Misc. bioethic questions

[T'ai Chi]

If you had the chance to 'edit' a baby's DNA to get rid of a biological issue that there is a good probability they'd develop later on in life, would you?

Maybe one might get declined a job, if the employer sees in their DNA profile that there is a high likelihood that they'd be a medical risk down to road.

 

[Nightlord]

You give not enough details to answer, in this case it is important to know what kind of problem (life threatening, cosmetic) what kind of treatment (completely safe, will make trouble on its own, can kill the baby) etc.

Assuming the simplest situation then would be as ethical as having surgery on a baby to correct a congenital malformation that could kill him even if he is "healthy" right now.

The job thing is not a question. Is it related to the first one?

 

[CFLarsen]

If you had the chance to 'edit' a baby's DNA to get rid of a biological issue that there is a good probability they'd develop later on in life, would you?

Maybe one might get declined a job, if the employer sees in their DNA profile that there is a high likelihood that they'd be a medical risk down to road.

What do you think?

 

[Araneus]

The problem is that the definition of a "biological issue" can vary. Many people would have no problem with genetically removing a painful disability or fatal disease, but some people might consider homosexuality or social reclusiveness to be "defects" than need to be edited out.

 

[Lothian]

If you had the chance to 'edit' a baby's DNA to get rid of a biological issue that there is a good probability they'd develop later on in life, would you?

Maybe one might get declined a job, if the employer sees in their DNA profile that there is a high likelihood that they'd be a medical risk down to road.

I would turn on everyone’s critical thinking gene. T’ai ,T’ai, T’ai. Where have you gone ? Come back.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm here anonymous Lothian, I'm here.

I wonder if such things could lead to engineering programs that are not desirable, or used for terrorism?

 

[Lothian]

I wonder if such things could lead to engineering programs that are not desirable, or used for terrorism?

Do you ?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm here anonymous Lothian, I'm here.

No, you are not. You link to your website where your full name, address, CV etc. are displayed.

I wonder if such things could lead to engineering programs that are not desirable, or used for terrorism?

You wonder? Then, tell us what you think. Do you think they could lead to terrorism?

 

[Correa Neto]

(1) Yes. I would mess with my son's DNA without a second thought to make him healthier, give him a better life, etc (FYI he's OK). Call it improve him if you want. And I don't give a rat's arse about the complains of "being against the nature or god's will " raised by certain religious groups. I would mess with my own DNA to live longer, be free of diseases, to improve myself. I would accept artificial organs, cloned parts, etc. I do not consider this as different from a LASIK surgery.

(2) Too vague. But you probably are aware that certain companies consider themselves free to exclude candidates that fail to pass certain medical criteria. In some cases, this may justified. You would not want someone with neurological problems driving a 200 ton off-road truck. Feel free to make the connection.

 

[I less than three logic]

If you had the chance to 'edit' a baby's DNA to get rid of a biological issue that there is a good probability they'd develop later on in life, would you?

Maybe one might get declined a job, if the employer sees in their DNA profile that there is a high likelihood that they'd be a medical risk down to road.

Seen Gattaca did ya?

 

[uruk]

If you had the chance to 'edit' a baby's DNA to get rid of a biological issue that there is a good probability they'd develop later on in life, would you?

If you could aleviate someone's suffering, would you?

Maybe one might get declined a job, if the employer sees in their DNA profile that there is a high likelihood that they'd be a medical risk down to road.

That would be moot if the genetic problem was fixed at birth.

Anyhoo DNA info is private info. (Doctor/patient confidentiality) Would it be legal or ethical to discriminate someone based on thier genetic profile?

 

[Jimbo07]

Seen Gattaca did ya?

Usurped on a T'ai Chi thread again!

Oh well.

The way I would have said it is that, "Tai Chi's only about 10 years behind GATTACA."

 

[phildonnia]

I think as we find out how genes actually express themselves, it will become evident that such complex social behaviors as homosexuality will not correspond with any particular gene, nor will most particular genes correspond to one complex high-level trait.

It is entirely possible that the much-touted "gay gene", in addition to expressing a tendency towards homosexuality, is also the "social rebellion gene", or the "honesty gene", or Ed knows what else.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If you had the chance to 'edit' a baby's DNA to get rid of a biological issue that there is a good probability they'd develop later on in life, would you?

Personally, no.

Maybe one might get declined a job, if the employer sees in their DNA profile that there is a high likelihood that they'd be a medical risk down to road.

Depends on local law, surely?

I do feel Insurance companies risk shooting themselves in the head over this issue. If I am required to take a barrage of tests before I can get health insurance, there are two possible results:-
1. I am genetically likely to get a disease, so they will refuse to insure me.
2. I am genetically unlikely to get it, so I will not require insurance.

Either way, I will remain uninsured.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

If you had the chance to 'edit' a baby's DNA to get rid of a biological issue that there is a good probability they'd develop later on in life, would you?

If the procedure was safe and the side effects were negligable to nonexistant, then I would without hesitation. I'd go beyond that. I wouldn't take issue with completely altering the body to make it faster, stronger, smarter than it was before, even before the child is fully "grown up". Why not? The kid could always retrograde later on.

Would I legally require it? Nope. Would I fear an era where people are weeded out? What, you mean the "natural borns"? Personally I think things are already like that. I have genetically inferior eyes but this was solved early on with something called "glasses". Even though I was born this way, strangely if I am to obtain a driver's liscense, I must comply with a federal LAW that requires me to wear the dern things if I want to drive. GENETIC DISCRIMINATION! Perfectly reasonable discrimination in many cases where vision is especially bad without eyewear. I have no issue with this.

On the other hand, discriminating based on irrelevent genetic criteria? Sure I'd be against that. For example, I'd be against not allowing people to drive because they need glasses. By that I mean, in the case where they don't care if you got your vision repaired with glasses or contacts or laser eye surgery, they won't let you drive. THAT would be illogical discrimination. I would also be against the development of two "factions" of people violently opposed to each other, perhaps treating the "moddified" with scorn like in some cheap comic book or sci fi story.

By the way, if you wonder why we suddenly get all defensive about this. Well, what are we supposed to think your opinion is? Your questions alway seem like you have some opinion you don't want to actually share. If we're arguing against an opinion you don't have, why not just say it?

 

[T'ai Chi]

By the way, if you wonder why we suddenly get all defensive about this. Well, what are we supposed to think your opinion is? Your questions alway seem like you have some opinion you don't want to actually share. If we're arguing against an opinion you don't have, why not just say it?

Please, either answer the question or don't, but spare the pseudopsycho analysis you're probably not qualified to give that just clutters threads.

You're a skeptic that has a problem with people asking questions? NEver thought I'd see that day. Remember, I'm apparently a troll and my widdle opinion doesn't matter anyway, so why are you so eager to know it?

 

[CFLarsen]

Please, either answer the question or don't, but spare the pseudopsycho analysis you're probably not qualified to give that just clutters threads.

You're a skeptic that has a problem with people asking questions? NEver thought I'd see that day. Remember, I'm apparently a troll and my widdle opinion doesn't matter anyway, so why are you so eager to know it?

DJ gives you a lengthy response to your question, and wants to know why you don't offer your own. And you respond in this rude manner? You don't respond at all to what he said about your question - all you do is focus on what you think is a personal attack.

That's rude and arrogant.

 

[Soapy Sam]

TC- for what it's worth, you don't fit my definition of "troll". I do not post in what I consider troll threads.

You do have a tendency to start threads with a question, which implies you genuinely want answers. If so, it is only fair if you respond to those answers, or to questions from other posters, with your own considered conclusions. I feel you do not do this often enough.

Hammegk shows the same behaviour to a greater degree: He starts a discussion , but often fails to explain his own POV, except by vague , cryptic comments open to misinterpretation. This gets tiring and eventually people respond in a similar vein. (Some do so automatically now).This gets us nowhere.

Forum posts are an impoverished information channel to begin with. We cannot hear voices, see expressions or body language. It's easy to miss sarcasm entirely for instance.

If we feel a post is wrong , we should say so- but also say why we think so and offer reasons. That moves debate forward and avoids accusations of "drive-by trolling".

 

[Dancing David]

I'm here anonymous Lothian, I'm here.

I wonder if such things could lead to engineering programs that are not desirable, or used for terrorism?

You don't need gene splicing to create terrorist weapons, and that is a derail in your own thread. You can create new strains of viruses and bacteria that are resistant or not immune reconised without gene splicing. But heck, neurotoxins that are effective at parts per million already exist. Bio weapons have a high blowback effect as well.

You can't edit genes like cutting them out, the edit has to be a replacement, so depending on the condition and the cost/benefit ration there is a trade off, what is the likelyhood that the condition will occur and is it like cystic fibrosis and almost always lethal before age thirty or more like a small vulnerabilty to a condition.
Are there conventional treatments?

So vauge question lead to vauge answers.