backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by Master Kenobi.. on Aug 22 at 12:57 PM


  (Source: Columbia Pictures )

Professor Julian Savulescu  (Source: smh.com.au)
The process would be similar to checking embryos for conditions like Down's syndrome

Imagine being able to design a human the way we use computer software to design every day items like clothing or furniture. University of Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu recently said that parents should have the choice to do such a thing, allowing them to create the kind of child they desire rather than leaving it to chance. 

According to Savulescu, the manipulation of genetics has evolved over the years and has already proven to be beneficial to those who are expecting. For instance, parents can use tests, which focus on particular genes in embryos, to see if their child will have certain conditions like Down's syndrome. 

While this type of testing is not seen as an issue, Savulescu said the testing of an embryo's genes to see what kind of personality flaws it could have has raised concern amongst the public -- and he believes it shouldn't.

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to to select ethically better children," said Savulescu. "They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others. If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring -- rather than consigning them to the natural lottery -- then we should." 

Savulescu's ideas have been compared to those of the Nazis, who adopted the eugenics movements during World War II. However, Savulescu argues that this is different because parents can choose to participate or not. They don't have to genetically alter their children, but they should be able to choose to, he said. 

"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now," said Savulescu. "Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance." 

Savulescu posed this argument in a recent article in Reader's Digest

What do you think? Could eliminating potential character flaws in embryos create a perfect human race, or could there be serious, unseen implications with having so much power over this thing called life?

Source: The Telegraph



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Babies-R-Us
By hood6558 on 8/20/2012 10:41:23 PM , Rating: 1
Ordering your baby from a catalog will become mandatory social posing for those who can afford it, along with host mothering services who will carry the embryo to term and then deliver the child complete with pre-selected traits. Only the working class will still have to do it the old fashioned way. I say anything that improves the race is a good thing in the long run, although on a personal level it will probably cause much upheaval and further division of the human race. But then, so did the custom of bathing daily.




RE: Babies-R-Us
By headbox on 8/21/2012 3:33:46 AM , Rating: 4
just because you can turn traits on/off in people doesn't mean they'll be superior to an unaltered person. You can tweak the recipe of tofu and it will never be bacon.


RE: Babies-R-Us
By Azethoth on 8/21/12, Rating: 0
RE: Babies-R-Us
By FITCamaro on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Babies-R-Us
By toffty on 8/21/2012 2:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
Careful there. This line of thinking leads to a situation like, A Brave New World (the novel).

A better way to look at it is:
"Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease."
- Bob Edwards


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki