Dante Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The first baby in the UK tested before conception for a genetic form of breast cancer has been born. Doctors at University College London said the girl and her mother were doing well following the birth this week. The embryo was screened for the altered BRCA1 gene, which would have meant the girl had a 80% chance of developing breast cancer. Women in three generations of her husband's family have been diagnosed with the disease in their 20s. Paul Serhal, the fertility expert who treated the couple, said: "This little girl will not face the spectre 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." Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves taking a cell from an embryo at the eight-cell stage of development, when it is around three-days old, and testing it. This is before conception - defined as when the embryo is implanted in the womb. Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes to continue the pregnancy, and discard any whose genetic profile points to future problems. Using PGD to ensure a baby does not carry an altered gene which would guarantee a baby would inherit a disease such as cystic fibrosis, is well-established. But in 2006, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said doctors could test for so-called susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1. Everybody carries a version of these genes - in fact a properly functioning BRCA1 protein helps stop cancer before it starts - but some particular variations of the genes greatly increase the risk of cancer. Increased chance Carrying the key BRCA1 mutation in this family's case would have given the increased chance of breast cancer and 50% chance of ovarian cancer later in life. However, carrying the gene does not make cancer inevitable, and there is also a chance the disease could be cured, if caught early enough. The couple, who wish to remain anonymous, wanted to eradicate the gene flaw from their family. The husband's grandmother, mother, sister and a cousin have been diagnosed with the disease. If the 27-year-old woman and her husband had had a son, he could have been a carrier and passed it on to any daughters. Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This is nothing personal towards the girl, but I think we have gone too far. "Underlying all this is eugenics." Mrs Quintavalle said the message was that "you are better off dead, than being born with this gene". "I hope 20 years down the line we will have eradicated breast cancer - not eradicated the carriers. "This testing procedure is being used more and more for less and less significant reasons." But Kath McLachlan, of Breast Cancer Care, said those with the faulty BRCA1 gene would be very interested in the development. "There are many complex issues to take into account before undertaking PGD, and the decision will finally come down to an individual's personal ethics." And Professor Peter Braude, director of the Centre for PGD at Guy's Hospital in London, said: "The decision as to whether PGD is appropriate for a couple will be made after a thorough discussion with knowledgeable genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists. "It will not be suitable for everyone who has experience of breast cancer in their family, nor where the chances of the IVF needed for PGD has a low chance of succeeding." news.bbc.co.uk ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 No way is this eugenics in this case, it's just sensible. If we can use all these techniques like PAGE to prevent people being born with high probabilities of developing cancer, then I think we should. It's not like we're selecting for desirable traits - just trying to avoid those that are deleterious. Anyway, it's cool they've managed to pull this off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadKill Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Eugenics is fucking win anyway, I don't see why people have a problem with it, I also believe in retroactive cleansing in the form of enforced sterilisation, fuck people's freedom and rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Ok, who misread that as porn? No bullshitting here. If the 27-year-old woman and her husband had had a son, he could have been a carrier and passed it on to any daughters. So they couldn't have done that and had results if it was a boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Can we call this self triggered evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letty Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Imagine how that baby will feel when it realises its just an experiment. lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Imagine how that baby feel when she realises she doesn't has to die of breast cancer in her 20s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Imagine how that baby feel when she realises she doesn't has to die of breast cancer in her 20s. Don't you just hate these people who, in the wake of science finding a way of successfully preventing a form of cancer, claim this is really bad and try to get public opinion to turn against it. What drives these people to do these kind of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 No way is this eugenics in this case, it's just sensible. If we can use all these techniques like PAGE to prevent people being born with high probabilities of developing cancer, then I think we should. It's not like we're selecting for desirable traits - just trying to avoid those that are deleterious. That might be what the likes of me and you would want it for. But can you say the same for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 That might be what the likes of me and you would want it for. But can you say the same for everyone? Saying cancer isn't undesirable is nothing but a sign of either malice or stupidity, so, yes, pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 With any kind of "power" or control, there are people that will abuse it. Nice that it could be removed from humandkind, yet sad for the child, if they ever find out they were an experiment. Dunno how I'd feel. Good on one hand, a bit rejected on the other. Hard to know really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Just because the baby was an experiment doesn't mean it wasn't wanted, it doesn't actually say anywhere in the article (at least not that I can see after a quick skim) that it wasn't wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Just because the baby was an experiment doesn't mean it wasn't wanted, it doesn't actually say anywhere in the article (at least not that I can see after a quick skim) that it wasn't wanted. Indeed, it's most likely that pregnant women were asked if they're like to participate in the experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyxis Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Fastest sperm to the finish line FTW. When it comes to selective breeding, us humans seem to mess things up so badly when we try to play god. Today's humans: Tomorrow's humans: Deleted mean comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I don't get what people are moaning about? She now has a kid that she wanted, and that child will life a longer live due to this procedure. I see nothing wrong with that. Then again, I'm for all the other crap too. You know, stem-cell research and whatever. But again, I suppose it's all down to personal choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Another step towards man's self-destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothicPlague Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Don't you just hate these people who, in the wake of science finding a way of successfully preventing a form of cancer, claim this is really bad and try to get public opinion to turn against it. What drives these people to do these kind of things? Religion . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Religion . You're not meant to mention that around these parts, especially not near...oh look, me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Oh yeah, religion, that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Imagine how that baby will feel when it realises its just an experiment. lol... *Cue Sephiroth's Theme* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mundi Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I think the child would be even more pissed off if she would find out that she is dying off cancer and the parents could have prevented it. It´s a simple fact that if you don´t like then don´t do it, it´s a parent´s job to keep the child safe if they think this is right then it´s their decision.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Parents have the right to keep their child safe to an extent. Unacceptable methods of protection that break the law aren't allowed - obviously. The question is whether this kind of practice should be an acceptable method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mundi Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 This method is to protect a child against a terminal disease unless they find out that this is dangerous to the child I don´t see a reason to ban parents to do this. It helps keep the child alive like a medical shot would do and that is also on the decision of the parent if they want to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 This method is to protect a child against a terminal disease unless they find out that this is dangerous to the child I don´t see a reason to ban parents to do this.It helps keep the child alive like a medical shot would do and that is also on the decision of the parent if they want to do that. Some people see gene therapy and the like to be "unethical". Regardless of where they get their ideas from, it is irrelevant - all this should mean is that they should not get it done, as opposed to try and force others not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 But then that brings in the arguement of all laws. Some people disagree with certain laws but all are legally bound to them. Boundaries of medical research, although may not directly harm someone, are there for protection of society as a whole and prevent downfall which can eventually affect other people. I'm not saying I'm for or against; but to simply say it's fine for those reasons is short-sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts