Hashishi

We are at a point in time where the study of genetics is sky-rocketing to a point where you'll be able to visit a clinic and be told you will or won't or--in the former scenario--when you'll develop dementia, heart disease, stroke etcetera.

There was a woman called Nancy Wexler who was at risk of inheriting Huntington's disease. She went to a region of Paraguay where there was a high incidence of Huntington's and collected hundreds of blood samples which led to the isolation of the gene on the edge of human chromosome four. It turns out that this gene (named huntingtin) in the average populace and non-sufferers repeats (cytosine - guanine - adenine) about fifteen times: when it repeats thirty times and upwards the disease manifests; the higher the number of repeats the earlier the manifestation and the worse the severity of the symptoms.

During her stay in Paraguay, a woman came to her to ask if she had the disease. Wexler saw the early manifestations in her, but simply asked her "what do you think"? The woman replied she didn't think she had it, and left--to extents--relieved. Moments later a friend of the woman ran hysterically into the tent and begged to be told what they'd said. She was relieved to hear about the outcome of the meeting and imparted that her friend had told her that if she was a sufferer she would've killed herself that same day.

That, in a nutshell, is the modern dilemma. Matt Ridley, in his book 'Genome' (which I've shamelessly pillaged, FTR and highly recommend) compares it to Tiresias, 'the Blind Seer of Thebes' in Ancient Greek mythology. The myth goes that Tiresias stumbled upon Athene bathing and she cursed him with blindness. Later, regretting her actions, she granted him the 'gift' of divination: that is the ability to see into the future.

As Tiresias said to Oedipus: "It is naught but sorrow to be wise when wisdom profits not" or, in other words, it is a curse to be able to see into a future you have no ability to change.

So, the ultimate question, would you take on the curse of the Blind Seer of Thebes?

__________________

imFADED

We are also reaching a point where people will be able to decide what they want their babies to look like. Blue eyes, blonde hair, so on and so forth...

Merry-juana

You just described me, I have blue eyes and blond hair.

Trocisp

You're asking what my opinion about continuing research on genetics is?

As long as it stays ethical, I have no problems with it. No forced sterilizations, or forced testing, etc. (we'll leave insurance related discussions out of this...)

And I would certainly get the test done myself. Better to know in advance.

Hashishi

No, I was asking you that and proposing a discussion regarding the dilemma it leaves us in. I really don't want this to turn into an ethical research quagmire thread, TYVM.

Vicki

It would be kinda depressing knowing you were going to develop a serious disease. I was diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis 2 years ago. There is no cure for RA, just medicine's that help stop the progression of the disease. I would not have wanted to know about this earlier in my life because it would just be depressing, and there would be no way to stop it from happening.

__________________
Be kinder than necessary as everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.
Save the Wand Hash!
Hungry? Non-Cannabis Recipes
Want real free samples?
Those that forget the past are condemned to re-live it.
"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures
from the shelter of compassion and pity,
you have men who will deal likewise with their fellow man."
~ St. Francis of Assisi ~

DaDornta

I want my own clone...im not sure how well we'd get along though. We could tag-team and really pull some insane jokes on people (im sure my clone would be just as weird as me).

__________________

blondie0420

Well, in some ways, we already do know whether or not we're predisposed to getting certain diseases thanks to genetics research. For instance, the woman with the family history of Huntington's already knew she was likely to get it. Not that she definitely would, just that it was probable that she did.

I myself am in the very same boat. Lots of people in my family have had cancer, specifically breast and lung cancers. That doesn't mean I'm definitely going to get it, but it means I have to be careful because it's likely that I could.

Would I like for someone to say, "yes, you have the breast cancer gene" or "no, you don't have the gene"? Absolutely. Would it be scary to hear that "yes" answer? Of course.

Where I'm at already, because my mother and her mother both had breast cancer, I've already been told by doctors that I need to start having mammograms earlier than other women and that I need to have them more often, too. And I think that's all for the better because, hopefully then if something does come up, it will be caught early and nipped in the bud before it gets too bad.

I think that kind of thing is pretty empowering because with something like cancer, it's so important to find it early. If we could single out the people who are predisposed to getting it and test them more often in order to catch it early, we could probably help a lot of people and greatly improve survival rates.



I emphatically disagree. I would posit that arguments like that were just pulled out of the asses of people who are against genetics research (usually because of their religion).

People have sex, the sperm goes into the egg, some magic happens, and a baby is made. Not a whole lot is going to change that.

What you're talking about would take place in a lab with microscopes and petri dishes, and the majority of babies just aren't created that way. When people do employ science-facilitated baby-making, it's usually because one or both wanna-be parents has something wrong with their reproductive system that is preventing a natural conception from taking place. Things like in-vitro fertilization are very expensive and they are not easy enough to be done in any old situation. I could never imagine a situation in which a normal couple would go to a lab and say, "Give us a little Heidi Klum with an IQ of 150."

I really find that argument against genetics research to be weak.

__________________

imFADED

That was not an opinion that I just formed on my own. It was a conclusion drawn up by multiple studies on the accounts of various scientists.

__________________
Fuck off with your sofa units and strine green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may.

Trocisp

And without links to those studies, or verification of those studies, we have no way to know what base line these studies used.

Since the technology to determine eye color of a baby isn't currently in use (on any scale, large or small), I have a very hard time believing that any reputable (or intelligent) scientist would conduct a study on that nature. Especially considering that is a social study, related to the sciences, not a scientific study.