Screening embryos for breast cancer makes you a NAZI!

[Darth Wong]

Yes, some people actually think this.

Eugenic EuphemismsProtecting our children from diseases—and ugly truths.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2009

Next week, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as president of the United States. There will be parties, cameras, a ceremony, and a parade. The world will watch and celebrate. In politics, revolutions are clearly marked.

Social revolutions that emerge from science, however, are often overlooked. One of those revolutions is happening right now, a week before Obama's inauguration, across the Atlantic Ocean.

"First baby tested for breast cancer form BRCA1 before conception born in UK," says the press release from University College London. "The first baby tested preconceptionally for a genetic form of breast cancer (BRCA1) has been born." The release quotes Paul Serhal, medical director of the hospital's Assisted Conception Unit: "This little girl will not face the specter of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life. The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations."

It's happy news. But let's take a closer look at the announcement, starting with the test "before conception." This baby was tested as an embryo in a dish. She was one of 11 such embryos made by injecting drugs in the mother to stimulate production of excess eggs, which were then fertilized with the father's sperm. Six of the embryos had the gene for breast cancer. Three more had "other abnormalities." All nine were "discarded." The other two were implanted, and one became this baby.

In sum, at least six human embryos were made and then thrown away because they failed a test. We now call such tests "preconception." This is the next step in our gradual devaluation of embryos. First, we said IVF embryos weren't pregnancies. That's technically correct: Pregnancy begins when the embryo implants in the womb. Then we called early embryos "pre-embryos" so we could dismantle them to get stem cells. That was technically incorrect, but we did it because it made us feel better. Now we're adjusting the word conception. Henceforth, testing of IVF embryos to decide which will live or die is preconception. Don't fret about the six eggs we fertilized, rejected, and flushed in selecting this baby. They were never really conceived. In fact, they weren't embryos. According to Serhal, each was just "an affected cluster of cells."

Second: "This little girl will not face the specter of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life." Why the word specter? Because the cancer was far from guaranteed. If the parents had conceived naturally, the child would have a 50 percent chance of inheriting the gene. If she got the gene, her risk of breast cancer would be 50 percent to 85 percent. So the IVF and testing were done to avoid not certain death, but a 25 percent to 45 percent chance of getting a disease that, even if it arose, might be cured. And if it arose, when would that happen? "In her adult life," say Serhal. Embryo screening is advancing from guaranteed, fatal childhood disease to potential, survivable adult diseases.

Third: "The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter." The key word here is inflicting. Before this kind of embryo test (known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis), parents weren't held responsible for a bad roll of the genetic dice. If you had a 50 percent chance of passing along a disease and your child got it, that was a tragedy, not your fault. But with the advent of PGD, the equation has changed. Now you can eliminate your risk of transmitting the bad gene—and if you don't take that precaution, you're "inflicting" the consequences. In this way, today's embryo-screening option becomes tomorrow's obligation.

Fourth: "The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations." Lasting. Legacy. Eradication. Families. Generations. We're no longer talking about protecting an individual. We're talking about cleansing families forever. "We are eliminating the gene from our line," says the happy mother. Serhal agrees: "We are eradicating it from the whole family tree." From the standpoint of efficiency, this is wonderful. But efficiency and collective cleansing are the core principles of eugenics. Even if your daughter doesn't get breast cancer from the gene, why burden her with the question of whether to test her own embryos for it? Why not make the decision for her, and for her daughters, and for their daughters?

In fact, why not spare everyone this burden? The press release boasts that University College London doctors have already "applied this technology for avoiding transmission of cancer predispositions in a whole host of cancers," including cancers of the retina and bowel. Why allow anyone to inflict on her children the specter of such adult diseases? Why not leave a lasting legacy of cleansed families? It's a moral no-brainer. All we have to do is test and discard a few clusters of cells before conception.

I'm happy for this woman and this baby. We all want to protect our descendants from disease. But let's not protect them from conscience or the truth.

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

Ah, so he's "happy" for the woman and her baby, but let's make sure she never forgets that she's a NAZI, and that breast cancer screening is evil Nazi eugenics. At least the nice thing about the article is that he conveniently divided into multiple clearly delineated points, so they can be addressed piecemeal.

[Guardsman Bass]

This guy is an idiot. People already select among possible embryos for one to be implanted at an IVF clinic, with the rest then either frozen or discarded. Why not add screening for diseases to that? It's a positive sum game.

What I suspect is that this guy has a problem with IVF itself. I wonder if he's a devout Catholic; it wouldn't surprise.

[Darth Wong]

This guy is an idiot. People already select among possible embryos for one to be implanted at an IVF clinic, with the rest then either frozen or discarded. Why not add screening for diseases to that? It's a positive sum game.

What I suspect is that this guy has a problem with IVF itself. I wonder if he's a devout Catholic; it wouldn't surprise.

He's clearly a radical anti-abortionist, judging by the kind of arguments he makes. Continually ranting about "the devaluation of embryos" is pretty much a dead giveaway, even before you see the tagline at the bottom of the article.

[Darth Wong]

Wonderful. One of my wife's Facebook friends completely buys into this argument and is in an online argument with her. Rebecca doesn't want to be harsh or undiplomatic about her friend's beliefs (I notice that her friend has no such compunctions, and is gleefully attacking "evolutionists" for encouraging baby-killing and eugenics).

I'm so tempted to contact this person and rip her pitiful arguments to shreds.

PS. She's not just a Facebook friend; she used to be a real-life acquaintance many years ago, but we now live far away from her.

[Rye]

It is eugenics, so is people carrying the cystic fibrosis gene choosing not to have kids. What awful, terrible human beings.

[rhoenix]

Wonderful. One of my wife's Facebook friends completely buys into this argument and is in an online argument with her. Rebecca doesn't want to be harsh or undiplomatic about her friend's beliefs (I notice that her friend has no such compunctions, and is gleefully attacking "evolutionists" for encouraging baby-killing and eugenics).

I'm so tempted to contact this person and rip her pitiful arguments to shreds.

PS. She's not just a Facebook friend; she used to be a real-life acquaintance many years ago, but we now live far away from her.

Then as far as I'm concerned, she set the tone for the debate, and I'd say go for it.

If you do though, please copy & paste her "arguments" and the responses. I'd love to read them.

[apocolypse]

The problem with many people is that they go right into slippery slope territory full speed without truly thinking it through. There is a world of difference between "ensure our child does not stand a very good chance of getting breast cancer" and "I will have a 7 foot tall blond haired blue eyed Aryan!"

The author has apparently jumped right into the latter without acknowledging it's only the former. Unfortunately I can see many people buying the author's argument though. What with the whole "who are we to play God? It's his decision" train of thought that plays into it as well.

[Samuel]

In sum, at least six human embryos were made and then thrown away because they failed a test. We now call such tests "preconception." This is the next step in our gradual devaluation of embryos. First, we said IVF embryos weren't pregnancies. That's technically correct: Pregnancy begins when the embryo implants in the womb. Then we called early embryos "pre-embryos" so we could dismantle them to get stem cells. That was technically incorrect, but we did it because it made us feel better. Now we're adjusting the word conception. Henceforth, testing of IVF embryos to decide which will live or die is preconception. Don't fret about the six eggs we fertilized, rejected, and flushed in selecting this baby. They were never really conceived. In fact, they weren't embryos. According to Serhal, each was just "an affected cluster of cells."

So? What is wrong with these actions? Or does the author believe we should schowl at the women and shout babykiller? Seriously, being sensitive to others feelings is wrong because...

Second: "This little girl will not face the specter of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life." Why the word specter? Because the cancer was far from guaranteed. If the parents had conceived naturally, the child would have a 50 percent chance of inheriting the gene. If she got the gene, her risk of breast cancer would be 50 percent to 85 percent. So the IVF and testing were done to avoid not certain death, but a 25 percent to 45 percent chance of getting a disease that, even if it arose, might be cured. And if it arose, when would that happen? "In her adult life," say Serhal. Embryo screening is advancing from guaranteed, fatal childhood disease to potential, survivable adult diseases.

This guy is an asshole. Apparently getting rid of a disease that probably won't kill you and might be cured is not acceptable. Has he never heard of "quality of life"?

Third: "The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter." The key word here is inflicting. Before this kind of embryo test (known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis), parents weren't held responsible for a bad roll of the genetic dice. If you had a 50 percent chance of passing along a disease and your child got it, that was a tragedy, not your fault. But with the advent of PGD, the equation has changed. Now you can eliminate your risk of transmitting the bad gene—and if you don't take that precaution, you're "inflicting" the consequences. In this way, today's embryo-screening option becomes tomorrow's obligation.

Just like how giving kids an education is now, right? And this is bad... how?

Fourth: "The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations." Lasting. Legacy. Eradication. Families. Generations. We're no longer talking about protecting an individual. We're talking about cleansing families forever. "We are eliminating the gene from our line," says the happy mother. Serhal agrees: "We are eradicating it from the whole family tree." From the standpoint of efficiency, this is wonderful. But efficiency and collective cleansing are the core principles of eugenics. Even if your daughter doesn't get breast cancer from the gene, why burden her with the question of whether to test her own embryos for it? Why not make the decision for her, and for her daughters, and for their daughters?

How is this bad? He is just asserting this is wrong without giving any justification. Also, efficiency and collective cleansing aren't the core principles of eugenics. The core principles of eugenics are improving the human gene pool, either by sterilization of the unfit, incentives to people judged better, or simply removing genes that cause disease. Given that eugenics is the reason that cousin marrige is banned in many places, it isn't a far out practice. Generally forced sterilizations are looked down upon as evil- letting people do so on their own isn't.

In fact, why not spare everyone this burden? The press release boasts that University College London doctors have already "applied this technology for avoiding transmission of cancer predispositions in a whole host of cancers," including cancers of the retina and bowel. Why allow anyone to inflict on her children the specter of such adult diseases? Why not leave a lasting legacy of cleansed families? It's a moral no-brainer. All we have to do is test and discard a few clusters of cells before conception.

Becuase we could use the same amount of money and save more people by simply providing clean water and sanitation to hundreds of millions.

I'm happy for this woman and this baby. We all want to protect our descendants from disease. But let's not protect them from conscience or the truth.

This is totally incoherant.

The problem with many people is that they go right into slippery slope territory full speed without truly thinking it through. There is a world of difference between "ensure our child does not stand a very good chance of getting breast cancer" and "I will have a 7 foot tall blond haired blue eyed Aryan!"

Is it wrong to select your child for traits like height?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wonderful. One of my wife's Facebook friends completely buys into this argument and is in an online argument with her. Rebecca doesn't want to be harsh or undiplomatic about her friend's beliefs (I notice that her friend has no such compunctions, and is gleefully attacking "evolutionists" for encouraging baby-killing and eugenics).

I'm so tempted to contact this person and rip her pitiful arguments to shreds.

PS. She's not just a Facebook friend; she used to be a real-life acquaintance many years ago, but we now live far away from her.

I would go for it, and post the results.

You know, I have taken classes in biomedical ethics and this was something we covered in great detail. I just so happened to have been the resident biological determinist and ardent eugenicist... (I did troll the class a little, the prof loved me...)

In sum, at least six human embryos were made and then thrown away because they failed a test. We now call such tests "preconception." This is the next step in our gradual devaluation of embryos. First, we said IVF embryos weren't pregnancies. That's technically correct: Pregnancy begins when the embryo implants in the womb. Then we called early embryos "pre-embryos" so we could dismantle them to get stem cells. That was technically incorrect, but we did it because it made us feel better. Now we're adjusting the word conception. Henceforth, testing of IVF embryos to decide which will live or die is preconception. Don't fret about the six eggs we fertilized, rejected, and flushed in selecting this baby. They were never really conceived. In fact, they weren't embryos. According to Serhal, each was just "an affected cluster of cells."

To this argument, I would respond that the procedure is no worse than the embryo's chances of survival. Even if the embryos were to implant, and the odds are stacked against it, they have a 20% chance of being flushed out afterward.

They are not even fetuses yet. They have not implanted, have not differentiated. Hell they have probably not even really started cell division, they are a 4 or 8 cell mass.

Second: "This little girl will not face the specter of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life." Why the word specter? Because the cancer was far from guaranteed.

No, just really fucking likely as far as cancer is concerned.

If the parents had conceived naturally, the child would have a 50 percent chance of inheriting the gene. If she got the gene, her risk of breast cancer would be 50 percent to 85 percent.

That is a 25%-43% chance of terminal breast cancer. That certainly qualifies as a specter to me. The child, and parents having to live with that their entire lives, then incurring the massive emotional and monetary costs of monitoring for it, and treating it. Then lather, rinse, repeat in subsequent generations. Why would any sane person inflict this one someone?

So the IVF and testing were done to avoid not certain death, but a 25 percent to 45 percent chance of getting a disease that, even if it arose, might be cured. And if it arose, when would that happen? "In her adult life," say Serhal. Embryo screening is advancing from guaranteed, fatal childhood disease to potential, survivable adult diseases.

And? Also this person is taking some liberty with the truth. This is a terminal cancer if I remember the case correctly. It is not survivable, and holding out some Pie in The Sky hope for a cure for cancer is not a substitute for preventing this cancer in the first place. Maybe prayer and faith in a capricious god is OK for this fucktard, but were I to have kids, I would not want to play Russian Roulette with the genes of my entire family line. I want the option to be able to prevent them from ever having to face down the horror that is a terminal cancer diagnosis. I watched my great uncle die from lung cancer (yes he was close to me and my immediate family) and saw what that did to my aunt and, great aunt (who has not really been OK since) Fuck that. No one deserves that and if it can be avoided it should be.

Third: "The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter." The key word here is inflicting. Before this kind of embryo test (known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis), parents weren't held responsible for a bad roll of the genetic dice.

Sure they were if they knew they were at risk for a specific disease. This guy's logic would have us not studying genetics or so much as doing a Linkage analysis because it presents choices for parents. Fuck him.

If you had a 50 percent chance of passing along a disease and your child got it, that was a tragedy, not your fault.

It is if you know you are a carrier.

But with the advent of PGD, the equation has changed. Now you can eliminate your risk of transmitting the bad gene—and if you don't take that precaution, you're "inflicting" the consequences. In this way, today's embryo-screening option becomes tomorrow's obligation

And this is a bad thing why? I have yet to see a compelling reason why this is wrong. Believe me, people have tried to come up with something.

Fourth: "The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations." Lasting. Legacy. Eradication. Families. Generations. We're no longer talking about protecting an individual. We're talking about cleansing families forever.

Good?

"We are eliminating the gene from our line," says the happy mother. Serhal agrees: "We are eradicating it from the whole family tree." From the standpoint of efficiency, this is wonderful.

Well he got something right.

But efficiency and collective cleansing are the core principles of eugenics.

And Eugenics is not inherently bad. We are not talking about some arbitrary social characteristic. We are talking about an inherited disease that causes pain, suffering, and death all on its own. We are also not talking about preventing people with the disease from reproducing or sterilizing them like they did with eugenics. We are talking about making sure only gametes without the gene responsible implant in the uterus. The problem with Eugenics was not that people tried to control genetic outcomes. It was that the criteria were arbitrary and the methods unfathomably cruel. This is neither.

Even if your daughter doesn't get breast cancer from the gene, why burden her with the question of whether to test her own embryos for it? Why not make the decision for her, and for her daughters, and for their daughters?

That is the point? What? is it some sort of moral good to force that decision on someone? I suppose that we have all been done a disservice by being cursed with not having to make those decisions! We have been cheated out of an essential part of our lives!

I'm happy for this woman and this baby. We all want to protect our descendants from disease. But let's not protect them from conscience or the truth.

No, he obviously does not care about protecting children from disease. Nor does he give a shit about conscience or the truth. The only way his logic makes sense is if he thinks suffering is a moral good.

[Zablorg]

Christ, three of this person's arguments revolve around the question "why bother?", and the fourth is whining that a deadly trait in a family line is removed. So this argument needs all of two sentences to drop down to square one: "Why not?", and "It's nice to see you're so sentimental of diseases".

How many of these people do you suppose would stay on their high horse and refuse the procedure if they were going to have a child and had breast cancer?

[apocolypse]

Is it wrong to select your child for traits like height?

Er..whether or not I feel that height selection should be a choseable trait wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

[Darth Wong]

His argument rests on the basic logic that if X technology can potentially be used for ill, then it should be outlawed.

Care to make a list of the various technologies that would be outlawed if we followed this idiotic logic to its conclusion?

[Samuel]

Is it wrong to select your child for traits like height?

Er..whether or not I feel that height selection should be a choseable trait wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

Why not? How often do we get a topic on eugenics at the forums?

His argument rests on the basic logic that if X technology can potentially be used for ill, then it should be outlawed.

Care to make a list of the various technologies that would be outlawed if we followed this idiotic logic to its conclusion?

We will start with fire and work our way up! Isn't there a villian in some fiction that actually did that?

[apocolypse]

Is it wrong to select your child for traits like height?

Er..whether or not I feel that height selection should be a choseable trait wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

Why not? How often do we get a topic on eugenics at the forums?

Ohhh...my mistake. I read the comment completely differently then it was meant in that case. I thought it was more of a rebuttal or somesuch than a general question.

I guess physical indicators are more murky for me. Stuff like cystic fibrosis and other genetically transmitted diseases etc I don't have a problem with, and it rather surprises me that the author of this article does. However, beyond that gets a bit more tricky and less cut and dry. It's hard to say what is desirable versus what is undesirable as far as physical appearance goes. I suppose there are a few things that can be pretty much universally agreed to be undesirable like male pattern baldness. It's far easier to choose to shave your head whereas it's much more difficult/expensive to regrow hair from a naturally balding head. OTOH, things like height, eye color, etc I'm not so sure I'd buy into.

[Samuel]

I'm good for engineering (which goes far beyond what they have here- they can only work of existing traits) as long as it:

1)Isn't so unusual it marks a kid for life
2)Doesn't lead to one-uping. Height really fits into this as it is relative to other people and it has social benefits to be taller. Unfortunately there are downsides that come from being taller- increased heart strain and the like.
3)If it is cosmetic and revesible (aka hair color)

As such, I have no objection to cosmetic changes. Of course, they aren't covered by insurance, so they probably be rare.

[Alyrium Denryle]

When asked if I am OK with wholesale genetic modification using viral vectors in order to get rid genetic defects... The answer is Yes. Of course I am 100% OK with Pre-implantation diagnostics, amniocentesis etc. Even selective abortion for medical reasons.

My qualms come about when we start trying to modify socially desirable traits like intelligence or height without those being a standard part of prenatal care (ie covered by NHS) which wont happen.

[Guardsman Bass]

Part of what worries me about moving on from "diseases and conditions" is the possibility of a situation like what happened in India when sonograms became available, leading to widespread abortions of girls and a possible gender imbalance (the same thing happened in China). Of course, that may be overstated - it's possible that there was a significant degree of female infanticide going on before this, and the sonograms merely made it possible to abortion female fetuses rather than have them and abandon them.

If you can figure out some modifications, like one that raises IQ by 50 points, or significantly reduces a person's tendency towards obesity in life, I'd be fine with it as long as it was made available as part of prenatal care for everyone (meaning offered for free or subsidized prices as part of universal health care).

[Samuel]

Part of what worries me about moving on from "diseases and conditions" is the possibility of a situation like what happened in India when sonograms became available, leading to widespread abortions of girls and a possible gender imbalance (the same thing happened in China). Of course, that may be overstated - it's possible that there was a significant degree of female infanticide going on before this, and the sonograms merely made it possible to abortion female fetuses rather than have them and abandon them.

I thought the sonagrams were mostly used in India, or is it both?

If you can figure out some modifications, like one that raises IQ by 50 points, or significantly reduces a person's tendency towards obesity in life, I'd be fine with it as long as it was made available as part of prenatal care for everyone (meaning offered for free or subsidized prices as part of universal health care).

I think I can sum it up

"As long as it doesn't lead to a permanent hardening of classes and a caste system..."

[Darth Wong]

We already have a hardening of classes and a caste system. And if you tried to find a correlation between financial success and intelligence, I think you might be surprised. Our capitalist system does not reward intelligence so much as it rewards naked ambition, moral "flexibility", and salesmanship. The most brilliant people in the country are theoretical mathematicians and research scientists, and they are quite frankly nowhere near the best-paid. If you want "best paid", go look at the bankers who managed to fuck up the entire country and then get federal handouts for doing so.

Frankly, if you wanted to genetically engineer a kid to be financially successful, you'd be better off ensuring that he is not exceptionally intelligent, but rather, that he is good-looking and a ruthlessly selfish bastard who's good at lying to people.

[Darth Wong]

Wonderful. One of my wife's Facebook friends completely buys into this argument and is in an online argument with her. Rebecca doesn't want to be harsh or undiplomatic about her friend's beliefs (I notice that her friend has no such compunctions, and is gleefully attacking "evolutionists" for encouraging baby-killing and eugenics).

I'm so tempted to contact this person and rip her pitiful arguments to shreds.

PS. She's not just a Facebook friend; she used to be a real-life acquaintance many years ago, but we now live far away from her.

Then as far as I'm concerned, she set the tone for the debate, and I'd say go for it.

If you do though, please copy & paste her "arguments" and the responses. I'd love to read them.

I guess I didn't make this clear earlier, but I can't do this. Rebecca wants me to leave this person alone.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This guy is an idiot. People already select among possible embryos for one to be implanted at an IVF clinic, with the rest then either frozen or discarded. Why not add screening for diseases to that? It's a positive sum game.

What I suspect is that this guy has a problem with IVF itself. I wonder if he's a devout Catholic; it wouldn't surprise.

He's clearly a radical anti-abortionist, judging by the kind of arguments he makes. Continually ranting about "the devaluation of embryos" is pretty much a dead giveaway, even before you see the tagline at the bottom of the article.

What a bunch of bullshit. Clearly the child should have grown up with the risk of breast cancer (being a carrier makes Ob/Gyns screen you often for cancer, and if you are done having children, many recommend a hysterectomy and a double mastectomy to lower the probability of cancer). All of this is clearly a trivial burden so a clump of cells' soul won't go to waste and God won't be offended.

The real problem with traditional eugenics is it was NOT scientific (the mechanisms of heredity were not properly understood, DNA had not even been discovered), and it was done without recourse to basic medical ethics. The problem was medicine in general buying into pseudoscience and abusing ethics. Look at the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Eugenics just suffered from the same pseudoscience and ethical failures as much of the rest of medical practice.

[Darth Wong]

The sad thing is that a lot of the people who rant about the evils of genetic selection would turn around and mutter that a mentally retarded couple should not be having children, even though that is eugenics too. They just don't realize it. I've known people like this.

[Admiral Valdemar]

We already have a hardening of classes and a caste system. And if you tried to find a correlation between financial success and intelligence, I think you might be surprised. Our capitalist system does not reward intelligence so much as it rewards naked ambition, moral "flexibility", and salesmanship. The most brilliant people in the country are theoretical mathematicians and research scientists, and they are quite frankly nowhere near the best-paid. If you want "best paid", go look at the bankers who managed to fuck up the entire country and then get federal handouts for doing so.

Frankly, if you wanted to genetically engineer a kid to be financially successful, you'd be better off ensuring that he is not exceptionally intelligent, but rather, that he is good-looking and a ruthlessly selfish bastard who's good at lying to people.

I can't remember which businessman said it, think he was a British one, but the idea that the top rich 100 of any nation can write books on how they got successful and have people copy it is one fraught with illogic. The analogy he used was of a hundred people flipping coins. As unlikely as a certain sequence of results may be, sooner or later, someone, even an idiot, will get it. Business is a lot of luck and knowing people, with few having actual brainpower pave their way forward. As you say, good lucks, selfishness and lying with a suitable portion of influential cadres helps.

The logic, if you can call it that, for dismissing eliminating such traits in the genome of any given individual could be used to justify the cessation of just about any disease fighting initiative too, among other things. Do we get tearful over the prospect of losing polio? If not, why not, and how is this different to ridding the world of genetic based hereditary diseases, as opposed to zoonoses passed on to man by animals?

Debate the merits of selecting for intelligence or height or eye colour as you want. It should be clear cut to any sane, rational person that snipping out genes for disease serves a better purpose than selfish aesthetic choices.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Frankly, if you wanted to genetically engineer a kid to be financially successful, you'd be better off ensuring that he is not exceptionally intelligent, but rather, that he is good-looking and a ruthlessly selfish bastard who's good at lying to people.

That sounds familiar...

[Mayabird]

The real problem with traditional eugenics is it was NOT scientific (the mechanisms of heredity were not properly understood, DNA had not even been discovered), and it was done without recourse to basic medical ethics.

Nitpick time: DNA was discovered in 1868. Its structure, composition, and function, though, weren't completely figured out until the 1950s.


But yeah, I can sum up all the bioethicists that get media attention in two lines: "HOLY FUCK, IT'S SOMETHING NEW! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!" It's new, therefore it is bad, therefore Nazis or something.

My only big problem with people doing more than just selecting or removing pre-existing traits is that I don't want rich idiots going off half-cocked for whatever genes are fashionable and making broken kids out of it. They might think it'd be great to make super-smart kids but then don't think about how much work it'll take to educate a kid with an IQ of 185, even assuming it's done right and doesn't unintentionally give them, let's say, a thousand times greater chance of being schizophrenic. (Yes, I'm actually going "think of the children!" here.)