.Breast cancer gene-free baby born
The first baby in the UK tested before conception for a genetic form of breast cancer has been born.
Doctors at University College London said the girl and her mother were doing well following the birth this week.
The embryo was screened for the altered BRCA1 gene, which would have meant the girl had a 80% chance of developing breast cancer.
Women in three generations of her husband's family have been diagnosed with the disease in their 20s.
Paul Serhal, the fertility expert who treated the couple, said: "This little girl will not face the spectre of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life.
"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter.
"The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations."
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves taking a cell from an embryo at the eight-cell stage of development, when it is around three-days old, and testing it.
This is before conception - defined as when the embryo is implanted in the womb.
Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes to continue the pregnancy, and discard any whose genetic profile points to future problems.
Using PGD to ensure a baby does not carry an altered gene which would guarantee a baby would inherit a disease such as cystic fibrosis, is well-established.
But in 2006, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said doctors could test for so-called susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1.
Everybody carries a version of these genes - in fact a properly functioning BRCA1 protein helps stop cancer before it starts - but some particular variations of the genes greatly increase the risk of cancer.
Increased chance
Carrying the key BRCA1 mutation in this family's case would have given the increased chance of breast cancer and 50% chance of ovarian cancer later in life.
However, carrying the gene does not make cancer inevitable, and there is also a chance the disease could be cured, if caught early enough.
The couple, who wish to remain anonymous, wanted to eradicate the gene flaw from their family.
The husband's grandmother, mother, sister and a cousin have been diagnosed with the disease.
If the 27-year-old woman and her husband had had a son, he could have been a carrier and passed it on to any daughters.
Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This is nothing personal towards the girl, but I think we have gone too far.
"Underlying all this is eugenics."
Mrs Quintavalle said the message was that "you are better off dead, than being born with this gene".
"I hope 20 years down the line we will have eradicated breast cancer - not eradicated the carriers.
"This testing procedure is being used more and more for less and less significant reasons."
But Kath McLachlan, of Breast Cancer Care, said those with the faulty BRCA1 gene would be very interested in the development.
"There are many complex issues to take into account before undertaking PGD, and the decision will finally come down to an individual's personal ethics."
And Professor Peter Braude, director of the Centre for PGD at Guy's Hospital in London, said: "The decision as to whether PGD is appropriate for a couple will be made after a thorough discussion with knowledgeable genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists.
"It will not be suitable for everyone who has experience of breast cancer in their family, nor where the chances of the IVF needed for PGD has a low chance of succeeding."
BBC
Doctors at University College London said the girl and her mother were doing well following the birth this week.
The embryo was screened for the altered BRCA1 gene, which would have meant the girl had a 80% chance of developing breast cancer.
Women in three generations of her husband's family have been diagnosed with the disease in their 20s.
Paul Serhal, the fertility expert who treated the couple, said: "This little girl will not face the spectre of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life.
"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter.
"The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations."
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves taking a cell from an embryo at the eight-cell stage of development, when it is around three-days old, and testing it.
This is before conception - defined as when the embryo is implanted in the womb.
Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes to continue the pregnancy, and discard any whose genetic profile points to future problems.
Using PGD to ensure a baby does not carry an altered gene which would guarantee a baby would inherit a disease such as cystic fibrosis, is well-established.
But in 2006, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said doctors could test for so-called susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1.
Everybody carries a version of these genes - in fact a properly functioning BRCA1 protein helps stop cancer before it starts - but some particular variations of the genes greatly increase the risk of cancer.
Increased chance
Carrying the key BRCA1 mutation in this family's case would have given the increased chance of breast cancer and 50% chance of ovarian cancer later in life.
However, carrying the gene does not make cancer inevitable, and there is also a chance the disease could be cured, if caught early enough.
The couple, who wish to remain anonymous, wanted to eradicate the gene flaw from their family.
The husband's grandmother, mother, sister and a cousin have been diagnosed with the disease.
If the 27-year-old woman and her husband had had a son, he could have been a carrier and passed it on to any daughters.
Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This is nothing personal towards the girl, but I think we have gone too far.
"Underlying all this is eugenics."
Mrs Quintavalle said the message was that "you are better off dead, than being born with this gene".
"I hope 20 years down the line we will have eradicated breast cancer - not eradicated the carriers.
"This testing procedure is being used more and more for less and less significant reasons."
But Kath McLachlan, of Breast Cancer Care, said those with the faulty BRCA1 gene would be very interested in the development.
"There are many complex issues to take into account before undertaking PGD, and the decision will finally come down to an individual's personal ethics."
And Professor Peter Braude, director of the Centre for PGD at Guy's Hospital in London, said: "The decision as to whether PGD is appropriate for a couple will be made after a thorough discussion with knowledgeable genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists.
"It will not be suitable for everyone who has experience of breast cancer in their family, nor where the chances of the IVF needed for PGD has a low chance of succeeding."
BBC
posted by madtom at 7:59 PM
8 Comments:
Does that mean that had the child tested positive for the gene that would indicate a higher risk of possibly having breast cancer someday, the child would not have been allowed to live? Seems sort of ironic, but what do I know?
Yes they test the embryos before implantation and discard the ones that tested for the mutation, and only kept and implanted the ones that tested without said mutation.
I guess that means they murdered all those embryos that tested positive for the mutation, in the right world wonderland.
OK. So we are now choosing which will live and which won't? I say die, you say.... won't live? Bottom line is the same. So, where does it stop? If you don't think that Designer babies will lead down a bad road, you have far more faith in the human race than do I. Natural Selection has been our friend and we have been neglecting him for too long, already. He may kick our ass before its over.
Nature does it every day, all we are doing is employing our mind to take out some of the randomness, not all mind you, just some. No matter if we chose the right embryos, there is no guarantee that they will grow and be born. and after that there is no guarantee that a bus won't go off the road and run the mother over walking down the sidewalk.
We have been manipulating "natural selection" from time immemorial. When we built the first huts, we cheated natural selection by making it possible for those with weaker immune systems to survive where they would not in the natural world, when we invented sharp stick it made it possible to cheat nature too. That lion had a better chance when we had no sticks...Now we have invented better tools, so we might cheat cancer...I don't see the difference.
These are not designer babies, they were just screened for a mutation. A designer baby is if you were to add genes or subtract genes. All they did was to screen embryos. You did the same thing, when you picked your wife and became ..what's the word...I'm drawing a blank, but you know, you have only had children with her...
Anyway, you did the same thing.
NO, it is not 'natural' selection. Unless your definition of natural is 'everything' since we are products of the natural world and anything we do is therefore 'natural'. By your definition, a man shot through the head died of 'natural' causes, huh?
A designer baby is picking and choosing the genetic makeup of your child. You don't have to add or subtract genes, just select the embryo that has the genes you choose. I understand there is some difference, but effectively you are doing the same thing. Select out an embryo with a cancer gene--- or one with big ears. Just a matter of time and just as easily accomplished.
I take your point that we have been actively and consciously improving our odds in the Survival of the Fittest Game which has led to our being at the top of the evolutionary scale, but this is obviously a huge step above and beyond. The potential for ruin and tyranny is too great for me to be excited. I see far more problems than benefits. We need to catch up with all the other problems our 'advances' are causing before creating more.
Well I see a big difference, on one hand You get to pick between the available choices. Lets say a black couple, they might get a choice about height IQ or resistance to heart decease, but you most likely will not have access to blond hair blue eyed Caucasian. Those genes would not be part of the available pool. It's just like this story, had the doctors not been able to find an embryo without said mutation, no treatment would have been available. All they did was improver the chances. The couple in question could have had that child naturally, because the combination already existed. They could have had 25 children and improved their chances naturally. One child might have been born with the mutation while the other 24 would not. You don't see the difference???
If not, would you have the same complaint if they had the 25 children, but only one lived past puberty?
Post a Comment
<< Home