IVF couples could be able to choose the ‘smartest’ embryo

From the Brave New World Department...

IVF couples could be able to choose the ‘smartest’ embryo

Couples undergoing IVF treatment could be given the option to pick the “smartest” embryo within the next 10 years, a leading US scientist has predicted.

...Hsu’s company, Genomic Prediction, already offers a test aimed at screening out embryos with abnormally low IQ to couples being treated at fertility clinics in the US.

“Accurate IQ predictors will be possible, if not the next five years, the next 10 years certainly,” Hsu told the Guardian. “I predict certain countries will adopt them.”

...The company projects that once high-quality genetic and academic achievement data from a million individuals becomes available, expected to be within five to 10 years, it will be able to predict IQ to within about 10 points.


My personal opinion is that there isn't any ethical issue with screening for IQ since there has been embryo screening for genetic diseases and abnormalities for years without much fuss. So this seems like good news.

 

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne...es-ethical-dilemmas-of-genetic-screening.html

 

I really don't think they can sort for anything other than an obvious abnormality. I don't think they will be able to choose between say a 100 IQ potential and a 130 IQ potential. They even admit that they won't be able to do this for at least 5 to 10 years.

 

So it's an issue that will have to be dealt with eventually. Even if it takes 5 to 10 years.

 

Genetic optimization thru artificial invasive protein manipulation. Poor Darwin, I bet he never thought that "natural selection" might come with an option list and price tag.

Perhaps Planet of the Apes isn't so far fetched.

 

Well, Darwin was well aware of artificial selection (controlled breeding). In fact, it's how he got the idea for natural selection.

 

I can just imagine all of those little embryos sitting and taking IQ tests...

 

This will be very popular in Asia (particularly China and South Korea).

 

I'm aware of mendel. It was one of many observed parameters that the theory was built upon.

The ability to manipulate human dna to preselect for any number of characteristics poses so many ethical,moral and philosophical (esp. religious) issues, I predict its going to make the "abortion battle" look like a kindergarten spat.

Its so full of promise to rid the human race of the scourge of diseases, but also full of fear bordering on paranoia for its potential abuse. Read one too many sci-fi books speculating on such with extreme results like the creation of legions of "function specific" sub-humans like genetically "enhanced" soldiers (which has been done to death in the genre).

Pro lifers seem to think that its okay to actually manipulate the "code of terrestrial life" within a fertilized egg outside of the womb and destroy those eggs deemed unsuitable, but consider it sancrosanct "human life" if it's in a woman's body. Is is just me or is that a logical disconnect?

 

OTOH, we aren't anywhere even remotely close to actually being able to identify all the specific coding and non-coding nucleotides related to "intelligence" as an example. And that doesn't transcriptions factors etc. Got a long way to go, but the moral, ethical and philosophical issues are with us today.

 

High IQ claims doesn't prove real intelligence, I have know people with claimed high IQ who are brilliant in something, can be dumb as **** in other things.

 

I guess I'm not getting the "moral, ethical and philosophical issues." We already do embryo selection for diseases. If multiple embryos are produced, what's the moral issue of selecting the best one (however the parents define it) to implant?

 

Well one example is that anti abortionists insist that an embryo is a human. If life starts at conception, a fertilized egg is human life regardless of its location. If a doctor can throw out lesser embryo's they are killing the exact same thing that an abortion does, only the location has changed.

Its exciting to consider that we could edit hereditary diseases out of the human genome and boost our immune systems. But what about the enormous number of "genetic optimizations" we could also craft. Faster, stronger, smarter, and before long we would no longer be homo sapiens, we be homo superiors. That is an rather significant issue, don't you think? Course, it would render the entire concept of "race" today absolutely meaningless. Except that homo superiors would oppress homo sapiens if human nature remains true to history. I'd say that is a bit of an issue.

Super soldiers. Oh no the WRATH of KHAN. That movie was all about the issues and the consequences of going down this path.

 

I'm not aware of any anti-abortion yammering about IVF. I don't think it's an issue. At least in the US. Is it an issue in Canada?

Anyway this technology isn't about producing Khan-like Augments, it's about selecting the best embryo that a couple produces, based on whatever criteria the parents have. The child resulting from that wouldn't be homo superior, they would still just be normal humans with normal human genes.

 

when that happens, natural impregnation among the rich slows majorly, IVF will become the future

the rich will make sure the extra IVF samples destroyed so they do not end up having more children then that planned - it will no longer be considered abortion by those on the right

I also agree with you, this is just evolution on steroids, I have no issue with it

 

No new ethical issues emerge from this; humans have always been making choices of selection. If technology ads to that capacity for choice, it isn't revolutionary.

 

I see you aren't actually aware of the recent anti abortions laws passed in a few republican states. Seems an embryo outside the womb, despite being a human life can be disposed of with zero regard to its "murder".

I agree that currently the research is being driven by altruistic objectives. However, that once the capability has been proven, you think it won't be used by the military, by rogue states, by whacked out billionaires who want to live forever?

Yes, simply editing out of defective nucleotides does not alter the genome. OTOH, its a very short step to splicing in other animal nucleotide sequences to code for bigger muscles, stronger bones, better eyesight, better smell, better reaction times, more intelligence, superior eye hand coordination, etc. etc. etc. That is what I was talking about. It aint' here yet, but the moral ethical and philosophical issues of are.

 

OK since you've brought this up at least twice, could you cite some examples of laws that are attacking IVF? I've not heard of any.

We don't know how to do any of those things yet, and whether we do or not, rogue states and whacked out billionaires are still going to be here.

 

So in the embryo store, if selecting by IQ is okay, then so is selecting of gender, eye color, height, muscle tone, tallywacker size, etc. And in the intelligence section, there will be embryos with varying IQ's and associated prices...after all, a 100 IQ embryo should cost more than a 55 IQ embryo. And if possible to actually give people a chance to choose IQ, why would someone choose a 55 IQ instead of a 100 IQ? IMO the long-term problem here is people's perception and judgement of what the 'best' human might be. If in the future the capability exists to custom design their baby, even if the USA tries to maintain a 'moral' position, plenty of other nations will be doing it and Americans will be spending their two-week vacations at some embryo store outside of the US. Therefore, IMO, it's not about morality or ethics...it's more about how much time before it's widely available? In another 50 years we'll know how it turns out...

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ion-law-includes-an-exemption-for-infertility

Correct, science is in the early stages of developing the various technologies and expanding the knowledge base. It is however the natural progression. Once you can select specific nucleotides for editing (presuming having figured out both the coding and non coding sequences to target) it becomes the same process whether its editing to remove a genetic disease or to modify physiological characteristics.

I agree that regardless of the time, there will always be rogue nations and whacked out billionaires. And that given is at the heart of the issue. Its not the altruistic applications, its the nefarious ones that pose the biggest dangers.

 

Your link states the opposite of what you've been claiming. I'm not sure why you even included it.

Well you won't be able to do anything about either rogue nations or whacked out billionaires. So I'm not sure what the point is. China will be utilizing this technology regardless of whatever scruples you have.

 

It says precisely that. Fertilized eggs outside the womb can be discarded under the exception to the laws.

I'm not sure why you are even denying it.





pquote]Well you won't be able to do anything about either rogue nations or whacked out billionaires. So I'm not sure what the point is. China will be utilizing this technology regardless of whatever scruples you have.[/QUOTE]

Nothing like using a justification that has nothing to do with the central question of is a fertilized egg a human with rights. But i do get how scruples can be so inconvenient at times.


https://www.chemistryworld.com/news...n-of-first-gene-edited-humans/3010026.article
Rogue Chinese scientist to be punished for creation of first gene-edited humans

 

You were saying that would be banned, and your link says it's not banned, so you either didn't read your own link carefully, or you forgot what you were arguing about. I know you are trying to squeeze in abortion into this convo for some reason, but it doesn't fit, and you can't seem to explain how it does. Is IVF illegal in the US?

Nothing like using a justification that has nothing to do with the central question of is a fertilized egg a human with rights. But i do get how scruples can be so inconvenient at times.


https://www.chemistryworld.com/news...n-of-first-gene-edited-humans/3010026.article
Rogue Chinese scientist to be punished for creation of first gene-edited humans[/QUOTE]

OK I don't know what you are on about. It sounds like you really want to discuss abortion in a thread that has nothing to do with it.

 

Science that asks can I without asking should I is hortible science

 

"Can we" has an objective answer. "Should we" is subjective. "Should we make an atomic bomb," would seem to have a "No!" answer. "Should we make an atomic bomb before the Nazis do?" might get another response.