diagnosed abnormality, is discussed, not in the language of conflicting rights, but of the relation of duties to interests. Under (3) the familial and social dimensions of screening raise questions of the disclosure of information and the keeping or extending of confidences. Last comes the value placed on truth in two related areas of developing practice. In infertility treatment, the donors of gametes are required to remain anonymous. Gene tracing through families requires for its effectiveness some correspondence between assumed identity and genetic identity. This conflict of social policies should be resolved.
http://jmg.bmj.com/content/25/5/290#related-urls
Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debateEthical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis
John A. Robertson
Author Affiliations: School of Law, The University of Texas, 727 Dean Keeton Street, Austin, Texas, USA. e‐mail: jrobertson@mail.law.utexas.edu
AbstractThe use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for aneuploidy and genetic disease is growing. New uses of PGD have been reported in the past year for screening embryos for susceptibility to cancer, for late‐onset diseases, for HLA‐matching for existing children, and for gender. These extensions have raised questions about their ethical acceptability and the adequacy of regulatory structures to review new uses. This article describes current and likely future uses of PGD, and then analyses the ethical issues posed by new uses of PGD to screen embryos for susceptibility and late‐onset conditions, for HLA‐matching for tissue donation to an existing child, and for gender selection. It also addresses ethical issues that would arise in more speculative scenarios of selecting embryos for hearing ability or sexual orientation. The article concludes that except for sex selection of the first child, most current extensions of PGD are ethically acceptable, and provides a framework for evaluating future extensions for nonmedical purposes that are still speculative.
Ethical issues in current and expanded uses of PGD
Two main sets of ethical objections make PGD and proposals for its extension controversial. One set of objections arises from the need to create and then select embryos on chromosomal or genetic grounds, with the deselected embryos then usually discarded. Other objections concern the fact of selection itself.
Objections to PGD based on its effect on embryos replay debates over abortion and embryo status that have occurred in many other contexts, from abortion to embryonic stem cell research. People who think that the embryo or fetus is a person will object to creating and destroying embryos, and oppose most uses of PGD. Others believe that preimplantation embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests or rights, but that they deserve special respect as the first stage toward a new person (American Society of Reproductive Medicine, 1994). Under this view PGD is ethically acceptable when done for good reasons, such as preventing offspring with serious genetic disease. Indeed, PGD may prevent selective abortions for those diseases. A major issue with new uses of PGD is whether they sufficiently benefit important human interests to meet the demands of special respect for embryos that supporters of PGD may require.
A second set of objections arises from the fact of selection itself, and the risks of greatly expanded future selection of embryos and children. Sometimes based on religious views about the nature of human reproduction, ethical objections to selecting offspring traits raises two kinds of ethical concerns. One kind is deontological—the ethical judgement that it is wrong to choose traits of offspring, no matter how well intentioned. Dr Leon Kass has articulated this view, as has the President’s Bioethics Council in the United States, which he chairs. They argue that human reproduction is a ‘gift’ and that any form of selection or manipulation turns the child into a ‘manufacture’ and thus impairs human flourishing (Kass, 1998, 2000, 2002; President’s Bioethics Council, 2002). The second kind of concern is consequentialist. It arises from fears that increasing the frequency and scope of genetic screening of prospective children will move us toward a eugenic world in which children are valued more for their genotype than for their inherent characteristics, eventually ushering in a world of ‘designer’ children in which genetic engineering of offspring becomes routine.
While recognizing the strong objections of some people to PGD on these grounds, the following discussion assumes that the use of PGD to screen for aneuploidy and serious Mendelian disorders is ethically and legally acceptable when performed according to applicable regulatory guidelines. It concentrates instead on new indications for PGD, and asks whether they would also meet ethical standards of acceptability.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/465.full
Posted by Sherissa Chua (29)
Cons of Designer Babies
Cons
Designer babies could lead to the further division of the socio-economic strata.
Having a designer baby requires a large sum of money to be
invested so that doctors can produce the ideal child for the parents with all
the desirable characteristics and cosmetic appearances. Only the rich would be
able to afford the 'luxury' and 'freedom' to choose the features that they want
their child to have and this could possibly lead to the invention of a flawless
generation of perfect children that are not only born rich but also have a
superior advantage over the poorer people, be it in terms of physical
attractiveness, fitness or even intelligence. This would intensify the gap
between the rich and the poor because the rich simply gets richer and more
powerful while the poor remains poor and stuck with their natural traits and
abilities. Thus, it would be more challenging and difficulty for them to get
out of the rat race as they need to possess higher intelligence and greater
abilities to overcome the power class of the designer babies.
Designer babies would further intensify the superficiality in the society.
Today's modern society has been already deeply concerned
with their looks, with rising number of people seeking help from plastic
surgeons to correct their looks or to make them look more attractive and
appealing. Now, with the invention of designer babies and the likelihood for
parents to choose the desirable features of their child, it could only lead to
human beings to further dwell in the endless chase for the perfect appearance.
Designer babies could lead to the overwhelming response of a certain feature
that are deem more valuable as compared to other features and the poorer
population that are born naturally with that certain undesirable feature would
likely be discriminated by others. This could also lead to these normal kids to
feel inferior of their appearances, causing them to lose confidence and hope
which would lead to a viscous cycle because the rich would just look nicer and
better while the poor just stays the same.
Designer babies are not guaranteed a success and it is not a natural process of life.
With all the hopes raised for designer babies, parents that
could afford it may be waiting in anticipation for the arrival of the perfect
child. But because designer babies are a new invention, there would be no
guarantee on whether the child would really be able to have the desirable
features that the parents chose. Apart from not fully getting the ideal
results, there could also be the possibility that other health complications
could arise in the designer babies. What would happen to the child if he/she
was not considered perfect to the parents? The parents cannot reject or refund
the baby like they could when they do not fancy a designer product after
purchasing it. After all, we are talking about a life. Shouldn't parents just
appreciate the natural process of having a child and love the child as he/she
is? The joy of having children is the excitement and anticipation of wondering
what the child would look like and having a bunch of kids that are genetically
similar to the parents. Children are gifts from God, regardless of whether they
are 'perfect' or not and parents should just appreciate the fact that they are
able to have kids and produce human beings that look like them because this
could be one of the true values of being a parent.
http://designerbabies-jtcc.blogspot.com/2009/06/designer-babies-good-or-bad_10.html
http://designerbabies-jtcc.blogspot.com/2009/06/designer-babies-good-or-bad_10.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)