First baby in Britain designed cancer-free

London Times ^ | 5/13/06 | Mark Henderson

[wagglebee]

A WOMAN is pregnant with Britain’s first designer baby selected to prevent an inherited cancer, The Times can reveal.

Her decision to use controversial genetic-screening technology will ensure that she does not pass on to her child the hereditary form of eye cancer from which she suffers.

Although they did not have fertility problems, the woman and her partner created embryos by IVF. This allowed doctors to remove a cell and test it for the cancer gene, so only unaffected embryos were transferred to her womb.

The couple are the first to take advantage of a relaxation in the rules governing embryo screening.

When the technique was developed in 1989 it was allowed only for genes that always cause disease, such as those for cystic fibrosis. However, it was approved last year for the eye cancer, which affects only 90 per cent of those who inherit a mutated gene.

The pregnancy will increase controversy over the procedure, which the Government’s fertility watchdog authorised on Wednesday for genes that confer an 80 per cent lifetime risk of breast and bowel cancer.

Critics argue that the action is unethical because it involves the destruction of some embryos that would never contract these illnesses if they were allowed to develop into children. Even those that would potentially become ill could expect many years of healthy life first, and some of the disorders involved are treatable or preventable.

The mother-to-be, who wishes to remain anonymous, conceived after receiving treatment from Paul Serhal, of University College Hospital, London.

Mr Serhal has pioneered the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to detect heritable cancers in Britain, though it has been used successfully before in the United States. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s (HFEA) decision to award him licences to screen for retinoblastoma and a form of bowel cancer were reported exclusively in The Times. Mr Serhal is treating several couples with the disorder.

“We are all elated,” he said yesterday. “We are talking about annihilating this abnormal gene from the whole family line. We do this often, but it is always extraordinary when it comes off.”

Mr Serhal’s clinic is planning to apply to screen a patient’s embryos for the BRCA1 gene that raises the lifetime risk of breast cancer to 80 per cent.

Though the HFEA has now agreed in principle that such screening will be allowed, clinics must still obtain a separate licence for every patient.

Retinoblastoma accounts for 11 per cent of all cancers that develop in the first year of life. In almost half of cases, it is caused by an inherited mutation in a gene called RB1. Parents with this defective gene have a 50 per cent chance of passing it on to a child, and it causes tumours in 90 per cent of those who inherit it. The mutation also raises the lifetime risk of suffering other cancers from a third to more than half.

Libby Halford, chief executive of the Childhood Eye Cancer Trust, a retinoblastoma charity, welcomed the news. “This gives families a choice,” she said. “We know now that there is an effective test.”

Josephine Quintavalle, of the embryo rights group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: “We mustn’t forget the embryos that were not given a chance to live. This is a worrying application because we are looking at a condition that is treatable.”

Beating eye cancer

The eye cancer retinoblastoma, seen above in a young boy, affects about 1 in 15,000 children. About half the cases are hereditary, and those who inherit the defective gene have a 90 per cent chance of developing cancer. Up to 95 per cent of tumours detected early can be treated, but this requires chemotherapy and surgery that can cause blindness. A scan in early pregnancy, the stage that the embryo pictured at the top of this article has reached, has confirmed that a woman is carrying Britain’s first child to have been screened for an inherited cancer.

[wagglebee]

Playing God with genetics is still a bad idea in my opinion.

[wagglebee]

Ping.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...and those who inherit the defective gene have a 90 per cent chance of developing cancer..

That's worse than playing Russian Roulette with one empty chamber.

[Hodar]

This is NOT designing. An embryo was not 'modified' or 'designed' in any way. Out of a set of fertilized eggs, one was passed through a screen; such that it will be free of this particular KNOWN type of cancer.

Any way you look at it; this is a slippery slope.

[non-anonymous]

"...will ensure that she does not pass on to her child the hereditary form of eye cancer"

Oh, she passed it on alright. It's all the dead embryos that won't be passing it on.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

GENETICIST
You've already specified blue eyes, dark
hair and fair skin. I have taken the liberty
of eradicating any potentially prejudicial
conditions - premature baldness, myopia,
alcoholism and addictive susceptibility,
propensity for violence and obesity--

MARIA
(interrupting, anxious)
--We didn't want--diseases, yes.

ANTONIO
(more diplomatic)
We were wondering if we should leave some
things to chance.

GENETICIST
(reassuring)
You want to give your child the best possible
start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection
built-in already. Your child doesn't need
any additional burdens. And keep in mind,
this child is still you, simply the best of you.
You could conceive naturally a thousand times
and never get such a result.

[wagglebee]

And what we see if we examine the history of disease, is that more always come along and they are usually worse.

[metmom]

Agreed. I wonder what they missed. They may avoid the eye cancer but what didn't they catch? I wouldn't be surprised if something else major happens.

[gcruse]

Yes, cancer is God's will. Now let's ban those evil vaccinations.

[maine-iac7]

bump

[Screamname]

Maybe not. Say if someone like the Kennedys wanted to reproduce..You could remove the irresponsibilty/drunko/nepotism gene and the people in Mass and RI would have no reason anymore to elect them.

[Doe Eyes]

It's all the dead embryos that won't be passing it on.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Playing God with genetics is still a bad idea in my opinion.

In as much as God is the father of mankind and all children play at imitating their parents, it's to be expected that people play God.

[Slump Tester]

Now if only they could filter out the democRAT gene.

[Hodar]

And what we see if we examine the history of disease, is that more always come along and they are usually worse.

True, diseases mutate, and will continue to for the forseeable future. But, we have not had the population decimated by the Black Death, Small Pox and others that came close to wiping out half of europe.

[Havoc]

The sun shines and the rain falls on the good and evil alike.
Would also do some good to note what is stated in the text of the ten commandments about God punishing multigenerationally those that hate Him. God isn't anymore fluffy than dad. Dad has his hugs and his belt. God's are both bigger, metaphorically speaking. That seems to bother guys like you..

[Old Professer]

"Although they did not have fertility problems, the woman and her partner created embryos by IVF."

It will take a while, even over there, before people become comfortable with phrases like, "the woman and her partner" not having connotative quick-connects with impolite references.

The Times is at the front of a movement to make all parents partners regardless of genetic connection, marital status or sexual contribution, taking a giant step past the awkward wife/wife or husband/husband girlfriend/boyfriend thing.

After reading this carefully, I am sure that this is a natural conception of a mated male and female although one is quick to imagine...

[gcruse]

“I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

[ran15]

Good news imo. I think the only morally right options if you carry mutant genetics that cause something like eye cancer.. is either don't reproduce.. or use science if available so that you don't pass on that suffering to your children.

[Pontiac]

And what we see if we examine the history of disease, is that more always come along and they are usually worse.

Parents with this defective gene have a 50 per cent chance of passing it on to a child, and it causes tumours in 90 per cent of those who inherit it.

Retinoblastoma accounts for 11 per cent of all cancers that develop in the first year of life. In almost half of cases, it is caused by an inherited mutation in a gene called RB1. Parents with this defective gene have a 50 per cent chance of passing it on to a child, and it causes tumours in 90 per cent of those who inherit it. The mutation also raises the lifetime risk of suffering other cancers from a third to more than half

So you are saying that because new diseases will develop these parents should not do what they can to prevent their child from having a painful and perhaps several painful cancers.

These would be parents being faced with a 50/50 chance of having a child that would face a near certainty that would have at least eye cancer. And if that is not enough then that child would have a 33 to 50 increased probability of having another cancer.

How could anyone blame them for doing what they could to prevent that form happening to their child.

I am a very anti-abortion Catholic, but even I can understand these people’s actions.