Visions of the Future: print media text 9 Genetics and the use of genetics SCIENCE continually accrues greater genetic knowledge. Geneticists claim to have found the gene for good parenting, genes for obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, hair colour and happiness. Amazing advances in reproductive technologies increase the potential to choose the traits or characteristics of children. Techniques such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) can already be used to screen embryos for genetic diseases. Similarly, embryos created outside the body using invitro fertilisation are tested for genetic disorders before being transferred to the uterus. Advances in genetic technology have brought many benefits but also raise some serious concerns. Advocates highlight the potential benefits, such as the possible elimination of debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. Some, however, fear that it will encourage attempts to create “perfect”, high achieving children. Will parents of the future be able to select their desired genes to create the embryo of choice - their own “designer baby”? What ethical issues will this raise? Few, however, anticipated the case of prospective parents deliberately engineering genetic defects into their children. A US couple has sparked a controversial debate by deliberately choosing a deaf sperm donor in order to maximise their chance of having a deaf baby. Candy McCullough and Sharon Duchesneau selected a deaf man as a sperm donor after being told by a sperm bank that donors with disabilities were screened out. The couple see deafness as a cultural identity and not a disability, and their decision has been condemned by many. Increasingly parents are engaging in selection. Most commonly this involves prenatal screening against disability or disease. In Australia, women routinely use ultrasound and amniocentesis to test for congenital abnormalities. Some argue that this is quite different from accepting and choosing a disability such as deafness. There have been several reported cases of deaf children deliberately conceived through embryo selection overseas, and the chairman of Melbourne IVF, John McBain, says a deaf couple approached his service three years ago wanting to maximise their chance of having a deaf baby. A Victorian couple have recently been given permission to create a “designer baby” to help save the life of their terminally ill sibling. Victoria’s Infertility Treatment Authority has approved an interim policy permitting the use of pre- implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) embryo selection, which will allow cells from the designer baby’s umbilical cord to be used for a transplant to help save Christina. Up until now the use of such tissue typing has been illegal in Australia. Individual cases must be approved by an ethics committee and can be made only for a sibling. With such a range of questions being raised, the issue of the application of genetic research is sure to stay in the news. The Age
Genetics and the use of genetics SCIENCE continually accrues
greater genetic knowledge. Geneticists claim to have found the gene
for good parenting, genes for obesity, Alzheimers disease, hair
colour and happiness. Amazing advances in reproductive technologies
increase the potential to choose the traits or characteristics of
children. Techniques such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis
(PGD) can already be used to screen embryos for genetic diseases.
Similarly, embryos created outside the body using invitro
fertilisation are tested for genetic disorders before being
transferred to the uterus. Advances in genetic technology have
brought many benefits but also raise some serious concerns.
Advocates highlight the potential benefits, such as the possible
elimination of debilitating diseases such as Alzheimers or
Parkinsons. Some, however, fear that it will encourage attempts to
create perfect, high achieving children. Will parents of the future
be able to select their desired genes to create the embryo of
choice - their own designer baby? What ethical issues will this
raise? Few, however, anticipated the case of prospective parents
deliberately engineering genetic defects into their children. A US
couple has sparked a controversial debate by deliberately choosing
a deaf sperm donor in order to maximise their chance of having a
deaf baby. Candy McCullough and Sharon Duchesneau selected a deaf
man as a sperm donor after being told by a sperm bank that donors
with disabilities were screened out. The couple see deafness as a
cultural identity and not a disability, and their decision has been
condemned by many. Increasingly parents are engaging in selection.
Most commonly this involves prenatal screening against disability
or disease. In Australia, women routinely use ultrasound and
amniocentesis to test for congenital abnormalities. Some argue that
this is quite different from accepting and choosing a disability
such as deafness. There have been several reported cases of deaf
children deliberately conceived through embryo selection overseas,
and the chairman of Melbourne IVF, John McBain, says a deaf couple
approached his service three years ago wanting to maximise their
chance of having a deaf baby. A Victorian couple have recently been
given permission to create a designer baby to help save the life of
their terminally ill sibling. Victorias Infertility Treatment
Authority has approved an interim policy permitting the use of
pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) embryo selection, which
will allow cells from the designer babys umbilical cord to be used
for a transplant to help save Christina. Up until now the use of
such tissue typing has been illegal in Australia. Individual cases
must be approved by an ethics committee and can be made only for a
sibling. With such a range of questions being raised, the issue of
the application of genetic research is sure to stay in the news.
The Age
