'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say

[Chef Ramsay]

Rapid progress in genetics is making "designer babies" more likely and society needs to be prepared, leading scientists have told the BBC.

Dr Tony Perry, a pioneer in cloning, has announced precise DNA editing at the moment of conception in mice.

He said huge advances in the past two years meant "designer babies" were no longer HG Wells territory.

Other leading scientists and bioethicists argue it is time for a serious public debate on the issue.

Designer babies - genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease - have long been a topic of science fiction.

Dr Perry, who was part of the teams to clone the first mice and pigs, said the prospect was still fiction, but science was rapidly catching up to make elements of it possible.

In the journal Scientific Reports, he details precisely editing the genome of mice at the point DNA from the sperm and egg come together.

Dr Perry, who is based at the University of Bath, told the BBC: "We used a pair of molecular scissors and a molecular sat-nav that tells the scissors where to cut.

"It is approaching 100% efficiency already, it's a case of 'you shoot you score'."

More...http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30742774

Want one of these or do you wanna steer clear of it and taking your chances? Or, if you're like me not want any children at all?

[username18333]

Generally speaking, Homo sapiens sapiens babyhood is rather ephemeral; therefor, that one would so consider it (indeed, neglecting its adulthood) is, without a context of the subspecies’ natures, peculiar.

[criptix]

the problem here:

who will get the designer babys?

the 1 %.

who is profiting from it?

the 1%.

who will not profit from it?

the other 99%


i think this a pretty realistic prediction.

[poisenrang]

the problem here:

who will get the designer babys?

the 1 %.

who is profiting from it?

the 1%.

who will not profit from it?

the other 99%


i think this a pretty realistic prediction.

so true, this just says it.

[BADecker]

the problem here:

who will get the designer babys?

the 1 %.

who is profiting from it?

the 1%.

who will not profit from it?

the other 99%


i think this a pretty realistic prediction.

Yes, but, if we get enough good designer babies from the 1%, they will gradually replace the 99%. As they replace them, they will push the 1% to 2%, and then to 4%, because they will be designed smart enough to gradually out think, out perform, and out live the weaker, 99%. after awhile it will be freedom for all, because all will be designer smart, and there will be nobody who can outsmart any of them into slavery.

[username18333]

. . .

Yes, but, if we get enough good designer babies from the 1%, they will gradually replace the 99%. As they replace them, they will push the 1% to 2%, and then to 4%, because they will be designed smart enough to gradually out think, out perform, and out live the weaker, 99%. after awhile it will be freedom for all, because all will be designer smart, and there will be nobody who can outsmart any of them into slavery.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If there is a chance in a million that you can do something, anything, to keep what you want from ending, do it. Pry the door open or, if need be, wedge your foot in that door and keep it open.

Your statement presumes that these “designers” would be so “benevolent” as to aspire such “equality.”

[BADecker]

. . .

Yes, but, if we get enough good designer babies from the 1%, they will gradually replace the 99%. As they replace them, they will push the 1% to 2%, and then to 4%, because they will be designed smart enough to gradually out think, out perform, and out live the weaker, 99%. after awhile it will be freedom for all, because all will be designer smart, and there will be nobody who can outsmart any of them into slavery.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If there is a chance in a million that you can do something, anything, to keep what you want from ending, do it. Pry the door open or, if need be, wedge your foot in that door and keep it open.

Your statement presumes that these “designers” would be so “benevolent” as to aspire such “equality.”

On the contrary. Genetics is what determines everything about us. Other life circumstances only modify us temporarily. "Smart" will be one of the things that parents will want for their kids. So, after a while all kids will be equally smart by genetics, and at the absolute top of the class. Nobody will have the opportunity to outsmart someone else, because everybody will be able to see through it. Benevolency won't have anything to do with it.

[BADecker]

Want one of these or do you wanna steer clear of it and taking your chances? Or, if you're like me not want any children at all?

Oh, come on! Have a heart. Don't you want any kids at all? They are fun and wonderful. Just watch the kids playing in the ghetto.

Now, I know the world will probably destroy itself before any of us gets old enough to wish we had kids to take care of us in our old-age weakness. But they would probably stick us in a nursing home anyway. So, maybe you are right.

[panju1]

the problem here:

who will get the designer babys?

the 1 %.

who is profiting from it?

the 1%.

who will not profit from it?

the other 99%


i think this a pretty realistic prediction.

Getting designer babies is not something which everybody wants.
People would rather conceive naturally.

[MemoryShock]

Want one of these or do you wanna steer clear of it and taking your chances? Or, if you're like me not want any children at all?

I think that the population has demonstrated a decided lack of consensus on how best to nurture an individual from birth to adulthood...in many cases allowing for the media and rhetoric to stand in place of considered instruction.  I don't see that changing if we can select specific genetic traits and as such I think that we will probably end up with a ton of self entitled mal contents who were told from birth that they were supposed to be great.

Remember, the baby boomers have yet to relinquish their jobs and majority of assets which has proven to be an economic hurdle to success for x and millennials...there are very substantial reasons why there is inequality even before we look at education and culture (I use the latter term loosely regarding the US, unfortunately).  Designer people are just going to be another scapegoat and illusory ideal.

Fun times ahead...I envision rolling my eyes at the debates of the future...: )

[(oYo)]

Gattaca is a great movie about this topic.

[panju1]

I think that the population has demonstrated a decided lack of consensus on how best to nurture an individual from birth to adulthood...in many cases allowing for the media and rhetoric to stand in place of considered instruction.  I don't see that changing if we can select specific genetic traits and as such I think that we will probably end up with a ton of self entitled mal contents who were told from birth that they were supposed to be great.

This would probably be prohibitively expensive for a majority of the population. The top 1%, who are anyways told that they are supposed to be great, will be the ones who could afford it.

[Rishblitz]

I think that the population has demonstrated a decided lack of consensus on how best to nurture an individual from birth to adulthood...in many cases allowing for the media and rhetoric to stand in place of considered instruction.  I don't see that changing if we can select specific genetic traits and as such I think that we will probably end up with a ton of self entitled mal contents who were told from birth that they were supposed to be great.

This would probably be prohibitively expensive for a majority of the population. The top 1%, who are anyways told that they are supposed to be great, will be the ones who could afford it.

how economically viable could it be though. it cost millions to make 1 burger out of lab grown cells let alone a human baby.

[username18333]

. . .

On the contrary. Genetics is what determines everything about us. Other life circumstances only modify us temporarily. "Smart" will be one of the things that parents will want for their kids. So, after a while all kids will be equally smart by genetics, and at the absolute top of the class. Nobody will have the opportunity to outsmart someone else, because everybody will be able to see through it. Benevolency won't have anything to do with it.

(Red colorization mine.)

B. F. Skinner’s entire system is based on operant conditioning.  The organism is in the process of “operating” on the environment, which in ordinary terms means it is bouncing around its world, doing what it does.  During this “operating,” the organism encounters a special kind of stimulus, called a reinforcing stimulus, or simply a reinforcer.  This special stimulus has the effect of increasing the operant -- that is, the behavior occurring just before the reinforcer.  This is operant conditioning:  “the behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence modifies the organisms tendency to repeat the behavior in the future.”

Definition of PHENOTYPE
:  the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment

[BADecker]

. . .

On the contrary. Genetics is what determines everything about us. Other life circumstances only modify us temporarily. "Smart" will be one of the things that parents will want for their kids. So, after a while all kids will be equally smart by genetics, and at the absolute top of the class. Nobody will have the opportunity to outsmart someone else, because everybody will be able to see through it. Benevolency won't have anything to do with it.

(Red colorization mine.)

B. F. Skinner’s entire system is based on operant conditioning.  The organism is in the process of “operating” on the environment, which in ordinary terms means it is bouncing around its world, doing what it does.  During this “operating,” the organism encounters a special kind of stimulus, called a reinforcing stimulus, or simply a reinforcer.  This special stimulus has the effect of increasing the operant -- that is, the behavior occurring just before the reinforcer.  This is operant conditioning:  “the behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence modifies the organisms tendency to repeat the behavior in the future.”

Definition of PHENOTYPE
:  the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment

Problem is, you have to reinforce forever. Stop the stimulus or conditioning, and everything reverts back to genetics. In addition, after long intervals the conditioning fails, except when it actually changes the DNA.

[SirChiko]

the problem here:

who will get the designer babys?

the 1 %.

who is profiting from it?

the 1%.

who will not profit from it?

the other 99%


i think this a pretty realistic prediction.

Yes, but, if we get enough good designer babies from the 1%, they will gradually replace the 99%. As they replace them, they will push the 1% to 2%, and then to 4%, because they will be designed smart enough to gradually out think, out perform, and out live the weaker, 99%. after awhile it will be freedom for all, because all will be designer smart, and there will be nobody who can outsmart any of them into slavery.

So you mean that "they" will be the 99% and "we" the rest 1%? That would suck...

[DoubleTrouble]

Other than talking about who would be able to afford them I would love to hear people's opinions on the creation of these "Designer Babies" what do you guys think about it?

[noobtrader]

Other than talking about who would be able to afford them I would love to hear people's opinions on the creation of these "Designer Babies" what do you guys think about it?

i ve think about this idea... hmmm... if i can design my baby  to be smart like a rocket scientist, handsome/beautiful like a top model, and strong like a marathon runner and prime health condition with minimal chances of deadly illness. this will insure his future (and good investment for me).
the most expensive part maybe the start of this, that you need to create so many design and confirming to which design actually good and which are not.  and surely this idea is not for everyone.

[DoubleTrouble]

Other than talking about who would be able to afford them I would love to hear people's opinions on the creation of these "Designer Babies" what do you guys think about it?

i ve think about this idea... hmmm... if i can design my baby  to be smart like a rocket scientist, handsome/beautiful like a top model, and strong like a marathon runner and prime health condition with minimal chances of deadly illness. this will insure his future (and good investment for me).
the most expensive part maybe the start of this, that you need to create so many design and confirming to which design actually good and which are not.  and surely this idea is not for everyone.

But then is that morally correct? Bringing in another human being so they can benifit you? Kind of like a free (Freedom) based form of slavery isnt it? (As an investment to you)

[noobtrader]

Other than talking about who would be able to afford them I would love to hear people's opinions on the creation of these "Designer Babies" what do you guys think about it?

i ve think about this idea... hmmm... if i can design my baby  to be smart like a rocket scientist, handsome/beautiful like a top model, and strong like a marathon runner and prime health condition with minimal chances of deadly illness. this will insure his future (and good investment for me).
the most expensive part maybe the start of this, that you need to create so many design and confirming to which design actually good and which are not.  and surely this idea is not for everyone.

But then is that morally correct? Bringing in another human being so they can benifit you? Kind of like a free (Freedom) based form of slavery isnt it? (As an investment to you)

thats why i said that this is not for everyone, even the idea of it will make religious ppl uneasy.

btw its not a slavery... giving your baby a better chances is not a slavery