Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)

[August1991]

Tired, long day. I can only respond. At the end, maybe I'll have a cap.

The ancient Romans (and the sheep, for that matter) apparently did their part, which more or less consisted of reproducing, and providing food, water, warmth, and security for their offspring. I don't see how that relates much to the current topic, though.

Relates? It's critical. Please understand probability. If you flip a gazillion coins a gazillion times, some will come up straight heads. They are no smarter than the other coins nor more likely to be heads on the next toss. Evolution (and life) are not random affairs although they do follow somehow what we call probability.

So, are we surrounded by idiots? The idiots were killed off generations ago. You're facing genes of a remarkable perspicacity - unless circumstances change, and even then. It depends how you define *smart*.

By messing around with genetics without realizing that the genes that cause sickle-cell anemia also confer exceptional resistance to malaria, our well-intentioned explorer has unwittingly created a holocaust of epic proportions... and the kicker is that we'd probably never have even known why malaria started taking so many more lives in those populations each year.

End of world scenario. Go rent Failsafe or even better, read On the Beach (also a good movie with Gregory Peck).

Yes, we could kill ourselves. The earth could be uninhabitable for any "intelligent" life form or for any life form. Kimmy, the atomic bomb made this possibility plain to people about 60 years ago. (In terms of the universe, it's irrelevant.) We could do it deliberately (nuclear war) or we could do it by accident (global warming). Genetics are just another way of collective suicide. (Have you ever heard of the book: "Suicide: How to use"?)

In a big picture sense, one can conclude that probably there's an evolutionary reason that we have a 50/50 gender balance. If some other gender balance gave historically better odds of survival or propagation, then that's what we'd see instead of the roughly 50/50 balance at birth. We evolved this way for some practical reason.

If you're curious, I suggest you look at the math of (von Neumann's) game theory - there's a reason it's 50/50. (In fact, a few more boys are born than girls but more boys tend to die young.)

But you're the guy who is always pointing out that people don't think "big picture" when they're making decisions in their daily life. They make decisions based on what's practical, economical, and suitable to their personal taste. And if picking the gender of one's child was as easy as picking the brand of toothpaste you buy, I have no doubt that a great many people would apply about the same level of thought to that choice.

"Baby boys are, like, totally hawt this year!"

The whole story here is how we match the behaviour of smart, intelligent individuals with the collective result. A group of intelligent individuals does not necessarily lead to an intelligent collective decision. The social sciences are fraught with this problem. Most posts to this forum utterly confuse the difference. Our competing federal leaders may be social scientists by education but I'm sure they're both pragmatic when it comes to applying whatever they've learned in books.

I think what I'm saying is that some people may now perceive boys as more advantageous than girls but in the grand scheme of things, there is no natural advantage to either side. We are fools if we get involved in trying to skew this game.

And yet you seem to be in favor of the mass-market commercialization of technology that aims to do just that?

No, I'm saying that attempts to force parents to choose certain children is bound to fail.

----

The best cap I can muster now.

Shakespeare wrote several plays about how people choose one another but he wrote one wonderful play, Romeo and Juliet, that is striking because it defies established tradition. BTW, both Shakespeare and Galileo were born in 1564.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Relates? It's critical. Please understand probability. If you flip a gazillion coins a gazillion times, some will come up straight heads. They are no smarter than the other coins nor more likely to be heads on the next toss. Evolution (and life) are not random affairs although they do follow somehow what we call probability.

I gave a lot of thought to probability. Like what are the odds of flipping a coin and seeing heads? 50%, I hear. Twice in a row? 25%?...Three time in a row? One over two to the power of 3? What are the odds of flipping heads a million times in a row? I say 100%. And I can prove it, if you give me an infinite amount of attempts.

[DarkAngel_]

Something else. I wonder whether the "good" genes have tricked us into doing all this so that they have a better chance of existing into the future. Is there really any difference between natural selection and human selection?

tricked? no i think this is based on DNA reorginization, if the body can't do it itself, it will try to do it with the most flexable part of the human condition: reproduction, i beleif if we tested DNA to reorginize with a less likely chance of certain defects, that might be good, but some say defects are a strong part of their genetic make-up, which i can agree with to a point, so i think ethicly, it is wrong for the hospital to do whatever they do after a parent rejects, by law they should be forced, because they are just being selfish @$$#@!&$

and deserve to be treated as such. (i wish those @$#%% would #$%#$% themselves and @#$@#$ over a #@$@%$&%^ bridge, !@$#$@#$!!!)

[August1991]

Bump.

[Charles Anthony]

It may have been advantageous to have a boy 1000 years ago but that's not a universal truth and it's not true now. Nature does not prefer one sex. If it did, we wouldn't be here. The fact that the western world understands this implies to me that the western world's future is on firm ground.

The Western world is relatively young. How do you explain the continued survival of the non-Western world?

It is one thing for someone to ignore why a car moves when the driver presses the gas pedal but it's another thing if parents can use a cell phone to discuss why their Hindu daughter's interest in a Hindu boy of a different clan must be stopped.

Your over-dramatization of cultural differences is unjustified. If both Prince William and Prince Harold started to date Catholic girls, the Queen would not be silent.

Inside the theater, each of us swoons over Romeo or Juliet. Outside of the theater, reality hits: none of us are heirs to rich families and some of us are actually ugly. There are not enough Romeos or Juliets to go around.

[myata]

I agree with August that the way things seem to be developing, there's no stopping this even if someone wanted to. And do we want to? It a question of individual vs imposed choice. Would it be morally right to take away the choice if its already available? E.g. if testing can reveal severe genetical disorder that could cause much suffering to parents and would be child? Or, in a less extreme case, make would-be child "less likeable" to the parents? It's not a question of attitudes, but of rationality: who can and will make a better choice, overall and in the big picture?

Constistent history so far has been that if and when a choice becomes available, it will eventually be passed to the control of individuals. There're limitations and exceptions of course. But it's hard to beat general trend.

[August1991]

A test is being sold on the internet that enables parents to check the sex of their unborn baby at just six weeks.

The kit, sold by DNA Worldwide for £189, is controversial. Critics claim it may prompt parents to abort if they are unhappy with the test result.

The company rejected these claims, saying the early results, obtained from a finger-prick of blood, allow parents more time to plan for their baby.

It says the test is 99% accurate and offers a refund for wrong predictions.

...

The test looks for DNA from the baby in the mother's blood. If it picks up a Y-chromosome, that means a baby boy can be "confidently" predicted.

BBC

Determining the sex of the baby is just the start. Soon, there will be tests for many other features such as eye or hair colour, propensity for certain alergies or diseases.

[cybercoma]

Treating people for disease before they're even born is brilliant.

What's the difference between treating them before birth and treating them after birth?

The chances of success after birth are sometimes impossible, so why not alter the genes at an early enough stage before the code is set in stone? This is amazing stuff that might possibly eliminate some terrible illnesses.

[August1991]

Bump.

Your over-dramatization of cultural differences is unjustified. If both Prince William and Prince Harold started to date Catholic girls, the Queen would not be silent.

My point above was that knowledge of the scientific method is not a requirement for using sophisticated technology. Indeed, using sophisticated technology does not always engender an understanding of the scientific method.

Nevertheless, somewhere along the line, a click occurs, a light comes on and then people get it. They reason instead of trusting in superstition.

[August1991]

In the UK, they want to control selection of children through legislation but the projected law will now allow parents to choose to have a deaf child:

Deaf couples could be allowed to use embryo-screening technology and choose to have a deaf child, after a climb-down by the Government in the face of campaigning.

Under the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, using embryo-screening deliberately to create a child with a serious medical condition - which officials had said includes being deaf - would be illegal.

Now, however, the Department of Health has agreed to cut from the Bill any reference to deafness as a serious medical condition.

The move could pave the way for the Bill to be amended, when it passes through the Commons later this year, permitting a challenge over whether deafness should be classed as a serious medical condition for the purposes of the bill and allowing parents to pick an embryo, using IVF treatment, that will develop into a deaf child.

Daily Telegraph

[August1991]

Bump.

[kimmy]

Bump.

Any particular reason for the bump?

I was reading an article last week sometime where it was stated that in China the combination of the one-child policy and the preference for male children has created a demographic where within our lifetimes 20% of Chinese men will simply never marry, due to shortage of prospective mates.

The article speculated that it's going to lead to a lot of disgruntled men and that there'll be social consequences. I'll see if I can dig that up.

-k

[cybercoma]

Being a woman in China is probably pretty terrible now, but it's going to be an absolute nightmare in the not so distant future.

[kimmy]

This is the article I'd read.

-k

[TimG]

Being a woman in China is probably pretty terrible now, but it's going to be an absolute nightmare in the not so distant future.

Why? Being in short supply means they will be in high demand and able to pick their choice of mates. I don't see how that would translate into a bad thing.

[Bonam]

Why? Being in short supply means they will be in high demand and able to pick their choice of mates. I don't see how that would translate into a bad thing.

That's certainly true on the micro level. That is, if in your group of friends and people you know, there's more males than females, certainly the females will have better odds of getting a more desirable mate from within that group. On the other hand, when such an imbalance exists on a societal level, it can have consequences that are adverse for everyone. A lot of unmarried, sex-starved, males likely means more crime/violence/aggression/rape in the society as a whole.

[bloodyminded]

Am I being too "politically correct" if I consider that to be vile and despicable?

It depends on whom you ask. Some people are a little over-promiscuous with the term.

[August1991]

Any particular reason for the bump?

We had a thread elsewhere on a similar topic.

While similar, it seems to me that testing before birth is fundamentally different from testing after. It is akin to the difference between Bayesian and non-Bayesian analysis.

I was reading an article last week sometime where it was stated that in China the combination of the one-child policy and the preference for male children has created a demographic where within our lifetimes 20% of Chinese men will simply never marry, due to shortage of prospective mates.

The article speculated that it's going to lead to a lot of disgruntled men and that there'll be social consequences. I'll see if I can dig that up.

This problem will not only occur in China but elsewhere.

The Enlightenment provoked a revolution in European States over 200 years ago. It provoked a social revolution in western countries about 50 years ago. It is about to provoke popular revolutions around the world.

I'm an optimist.

On the other hand, when such an imbalance exists on a societal level, it can have consequences that are adverse for everyone. A lot of unmarried, sex-starved, males likely means more crime/violence/aggression/rape in the society as a whole.

Maybe. I reckon however that backward people are just using modern technology in a backward way. Their kids certainly won't if only because there will be fewer girls. Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

This is the article I'd read.

-k

From your article:

If a man cannot find a woman to marry in his peer group, perhaps he will find greater opportunity to marry a girl of a younger generation. By then, perhaps this man will have saved a little more money and may be desirable enough for a younger woman (and that young woman’s family) to consider. In fact, this is already a part of China’s reality today.

That works for awhile, then it doesn't.

And this:

An entire class of potentially angry, frustrated, relatively poor and uneducated single men can mean serious threats to societal stability, if this group builds a class identity that feels antagonized by society as a whole. China’s history is full of examples when a group lashes out in defiance and/or violence. This potential new class of single, frustrated men will number in the tens of millions in 2030.

Maybe, then maybe not. And then they'll die.

Many societies have lived through women/men imbalances.

---

Kimmy, and Mark Steyn, I spent part of my life examining demographics. At the end, I came away with the conclusion that demographic statistics are seductive. They seem to predict the future, but then they don't.

Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

I think a lot of this is effed up. I dont have much of a problem with "test tube babies" being tested for severe disabilities/defects, but as for choosing the sex or whether you want a blonde or brunette baby I think is not by cup of tea.

I can see the appeal of choosing sex, especially for those that have, say, 3 girls already and would really like a boy. But IMO this is a dangerous slipper-slope, because eventually we'll be able to choose just about every genetic trait we wish for our children...so where will it end?

[August1991]

Pregnant women can now self-administer a simple blood test as early as the seventh week of pregnancy, and know, with 95-per-cent accuracy, the gender of the child they will be having. This, in turn, gives them the opportunity to abort the fetus if it's not the gender they want. A set of fertility clinics in Los Angeles, New York and Mexico recently reported that 85 per cent of their clients wanted to select for sex (for purposes of “family balancing”) – and that three-quarters of those clients came from overseas. (Some manufacturers of gender-testing kits refuse to sell them in India and China for that reason.)

The smorgasbord of genetic choices doesn't stop there. Women who use fertility drugs to have children now find a growing number of perinatologists willing to reduce healthy twins to a singleton in utero – purely for the convenience of the woman, as there is rarely any medical need today to perform the procedure.

And couples who buy donor eggs and sperm from commercial fertility clinics can now select for hair colour, ethnicity, temperament, athleticism and intellectual prowess – even for the length of the donor's eyelashes. If you think that's creepy, recall that at the beginning of the 20th century, cosmetic surgery was considered creepy too.

We do these things not just because we need to, but because we can. Ethics follow technology, not the other way around.

G&M

Good read.