Posted on 03/06/2009 7:45:49 AM PST by GOPGuide
Last month I mentioned a US fertility clinic that was offering couples undergoing IVF the opportunity to screen their embryos for sex, and for genes associated with "cosmetic" traits such as eye and hair colour. I used this as an opportunity to note that the genetic complexity of many traits (e.g. height, also discussed yesterday) would make it highly unlikely that embryo screening would be effective for these, although for hair and eye colour such screening is certainly feasible.
The media coverage of this fertility clinic - run by reproductive endocrinologist Jeff Steinberg (pictured) - predictably sparked a wave of moral outrage and tedious chest-beating about the "slippery slope" of parents "playing God".
It appears that this outrage has made an impact: Steinberg announced on Tuesday that his clinic will not be offering "cosmetic" screening to couples, at least for the moment:
At the moment, he can't accommodate parents who want a certain eye and hair color for cosmetic reasons, he said. He'll focus instead on families with histories of albinism, color blindness and several other genetic disorders.
Steinberg, who has offices in Manhattan and Los Angeles, said he's accepting requests from nonmedical cases "but we're not doing it right now."
It's obvious that Steinberg intends to keep his options open for performing cosmetic screening in future; a message on his clinic's website reads:
In response to the recent media and public interest in our eye color, hair color and skin pigmentation study protocols, we are pleased to announce plans to focus our attention in this regard on patients with a child with any of the following disorders: albinism, red-green color blindness, Angelman Syndrome or Prader-Willi Syndrome. We would request that any interested parents email us with details of the condition along with a request for which services would be of interest to you. For all others seeking pigmentation studies, please email us a notification of interest. You will be contacted at a later date. Thank you. [my emphasis - DM]
The response to Steinberg's service indicates that the US public is still wary of the notion of embryo screening for anything but severe diseases (that type of screening they have embraced whole-heartedly; the vast majority of pre-natal diagnoses of Down syndrome now lead to termination).
Still, a sizeable minority is open to the idea. In a previous post I cited a survey of 1,000 genetic counselling patients that indicated around 10% would be willing to screen for non-disease traits such as intelligence or athletic performance; in a web survey attached to an online article about Steinberg's retraction, ~30% of respondents have currently indicated that they would "choose the color of [their] baby's eyes and hair if [they] were given the chance".
As genetic literacy improves I'd guess that potential parents undergoing IVF will learn that complex traits like intelligence and athleticism are futile targets for embryo screening, but both gender and genetically simple variable traits (such as hair, eye and skin colour) are perfectly feasible targets; and I'm finding it pretty hard to come up with a compelling ethical objection to this type of selection.
After all, if parents are already undergoing IVF, is there really any harm in selecting between embryos for implantation on the basis of predicted traits, however arbitrary? Why is this process any less moral than randomly selecting embryos for implantation? (I am, for the sake of argument, assuming that the predictive tests are accurately performed and presented, and that excess embryos are not being generated purely for the sake of cosmetic screening, but rather as a consequence of the standard IVF procedure.)
I'm looking for something a little more convincing than the standard arguments: "playing God" is irrelevant to non-believers; "slippery slope" is an insubstantial criticism that could equally well apply to virtually any new technology; "commodification of human life" requires the unlikely claim that a child developed from a selected embryo is any less emotionally valued by its parents than a normally conceived child; and "loss of diversity" implies that all parents want the same traits for their children, which is clearly false. Does anyone have a more compelling criticism?
And out of interest, how many readers would consider embryo selection for gender or cosmetic traits if they were undergoing IVF?
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/designer-baby-row-over-us-clinic.html
I am just waiting for the science to improve to where they identify the so called gay gene. I want to see what the gay activists will say if people abort a fetus that carries the gay gene.
They actually were seeking legislation that would have prohibited such abortions (I think someone sponsored it in Maine). Truth is, it’s probably a moot point based on the state of the science, which casts doubt on the concept. The best evidence of biological influence right now is that it comes from something in the uterine environment rather than a “gay gene.”
He never was offering it. His original announcement was that he would begin offering it in 2010. Aren’t likely to be many takers anyway, since saner experts have loudly pointed out that the technology to do this reliably simply doesn’t exist yet.
I brought that up to a gay guy in another forum and he said he’d have no problem with it.
You can most certainly screen for eye and hair color right now, there are only 10 or so genes involved in hair and eye color. They are very easy to detect using current PGD technology.
They are not easy to detect, and because there are multiple genes involved, the process is also very unreliable. Even testing for single gene disorders is a lot harder than testing for chromosome disorders or sex, and testing for hair and eye color would be a lot harder, requiring more cells to be plucked from the embryo, and thus more likelihood of irreparably damaging the embryo, and STILL quite unreliable. If it was easy, then plenty of clinics would already be offering it to patients who are having PGD done anyway for other reasons.
I’m sure technology will progress within the next few years to where this is practical, but it probably won’t be much longer beyond that before the desired genes can simply be swapped in for the existing ones. Just think: 2 dark-haired, brown-eyed parents can have blond, blue-eyed children who otherwise carry the parents’ genes. Yippee! Sounds like an excellent plan for separating complete idiots from their money. I can’t see it ever catching on widely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.