Designer Babies and an Evil Monetization Scheme for Same

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I had the phrase 'designer babies' run by my ear right after waking up this morning, so my brain got to thinking: What's the likelihood of a 'genetic rent' being enforced by a purposeful genetic defect built into custom genomes that requires daily doses of some highly expensive (read: massively overpriced and hugely profitable) drug made by the same company or the genmodded individual either suffers greatly or dies? It sounds just like something Monsanto or another Bush Capitalista would do to monetize this on top of the large upfront fee.

Another way of preventing 'copyright infringement' would be to render the genmoddee effectively sterile (likely by making the offspring hideously deformed and passing it off as a 'side effect') unless another overpriced drug is administered, or another genmod procedure complete with large fee is performed. Or the genmoddee can simply get an RIAA-style lawsuit. Hmm, maybe I should patent this idea and sit on it so it's not implemented.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Well, any sane government would classify that as a conflict of interest. Not even the US has cigarette, food and health companies run by a single board. (RJR Nabisco was just cigars and cookies ).
Researching an unique flaw would be hideously expensive (not to mention almost impossible to test), while copying existing flaws would mean acquiring all the treatments first. And anyone buying a designer baby will demand certain checks, if the technology can set up specific diseases in any baby, then it will be much easier to screen for them, meaning that anyone buying the baby will expect the "disease free" coupon to be valid when buying their little einstein .

But it's a nice theory nonetheless.

[PeZook]

This sounds like a prelude to a violent revolution. It'll be easy to rile up the crowds with pictures of cruelly deformed babies and suffering genmods.

Even in a totally laissez-faire society, you'd see a revolution unless genmod babies are only the priviledge of the stinking rich.

But in this case, the affected have real power and can fight the genmod companies on their own.

It would be similar to blatantly installing timed demo charges in home appliances, so that they go boom after, say, six months, so that you have to buy a new one. Abuses would have to be far more subtle.

[Broomstick]

I don't think biochemical blackmail would be tolerated by society at large. Society views people much differently than wheat or corn crops.

I think it more likely that gene-mod individuals would be rendered sterile without intervention. This would likely be supported by the "OMIGOD GENE ENGINEERING IS TEH EVALLLLLL!" crowd who wouldn't want to see gene mods get "loose".

[Eulogy]

The companies that do this get smeared across the country by angry parents and human rights groups. Then the genmod babies get fixed.

This goes triple if the baby was modded to get rid of crippling or fatal genes like cystic fibrosis.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This might throw a giant monkey wrench in the works if it becomes ubiquitous...

Inside the Forgotten X Prize—the One That Can Save Your Life
On National DNA Day, PM's resident geek takes the first extensive look at the Archon X Prize in Genomics, the $10 million race for a cheap, disease-hunting gene sequencer that could land on your kitchen counter sooner than you think.



At $150,000 per box, George Church’s Polonator device is the smallest and most affordable personal genetic sequencer on the market today. A competition to run through 100 genomes in 10 days for $10,000, however, could change that.

By Erik Sofge
Published on: April 25, 2008

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — It's an odd-looking gadget—more like a free-standing safe than a self-contained DNA sequencer. This certainly doesn't look like the kind of machine that could prevent diseases and save thousands of lives. And at the moment, the Polonator G.007 isn't even sequencing anyone's DNA. Its belly loaded with dye and front panel opened wide, the arcane inner workings of the box are exposed—not that that's any less confusing, with fluid pumping through snaking, translucent lines. The handy labels on two of the internal containers—marked WATER and WASH—aren't helping much, either.

But that's the beauty of the Polonator, the world's smallest and cheapest available sequencing device, as it rests quietly in the Church Lab here at Harvard Medical School: To operate it, researchers load one cartridge with liquid reagents and two more with DNA, then shut the door. Wave a hand to activate its proximity sensor, and the sequencing run starts—pulsing LED lights, streaming data and a much clearer picture of lineage and inherited disease.

This is the closest you can get to gene sequencing for dummies. And it could also be the ticket to a $10 million purse for the Personal Genome Project (PGx) in one of the most important research competitions to date. Unlike the 100-mpg race for the Progressive Automotive X Prize or the YouTube moonshot that is the Google Lunar X Prize, the unheralded Archon X Prize in Genomics has world-changing implications at stake within a decade—or sooner.

"In 10 years, these things will be small enough and cheap enough to have next to your toaster," says Jason Bobe, director of community for PGx. "We'll be sequencing everything—a plant from your garden or an Angus beef steak—to see if it's the real thing."

Bobe is (sort of) kidding, but the history of personal genomics has been one of incredibly rapid progress, thanks in large part to the man who runs this lab, Harvard genetics professor and Human Genome Project originator George Church. "The price has come down by a factor of 1000 in the past two years," he says. "But we have to make it cheaper. If we can reduce volumes by a hundredfold, we can come close to a $1000 genome."

In any discussion of personal genomics, it's easy to get buried by the numbers. For example, to win the Archon X Prize, a research team must sequence 100 individual genomes with an accuracy of more than 99 percent—within 10 days. Each sequence must include at least 98 percent of a genome and cost $10,000 or less. The first group to pull this off by fall 2013 wins $10 million (the same prize money as the AXP but only a third of what Google is offering). The key factors outlined in the rules and emphasized by early entrants are time, accuracy and cost. That's because the goal isn't to simply give a break to the institutions that already perform sequencing—it's to provide every person on the planet with the chance to have their own DNA sequenced, and potentially upend the medical industry.

"If you could sequence the genomes of 1000 patients with Parkinson's," says Marc Hodosh, senior director for the Archon X Prize, "and compare that to the rest of the population, you could recognize which genes are associated with it. Then, pharmaceutical companies could create targeted drugs, preventive pills." In some cases, such as an extreme predisposition to a type of cancer, doctors could possibly even perform a preemptive operation. An accurate genome could also help you avoid the onset of a given disease in less drastic ways, like staying away from certain drugs or eating specific foods.

Companies like 23andme already offer cheap DNA analysis, but they only offer fractional snips rather than full genomes. The X Prize Foundation is calling for at least 98 percent, with sequences that collect more data per genome than anyone has ever attempted, so controlling costs will be paramount. Church tries to use the least expensive reagents possible to bottom out at somewhere close to $10,000 per sequence, and future generations of the Polonator (the one here is his seventh, having sold two boxes for $150,000 each) could require fewer materials per sequencing run.

While he's excited about being one of seven accepted competitors for the X Prize (15 to 20 teams are expected to enter), Church insists that the real goal isn't a $10,000 genome. "There are 6.5 billion people who need their inherited genome done, as well as day-to-day changes," he says. "We need to really bring this down to $1000, or whatever's affordable, so you think nothing of going into a clinic and doing it again." Researchers are aiming for open-source enzymes and better access to equipment to reach that magic $1000 run. PGx spent years turning its cobbled-together, off-the-shelf sequencing gear—including a microscope rigged to two external PC towers—into a marketable, easy-to-use device (click here for complete plans).

Officials at the X Prize foundation agree that the era of practical personal genomics won't arrive until it gets cheaper, with hopes that a winning prototype could drop closer to $1000 after manufacturing and production. Hodosh likened the rapid increase in genome coverage and accuracy to the yearly upgrade cycle of personal computers, so you won't have to wait until 2013 for the first clues or hints of your genetic vulnerabilities. Call it insurance for your body—not a sure thing, but for a week's salary, it might be worth it.

The competition's final deadline, Hodosh admits, may be pushed back; a final deadline is already open-ended—when lives are at stake, research like this is a bit less sporty than, say, building a suborbital space jet. But when a team announces that it's ready for sequencing, the X Prize Foundation will offer one of two time slots during the year (in January or July), while other teams watch and wait like the rest of us. The first to wrestle those imposing numbers into shape—100 genomes, 10 days, $10,000 or less—wins the biggest number of them all. "For the smaller startups, it would be a real nice perk," Hodosh says. "But on the whole, there are teams that are going to spend more than $10 million. Most aren't doing it for the money. It's that Neil Armstrong moment, that Lindbergh moment, that everyone remembers, that paves the way for a new era."

This might also help.

Teen Helps Design Classroom DNA Experiments Using Common Food Dyes

ScienceDaily (May 13, 2008) — Agarose gel electrophoresis? Most teenagers wouldn't have a clue what this scientific term means, but middle school student Andrew Trigiano knows the protocol inside and out. When Andrew was 12, his father Robert Trigiano, a professor at the University of Tennessee, was looking for an interesting science project for his son. Setting out to compare differences in popular brands of Easter egg dyes, Trigiano's project soon grew into a full-blown scientific study and set of replicable classroom experiments.

One of the most frequently used tools in biochemistry and biotechnology, agarose gel electrophoresis is a common forensic technique often used in genetic or DNA fingerprinting. The procedure is achieved by moving negatively charged nucleic acid molecules through a gelatinous substance known as agarose by using an electric field.

Andrew, in collaboration with his father and other researchers, completed the study, which is published in the January 2008 issue the American Society of Horticultural Science's journal HortTechnology. The youngest author ever to publish in an ASHS journal, Andrew was only 12 when he began the research project and 14 when the study was published.

The resulting experiments were developed for use in middle and high school classrooms or for teachers and undergraduate students who have limited hands-on experience with this technique. As Dr. Trigiano explained, "one experiment, electrophoresis of common food dyes, was designed for secondary and undergraduate students but can be used as an inexpensive means for introducing the main concepts of electrophoresis to anyone. Popular brands of food dyes (red, blue, yellow, and green) purchased at local markets are mixed into a 60% glycerol/water solution and are separated on 1% agarose gels. Mixed colors are separated into primary colors (e.g., green into blue and yellow) and some apparently single dyes often have extra "surprise" components."

Explaining another experiment from the study, Trigiano continued: "The second laboratory exercise requires more extensive equipment and a more advanced set of skills, but the exercise has been completed successfully by middle school-level through graduate-level students and teachers. In this exercise, the internally transcribed spacer region of the ribosomal subunit for a fungus, plant, and insect are amplified and separated electrophoretically on agarose gels. A simple crime is solved using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA fingerprinting."

The experiments outlined in the study provide students with hands-on practice assembling master mixes for PCR, using pipettes, and performing the various steps involved in PCR amplification. Instructions for both exercises are formatted in easy-to-follow procedure boxes, and a downloadable presentation is available on the web. The cost of supplies is about one dollar per student, making these exercises relatively inexpensive to conduct.

Dr. Trigiano hopes the experiments will be a vehicle to introduce electrophoresis to students of all ages. "The experiments are fun, engaging and inexpensive compared to most commercially available kits. The downloadable PowerPoint presentation also helps explain the process visually. The techniques are easily understood and completed by students of all ages with a minimum of equipment and other resources."

Trigiano attributes his son Andrew for much of the research study's success. "Andrew did most of the PowerPoint presentation, the dye figures in the article, much of the experimentation with the dyes and helped develop the dye-based forensic exercise." From the results, it's clear that this teenager has science in his DNA.

[montypython]

The companies that do this get smeared across the country by angry parents and human rights groups. Then the genmod babies get fixed.

This goes triple if the baby was modded to get rid of crippling or fatal genes like cystic fibrosis.

I can seriously see corporate types having their heads mounted on pitchforks if such a situation were to ever arise, trying to induce negative effects on something people consider fundamental is indeed a recipe for disaster.

Also, I don't know if gene templates are copyrightable, gene sequences I do know can't be.

[ray245]

While designer babies can be nice to humanity as a whole, I wonder if it is fair to the babies...

They may get genetic traits that they might not enjoy. Like a natural pink for instance, or being able to distinguish the sound note easily.

[Mayabird]

As much as you love your conspiracy theories, this is an easy one to kick down:

Rich people are the most likely to get this done to their kids first.
Rich people can hire very expensive lawyers.
If their kids are born messed up, intentional or not, they will SUE THE EVER LIVING CRAP out of the company.

Worst case scenario is that this hypothetical Evil Genetics Company messes up a couple hundred kids before they're sued back into the stone age, and then probably thrown in jail for some law they broke or another. It'll suck to be those kids, yes, but it's hardly like they're going to Take Over the World (TM) through their EVIL genetics.

[Tanasinn]

This sounds more like something out of a Shadowrun supplement than an actual possibility, as has been said. Besides the fact that the rich would probably be among the first to benefit from "designer" babies, such a base and open form of what amounts to slavery would certainly meet with civil outrage at least, and open violence at most.

Not to mention the fact that you'd probably have a hard time finding people so deeply callous (really, sociopathic) as to finance such an idea to begin with...

[KlavoHunter]

The idea of "Genetic sequencers that would fit next to your toaster" would probably result in insurance companies requiring you to take a test before they'll give you insurance - and if you have some big risky gene, they'll either jack the prices up or deny you entirely.