Genetically modified human embryo stirs criticism

(AP) -- News that scientists have for the first time genetically altered a human embryo is drawing fire from some watchdog groups that say it's a step toward creating "designer babies."

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Cloner proposes genetic altering

Jun 05, 2006 | 4.3 / 5 (3) | 0

GM crop trials start again in Britain in 'secret': report

Jul 27, 2009 | 5 / 5 (1) | 0

Regulation of the retinoic acid gradient in zebrafish embryos

Nov 20, 2007 | 4.3 / 5 (3) | 0

Study shows how embryos regulate vitamin A derivatives

Nov 20, 2007 | 4 / 5 (1) | 0

US lifts some restrictions on embryo stem cells

Apr 17, 2009 | 4.7 / 5 (3) | 0

   

• thales - May 12, 2008
  • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
  Well, they were working on stem-cell research, not designer babies. While ideally designed humans are a scary thought indeed, I'm more concerned about the creation of an alligator-human hybrid that destroys New York.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• thinking - May 13, 2008
  • Rank: 1.3 / 5 (3)
  How about experimenting on a downs syndrome child that is born.... whole lot easier to see what happens....what about experimenting (none consensually) on someone who has cancer and is non-viable? What about experminenting on orphans... no body wants them.. if you get young ones that are hard to place... you can carry out a lot of useful experiments that will bring about benifit to those of us who are valuable to society...
  
  If you haven't caught it.... I am being sarcastic...
  
  A human life is valuable, and every person... from conception to natual death... deserves respect. Experimenting on humans,if its not acceptable on those born, is not acceptable to those not born.
  
  BTW.... for those that care... I'm not Catholic...
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• ShadowRam - May 13, 2008
  • Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
  Whats wrong with designer babies?! seriously?
  How do we accept plastic surgery, and yet not this?
  
  Genetic and robotic augmentation is just a natural evolutionary step.
  
  General public really need to stop fearing this.
  Augmentation is coming, whether people like it or not.
  
  It'll be used for good and bad, just like every other technology.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• bhiestand - May 13, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
  Thanks, ShadowRam. I'm glad somebody said it. It seems like the best argument against it so far is "but it will make people who aren't genetically enhanced look bad!" Sorry, but if your kid is born with an IQ under 90, he already looks bad. If your kid is born with horseface syndrome, he already looks bad. But if there's a chance I can have a child that will never have the prevalent diseases in my family: Lupus, diabetes, cardiovascular... I want that right. Why should our children have to suffer just because some Luddites are afraid of technology?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• thinking - May 13, 2008
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
  The point is not curing deformities, or curing deseases most people agree with that. The question is, is it moral to experiment on, kill, deform, inocent unconsenting humans to acheive that goal.
  
  If I had a downs syndrome child, I would protect him/her as much as I would a normal child. I would protect my newborn, just as much as my older children. An unborn child, is just that, a child. Anyone who denies this fact, has less common sense than a flat earther.
  
  Lets have an honest debate and lets be honest, people who are in favor of this type of experiments, are actually in favor of experimenting on and sacrificing unwanted children so that they can improve their lives and the lives of wanted children.
  
  So is it moral to kill and experment on unwanted humans, to improve the lives of those deamed valuable?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Mercury_01 - May 13, 2008
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
  YES. it is, but thats not what theyre doing. they diddnt take someones retarded baby, they grew one in a bottle. Are you aware of where much of our modern medical knowledge came from? Amoral experimentation on unwilling victms. Thats where. You cant be the judge of cause and effect.
  Good things come from evil intent and evil things come of good intent. Furthermore, Who are you to say whats good or bad in the first place? If yellowstone blew up today and instantly killed a hundred thousand people, causing a mini ice age to last a hundred years, you might say thats bad, but in the same breath, you would bless God's good earth. The good cant exist without the bad, plain and simple.
  Human technology is just an inevitable extension of that axiom. Our power comes from the earth just the same as that volcano. destruction is also inevitable, but thats just part of existing on the physical plane. get with the program or dont come down here!
  Whats with peoples obsession over suffering anyway?
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• ofidiofile - Jun 12, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  for all those who think embryo=person: read some biology, for godsakes! is cutting down an oak the same as crushing an acorn?
  
  yes, an embryo is a member of the human SPECIES proper; but then again, so are HeLa cells. it's not even till the fetal stage of development that the pre-born have a central nervous system (something that i'm fairly certain is necessary to have a PERSON). but no, folks hear 'embryo" and think "baby".
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5