Baby To Be Born Without the Gene For Breast Cancer 259
manoftin writes to tell us that next week a baby will be born without the gene for breast cancer, according to the BBC. "But he said that, in this case, not carrying the BRCA1 gene would not guarantee any daughter born to the couple would be unaffected by breast cancer because there are other genetic and environmental causes. Dr Alan Thornhill, scientific director of the London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre, said: 'While the technology and approach used in this case is fairly routine, it is the first time in the UK that a family has successfully eliminated a mutant breast cancer gene for their child. It is a victory for both the parents and the HFEA that licensed this treatment.'"
Re:Tough choice (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you look them in the eye and say "choose cancer"?
No, no I can't. I can, however, look them in the eye and say that removing any amount of genetic material or replacing it can have unexpected results. I'm not a biologist of any sort but we still don't have a full understanding of the human genome. Mapping, sure, but we're largely ignorant of what everything does.
Assuming they can assure that this will only effect the cancer risk, then they should go for it.
I recall a study [discovermagazine.com] that removed what was thought of as "junk DNA" from mice. In which case, they were badly deformed and doomed from birth because that "junk" was actually acting as a decoy or buffer or something (I don't think they ever really figured it out) to absorb deformities. From the article:
Hirotsune's team made their discovery during an unrelated study in which they inserted a fruit fly gene into embryonic mice. The fruit fly DNA disrupted the mouse pseudogene for makorin1, a gene thought to be associated with bone and kidney development. Most of the mice in this line died within days of birth, exhibiting severe kidney and bone deformities, even though the proper makorin1 gene was unaffected. Putting additional copies of makorin1 or its pseudogene into the mice helped only somewhat. But when Hirotsune reintroduced an intact copy of the original pseudogene into mouse embryos, the animals developed normally.
So assuming this gene has no other function unfortunately might be something we don't find out ... until we try it.
I sincerely wish them and their offspring the best of luck at leading full healthy lives. Were I in their place, I would be considering adoption.
Re:Tough choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, in Ancient Roman society, babies were never adopted...only teens. Why? Because when children reach their teens, you can know their character and if you want to trust them with carrying on your inheritance and your family name. With babies, you never know they'll turn up. In the nature versus nurture forming of character, you might provide good nurture but still turn out bad because of nature (aka genetics).
Re:Tough choice (Score:3, Interesting)
But it's not. My point is that we do (or rather will) have to consider the same ethical questions the movie raises, and it doesn't require genetic manipulation.
Do you really believe genetic screening hasn't been going on for years? Amniocentesis and the ability to diagnose downs syndrome in a fetus has been around for 40 years. I don't know how long it's been a routine procedure, but I'd guess 20 years or more.
The movie is still a movie, and I really don't think the "issues" that it raises are going to be the hard ones (nor is this breast cancer thing a hard question).
He's an example of a hard question for you. Suppose we find a gene that highly correlates with homosexuality.. let's say 80%. What then? Here's a slightly easier one (and likely more plausible). What do we do about fetal testing for deafness? (I think we've already found genes responsible for that).
Re:Tough choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tough choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Conversely, DNA can't be everything. I have a set of identical-twin cousins who are excellent examples. Their mother left them when they were young (somewhere between 4 and 6, I don't remember too well as I wasn't that old, either), leaving their father (my dad's brother) to raise them (and get remarried and have a slew of kids with his new wife, too). Anyway, one turned out as a risk-taker and gay, the other is neither. Same household, even same genes. There's gotta be more to it than that. (Of course, I'll get modded down for pointing out that genes also can't be the end-all and be-all of determining sexuality, either, since these two ARE identical twins and still ended up not having the same sexuality. Anecdotes != data, but this is simply a counter-example that seems to me to disprove that theory.)
Neither of the boys (well, they're over 18 now, so "men") are psychologically perfect (who is?), but they are definitely quite far apart in personality despite both same genes and same upbringing.
What future are people planning for? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's more along the lines that even if you know about someone's genes you still can't predict their life. It's akin to predicting the future which we don't expect to be able to do.
To put it another way: if you don't know the future then how do you know what genes are important? perhaps in the upcoming unplanned world scenario the gene for determination and desire is more important than the one for perfect fitness?
If we plan too much and optimise too much then we are very vulnerable to risk.
Re:Tough choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite the movie's message, in the end he wasn't fit enough to go, his heart wasn't strong enough as shown in the treadmill scene...
That wasn't his heart defect cropping up. That was him pushing himself farther than he could (he was running for a longer period of time than his fitness level should allow). He did this because he had assumed the identity of someone who was a genetic match to become a great athlete (although Jerome apparently didn't have the drive to achieve his potential). He didn't have a heart attack and need hospitalization, he was just completely and utterly out of breath. Notice he didn't have any problems with his heart when he was swimming against his brother. He was probably in the best physical shape he could be, but it wasn't enough to match what was expected of Jerome. That's normal. If I had spent the last 15 years training and running, I still wouldn't be a match for an olympic athlete. Training is a necessary but insufficient condition to compete at that level: you need to be born with something too.
They made a point in the movie of describing Vincent's screening as coming up with a *high percentage chance* of heart failure, and not an actual health problem. He was willing to accept the risk, but nobody else was willing to invest in him. The risk-aversion of insurance companies was mentioned when Vincent's mother was unable to enroll him in a school (or child care, I don't remember).
In addition, becoming a gattaca astronaut was probably a bit like becoming a NASA astronaut: a lot of people want to do it, so the competition is fierce enough that they get to pay you a comparatively low salary and the job requirements are far above and beyond what should be needed to determine if you're qualified for the job. As long as we have so many applicants to choose from, let's go ahead and get the person capable of being an olympic athlete. He's never going to have to run a marathon in space, but why the hell not pick the best?
In short, Vincent is just going to have to exercise enough to not lose too much muscle and bone mass while in space. His eyesight isn't an issue as long as he took his contacts with him. What's going to get used the most is his brain, so he can conduct the scientific mission he was sent for. He proved he was qualified in that area when he designed the mission he was going on (without a single mistake, which apparently was unusual enough to warrant mention by his boss).