A WOMAN is pregnant with Britain’s first designer baby selected to prevent an inherited cancer, The Times can reveal.
Her decision to use controversial genetic-screening technology will ensure that she does not pass on to her child the hereditary form of eye cancer from which she suffers.
Although they did not have fertility problems, the woman and her partner created embryos by IVF. This allowed doctors to remove a cell and test it for the cancer gene, so only unaffected embryos were transferred to her womb.
The pregnancy will increase controversy over the procedure, which the Government’s fertility watchdog authorised on Wednesday for genes that confer an 80 per cent lifetime risk of breast and bowel cancer.
Critics argue that the action is unethical because it involves the destruction of some embryos that would never contract these illnesses if they were allowed to develop into children. Even those that would potentially become ill could expect many years of healthy life first, and some of the disorders involved are treatable or preventable.
The eye cancer retinoblastoma…affects about 1 in 15,000 children. About half the cases are hereditary, and those who inherit the defective gene have a 90 per cent chance of developing cancer. Up to 95 per cent of tumours detected early can be treated, but this requires chemotherapy and surgery that can cause blindness.
Overdue.
Thanks, Joshua.
Critics argue that the action is unethical because it involves the destruction of some embryos that would never contract these illnesses if they were allowed to develop into children.
Are they complaining about the screening itself, or just the way the “surplus” embryos are treated?
Is this a “Human life begins at fertilization” argument, or a “There are women willing to bring them to term” argument?
Its a slippery slope … and imagine the legal suits if the kid does contract that cancer (it should be theoretically possible … though I’m no biologist)
the primary arguments are the surplus embyo’s and the genetic enginerring of *designer* babies.
the U.K. goverment has been allowing this *screening* in a rare few cases, the main criteria had to be a 90% chance or better the child would have one of the 2 or 3 genetic problems this was designed for. But apparently in the next few months they are going to ok screening for a 70 to 90% chance and this has lots of folks up in arms. All the usual suspects when this stuff becomes public but also other geneticists and scientists.
So are you ok with a screening for a gay gene?