Recently my English class watched 'Gattaca' a movie in which babies are 'designed', including traits such as intelligence and strength. Also, in Biology at the moment, we're studying Biotechnology, and my teacher says that eventually, in the not-too-distant future, people will actually be able to create their children in this way.

My questions to you are:
a) Should Genetic Engineering be allowed?
b) If Genetic Engineering is developed, to what extent is it ok?

My personal view on the subject is that Genetic Engineering shouldn't be permitted, for two main reasons. The first of these being that it may cause an elitest society, in which people are valued soley for their genetic makeup. Secondly, if diseases are eradicated, there will be less deaths and people will live to a ripe-old age, wouldn't this cause over-population in a world that already struggles to feed all its mouths?
I am quite aware that Genetic Modification is used in production of food crops, but do you think that the boundries should be widened and introduced into the human population?

Anyway, I wan't to hear your thoughts on the subject :D

(I searched, but couldn't find anyting on this subject, apart from a topic about Resident Evil, which really isn't the same thing. I also sincerely hope this is the right forum for this topic.)

<3 Cas

Well, just on the front of eliminating disease, saying that doing this would eliminate that problem is a bad thing just doesn't sound right. Its like saying we should stop trying to find cures for diseases because they help keep the population lower. So, although I don't agree with your reasoning, per se, I do believe that genetic engineering will lead to the elitist society you mentioned, and that would certainly be a problem.

I think genetic engineering should NOT be allowed - what if things were to get out of hand? I understand that if successful, it can lead to major breakthroughs and feed the hungry and everything, but at the same time, what chemicals are we ingesting? Growth hormones? Preservatives? What was meant to be a help to the society may ultimately end up destroying it...Have any of you read "Day of the Triffids"? They 'produce' triffids because their seeds are of great convenience. In the end, however, the triffids basically take over the remaining population after a certain disaster happens, endangering everyone...
Okay, a little off-topic. Basically, whatever we ingest has effects. Whether it comes out through bowel movements (no giggles from you guys) or remains in the bloodstream for years, it does make an impact.
I think it should not be allowed - to any extent...The possible dangers are just not worth the risk.

There's already a thread about this, I believe. Llywelyn posted it a while back.
edit: How strange, it must've been deleted:( . Oh well, disregard my former correction.

I looked through the Archive (http://www.evboard.com/archive/index.php/f-86), and I found the thread Llywelyn started called "Gender Selection" (http://www.evboard.com/archive/index.php/t-7357). I also found a thread called "Human Cloning" (http://www.evboard.com/archive/index.php/t-1813), which is tangentially related. But since they are in the Archive, they can't be added to. Carry on.

Sigh, you people could stand to learn a few things about the field you are talking about.

Sigh, you people could stand to learn a few things about the field you are talking about.

I don't claim to know everything, or anything about it, that's why I posted here. If you're so well informed, could you please inform the rest of us, so we could learn something about this subject? I know that I really would appreciate it.

I don't claim to know everything, or anything about it, that's why I posted here. If you're so well informed, could you please inform the rest of us, so we could learn something about this subject? I know that I really would appreciate it.

It would take a set of rather phenomenal and revolutionary discoveries for us to get anywhere close to the designer society that you seem to be talking about, none of which are we even vaguely close to. Claiming that we are anywhere close to the fictional story of GATTACA is simply fear-mongering. Are revolutions that make such possible on the horizon? Possibly, but they aren't going to be discovered tomorrow. As I have pointed out elsewhere: the "designer babies" argument is a myth.


We would need to know what does what, which while the Human Genome Projects were tremendous leaps forward in this regard, we are nowhere near understanding it all or breaking it all down. Bioinformatics is a new field and, while promising, is a processing nightmare.
We would need to understand how the genes interact with one another, we don't.
We would need the ability to selectively remove and replace genes, which beyond a few techniques such as PCR can be very difficult if not impossible.
Similarly, we are nowhere near the ability to quickly match whether an individual matches a DNA pattern, that still requires (and will require for the foreseeable future considering the amount of data that has to be processed) lab work.


Variable expression, variable permeability, dosage regulation (along with the creation of bar bodies), etc all get in the way of the "designer babies" argument. Look up the cat "Carbon Copy."

Even procedures such as gender selection are prohibitively expensive, not prone to automation, and there are limiting factors (such as the need for artificial insemination) that would prevent us from lowering the price to the point of it being something that everyone would consider or even be capable of getting.

Experimental Germ-line gene therapy research is not performed in humans (yet) because of ethical considerations.


The list of flaws in this and people's reactions to it is enormous.

Now let's talk of some of the benefits we are getting because of research in this ill-defined (at least here anyways) field.


Cures--some temporary, some permanent--for many genetic disorders such as "bubble boy syndrome" and possibly one day something like XPS or hemophilia may be possible through Genetic Engineering/Genetic Therapy. Or perhaps significantly reducing someone's chances of getting retinoblastoma.

There is currently ongoing research into modifying T-cells to attack tumors. This is genetic engineering.

Sex selection is an aspect of genetic engineering. See my discussion there about sex-linked diseases.


Plants that require less pesticide or that are significantly more nutritious (look at what fortifying rice has done in the Asian countries).

Plants that significantly reduce the cost of immunizations--using one genetically modified banana to immunize ten people.

Growing organs.


This isn't even getting into prenatal detection, just talking about modifications.

Finally, while a lot of people are willing to rise up in arms with pitchforks and say that it is wrong, no one seems to be pointing out the fundamental question of why or addressing whether this will ever gain acceptance sociologically. People's views here on the matter seem to be centered more around the dystopian ideals of science fiction. From a social standpoint, Blade Runner is a more likely scenario than GATTACA.

GATTACA gives warnings that relate to what is predominantly a social problem, but saying that we should outlaw "genetic engineering" based on the material in that movie is tantamount to saying we should outlaw all surveillance technology because someone read 1984.

Well, just on the front of eliminating disease, saying that doing this would eliminate that problem is a bad thing just doesn't sound right. Its like saying we should stop trying to find cures for diseases because they help keep the population lower. So, although I don't agree with your reasoning, per se, I do believe that genetic engineering will lead to the elitist society you mentioned, and that would certainly be a problem.

I agree with the first part of this post. Besides, I don't think overpopulation poses as much of a problem as some people believe. How many people can the earth sustain, anyway?

As for the fear of elite societies, we already live in a world in which some people have more intelligence and/or higher immunity to disease and/or more favorable physical attributes than others. So I don't think "designer genes" for humans would make much difference in that respect.

Now I wouldn't favor cloning or engineering a baby today since the techniques have not been perfected yet (Dolly the sheep). I don't worry much about it since the old-fashioned method of reproduction will remain popular for a long time. ;)

Same goes for modified crops--techniques must be perfected before they can be introduced to humans.

I don't think it's wrong to experiment genetically with plants, if done very carefully. However, it could potentially be very hazardous to humans to genetically engineer animals, fungi, bacteria, or viruses, since these are not as static as plants. They can move, and therefore, if anything goes wrong, it might be difficult to contain them.

Should we genetically alter human beings because of our own picky little quirks about our children? No. I don't think you should mess with a kid's genes just to make it have blue eyes, or be a girl, or whatever. Is therapeutic genetic engineering permissible? I don't know. IF we ever get to a stage where it is totally safe, I still don't know if using genetic engineering to avoid Tay-Sachs or sickle-cell is morally right (although, I must admit, witholding such treatment could be equally wrong). What about the creed of "do no harm"? I just don't know.

What I do know is that right now we do not have the knowledge or the technique to do these things (or successfully clone a human), and until we've definitely figured it out, we should not try it on humans.

<3 Mary

ill have to come back later when im awake enough to give you my two cents on the matter, but for now i just wanted to throw something out there for consideration. one ofthe problems facing genetic engineering is how it is percieved. it always comes off as this forign technology designed to play God for man's selfish needs. (and dont get me started on people that think they can interperate God's intentions.) what a lot of people dont realize is that man has done genetice engineering for centuries, it just went by less frightning name- selective breeding. as far as the ethics are concerned, theres not much differenct between breeding what started out as small beasts of burden into the larger, stronger horces we have today, or growing sweeter fruit by picking out the best seeds, and taking a enetic shortcut so we can have those changes within one lifetime rather than ten.

On the frontier of genetic engineering is the hypoallergenic cat. Wonder what PETA thinks of this one (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136991,00.html) :
For $3,500, you can own the world’s first hypoallergenic kitten. Yes folks, the kitten is due off the “assembly line” in 2007 and promises to solve the dilemma of cat lovers suffering from a cat allergy

Allergy specialists, however, have their doubts. The cat in question is no clone. It’s also not fur-free. It’s the product of animal genetic engineering, which will “silence” the gene that produces the Fel d 1 protein (search) produced by a cat’s glands. The protein is very prevalent in a cat’s saliva and skin and causes a cat allergy in cat-loving (and hating) humans.

When the cat allergy gene is suppressed, the cat produces very little of the allergen protein, explains Simon Brodie, president of ALLERCA Inc., of Los Angeles, the biogenetics company developing this special cat.

“Many people think they’re allergic to cat hair or dander (search), but they’re really allergic to the protein,” Brodie tells WebMD. “And the nice thing about this process, it doesn’t completely suppress the protein production. If the cat still needs this protein, it’s still expressing it, so it can produce the protein, but in such tiny amounts that it won’t cause problems.”

It’s not allergy-free, but it produces much less allergen, he explains. “It’s like hypoallergenic makeup. The allergens are still there, but in very small amounts that don’t trigger allergic reactions.”

A British shorthair cat -- a playful, friendly lineage – was chosen for this first line of hypoallergenic cats. Every kitten will be sold pre-spayed and neutered. “We don’t want our cat to breed with a non-hypoallergenic cat and [have] someone attempt to sell the kittens as hypoallergenic,” says Brodie.

“That’s like buying a knockoff Gucci purse that hurts someone’s health,” he tells WebMD.

Cat Allergy Specialists Are Skeptical

“I have my doubts that this is going to work,” says David Rosenstreich, MD, director of allergy and immunology at Albert Einstein School of Medicine in New York. “Fel d 1 is the major protein that patients are allergic to. But there are other proteins that cats produce that people are allergic to. Getting rid of Fel d 1 will not create a completely non-allergenic cat,” he tells WebMD.

“I’m not sure I like the idea of genetically manipulated cats, but I’ll keep an open mind to it,” says Gailen D. Marshall, MD, PhD, director of clinical immunology and allergy at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

A cat lover with a cat allergy doesn’t have many options, he adds. Allergy shots suppress the symptoms, but the allergy is still there, which can be dangerous when asthma is involved. “And trying to bathe a cat is about as easy as herding cats,” Marshall tells WebMD.

Since the “new cat” still produces small amounts of allergen, he’s concerned about the cumulative effects. “It could be problematic over time. The allergen protein is very stable; it lives for long periods of time. This cat will still have dander, still groom itself, still have a kitty litter box. That cumulative amount could become an allergy issue -- it’s simply delayed rather than eliminated.”

Also, the Fel d 1 protein isn’t the only allergen a cat produces, Marshall says. “That makes a big, big difference.” A small percentage of cat allergy sufferers would be “just as allergic to that $3,500 cat as any cat from the SPCA.”

The hypoallergenic cat “is an option, albeit an expensive one,” he tells WebMD. “Until this animal is available for several years, I would reserve judgment. To suggest this is a panacea for a cat allergy is very premature.”

I ran across designer babies in a magazine earlier this week and decided its what I'd write my research paper for English in. Now, everytime I turn around I see this topic everywhere that I least expect! Kind of ironic..

Someone randomly linked me to this yesterday. http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey.zgi?p=WEB223WMQ9R6MQ

OK, I don't know very much about this, only being in year 10 and all, but I have a few ideas on the topic. Tell me if I get anything wrong.

To genetically modify humans say, to get rid of a disease, if the disease was hereditary through the mother you would need to choose ovums of hers that did not carry the disease.

Even this small change is morally wrong to me. In a book I just read called Double Helix, they raise the issue of who has the right to choose which of these ovums live or die, which of them go on to become healthy human beings?

That is what I believe anyway.

My questions to you are:
a) Should Genetic Engineering be allowed?
b) If Genetic Engineering is developed, to what extent is it ok?

a) Sure.
b) I'd draw the lines at sapien. Personally, I see few reasons why experimenting on the microscopic, plants, and even domestic animals would degrade humanity to any significant degree. The only problem would be costly inefficiency, due in part to the restrictions that the American government is so fond of placing on these types of scientific pursuits. On the subject of dangerous mutant viruses: I'm sure other countries beat us to that one. And hey, we're not dead... yet. :rolleyes:

If there was a suppressed potential in the field, I'd advocate it.

But then... I've always been fond of the thought of setting free hundreds of genetically-engineered raptors and 'rexes upon the U.S. *angstysigh* Oh well.

Even this small change is morally wrong to me. In a book I just read called Double Helix, they raise the issue of who has the right to choose which of these ovums live or die, which of them go on to become healthy human beings?

This is based sheerly on conflicting beliefs, but... it's just a cell. Males kill them by the millions.

Well I feel it should not be messed with. Because of the fact that genetics in terms of things that we considered flawed for one reason or another. Is what made evolution work. These flaws in some cases can evolve into something better and more refined then what we are today. Plus it is those mistakes as some scientist call it. Are what makes us all unique individuals. It makes us all different. If we all had the same genetics evolution would not be able to work any more. The world would be very boring place to live. Over population would be a bigger issue then it is today. Allot of things would be bad if genetic engendering became something real for humans instead of science fiction

Secondly, if diseases are eradicated, there will be less deaths and people will live to a ripe-old age, wouldn't this cause over-population in a world that already struggles to feed all its mouths?
I am quite aware that Genetic Modification is used in production of food crops, but do you think that the boundries should be widened and introduced into the human population?
So, kill off some of the population with diseases now so that they won't die from starvation in the future? :rolleyes: