Eugenics and gene therapy

[SoulMonster]

Thought this deserves it own topic. It is just a discussion of these two things, how they differs, and what they can be used for.

Eugenics is the method of promoting certain characteristics in a population by controlling which individuals get to reproduce. So if you want to increase the average height of a population you would make sure those individuals that are tall get to have more children than those who are small. The idea is that the gene variants that help to promote tallness will be favoured in the next generation and result in an increase in average height. This is basically just controlled evolution. Instead of other things deermining who gets to reproduce, humans become the agent who makes this decision. It is directed evolution.

Some people claim that eugenics doesn't work. That it wrong. It follows naturally from evolutionary theory that it will work. We have also used it for thousands of years in breeding programs on various domesticated animals and plants. Just look at chihuahuas and grand danes. They all originated from the same dog. They are the results of eugenics. They are the result of controlled breeding programs. It works remarkably well! And justv look at moderns maize/corn. Completely different from its originator plant. But the premise for all this is that you can prevent individuals with undesired traits from reproducing, while encouraging those with desireable traits to do it. Without this eugenics won't work.

And this is the reason why we don't do eugenics on humans. We simply don't accept that some people shouldn't be allowed to have children based on harbouring some genetic traits we don't like. The one famous example of deliberat efforts at eugneics on humans is from Nazi Germany, and this is of course why the term eugenics is so tainted today. When people hear that word the horror of Nazis breeding program springs to mind. It brings forth ideas of Aryan race theories. Of culling populations to remove everything that is weak or to the racist Nazi's undesired. It is cruel and dangerous.

Additionally, the Nazis also attempted eugenics to remove certain diseases that aren't easy to remove with this method (because they genetically recessive and carried by too many people), and hence failed at this.

Gene therapy is different. Where eugenics is controlling evolution by restricting reproduction for certain sub-groups, gene therapy is fixing genes in individuals, which can result in hereditary changes that are brought on to following generations (=germ line gene therapy) or just be isolated to one individual (=somatic gene therapy). This method relies on moleculary techniques developed in the last few decades. It involves removing/altering/adding DNA in an individual to correct whatever is wrong. If this change takes place in anything but germ cells (egg or sperm cells) the change will not be inherited to any children that person may have in the future. Only if the gene therapy targets germ cells will any change performed be inherited to future children (and their children). Today, only somatic gene therapy is considered to be acceptable. We are much too wary to accept making changes that are "permanent". If we do something wrong, then only the person who wanted the treatment and gave his consent to it, and not the in theory endless number of descendants of that person, should be affected. It's an ethical thing.

Many diseases can in theory be fixed by somatic gene therapy. Huntington's is one of them. Type-1 diabetes is another. This will not eradicate these diseases, they will pop up with the same frequency in each generation to come (given that all conditions are stable), but each indivudal treated can experience much greater quality of life.

The technical problems that remain is how to make the changes required, and with a required efficiency, and only in the tissue(s) where you want the changes to occur. This is a major problem and will probably mean that some diseases will never be corrected on adults with gene therapy (it is much more efficient on fetuses, though, because there are less cells to be treated and shortes distances to the required tissues).

Somatic gene therapy is coming. It will become stanrad practise within our lifetimes. Germ line gene therapy will probably be accepted for some diseases/syndroms after some deades when somatic gene therapy has been around for some time. It is a matter of learning the effects of eradicating dieases in individual before it is attempted on a broader scale. We need to see its effects on single individuals before we start changing bloodlines. Eugenics, on the other hand, will probably and hopefully never ever be used again.

[Gracii Guns]

SoulMonster, some U.S. States also had eugenics programmes as late as the 1950s, where they forcibly sterilised some black people. Some of whom are still living today. It's certainly not just a Nazi territory. And you could say that China's one child policy was/is also eugenics. Although that was intended for population control, I'd say that the forced abortions (some as late as 9 months) on women who don't have a permit to have a child are a spectacular approach to denying someone reproductive rights.

[SoulMonster]

SoulMonster, some U.S. States also had eugenics programmes as late as the 1950s, where they forcibly sterilised some black people. Some of whom are still living today. It's certainly not just a Nazi territory. And you could say that China's one child policy was/is also eugenics. Although that was intended for population control, I'd say that the forced abortions (some as late as 9 months) on women who don't have a permit to have a child are a spectacular approach to denying someone reproductive rights.

We had them in Norway , too

I don't consider limited overall reproduction eugenics.

[Len Cnut]

It pre and post dates Nazi's by a fair bit. In the 20s it was actually like...whats the phrase I'm looking for? Y'know, like a conventional science.

[DieselDaisy]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

[SoulMonster]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

[DieselDaisy]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

[Dazey]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

Yep! Because cancer is just awesome eh?

[DieselDaisy]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

Yep! Because cancer is just awesome eh?

You do not have to take my opposition to Nazi eugenics quite so far that I oppose medical treatment to cancer!

[classicrawker]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

Yep! Because cancer is just awesome eh?

You do not have to take my opposition to Nazi eugenics quite so far that I oppose medical treatment to cancer!

treatment is different from prevention. If science can prevent cancer by using gene therapy how if the bad?

[DieselDaisy]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

Yep! Because cancer is just awesome eh?

You do not have to take my opposition to Nazi eugenics quite so far that I oppose medical treatment to cancer!

treatment is different from prevention. If science can prevent cancer by using gene therapy how if the bad?

Where do you draw the line though with this sort of stuff? There is a slippery slope from preventing diseases to genetically removing your kid's ginger hair or big ears. A far better idea is to invest the expertise in cancer treatments. Cancer research has improved to such a wide extent that, whereas before you would hear the 'dreaded c word' and start writing your will, now there is an excellent chance of surviving. Just think where cancer research will be in x number of years? This is a far better science than messing around with freaky Frankenstein research.

[SoulMonster]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

My "what" was in regards to what you were actually talking about, because my post was about different things: eugenics, somatic gene therapy and germ-line gene therapy. I assume you were talking about eugenics, and yeah that philosphy is appaling.

[SoulMonster]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

Yep! Because cancer is just awesome eh?

You do not have to take my opposition to Nazi eugenics quite so far that I oppose medical treatment to cancer!

treatment is different from prevention. If science can prevent cancer by using gene therapy how if the bad?

Where do you draw the line though with this sort of stuff? There is a slippery slope from preventing diseases to genetically removing your kid's ginger hair or big ears. A far better idea is to invest the expertise in cancer treatments.

Gene therapy can be used to prevent cancer by fixing some of the errors that already exists in cells that are on their way to be transformed into cancer cells. I don't see it as a particularly viable method, though, because it is next to impossible to detect such cells in the body since they don't display the tell-tale signs of cancer (unrestricted growth, metastasis, etc).

A much more relevant example of the usefulness of somatic gene therapy, in my opinion, is for diseases like Huntington's, ALS, etc, where treatments are completely non-existent and where the mortality rate is stably at 100.00 %.

I don't see a slippery slope problem in this case. All gene therapy applications will have to be approved by FDA and other regulatory bodies on a case-by-case scenario. I see absolutely no probable scenario where gene therapy will be approved for non-illnesses and for purely aesthetical applications. Additionally, we already allow body augmentation by various other methods already, like plastic surgery, without a huge amount of problems. Geting rid of horrible diseases with the limited price of accepting one more way of modifying bodies, is a mild price to pay, in my opinion. But again, I just don't see it that FDA will accept somethign as drastic as gene therapy for non-therapeutic applications.

Edited January 3, 2016 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

My "what" was in regards to what you were actually talking about, because my post was about different things: eugenics, somatic gene therapy and germ-line gene therapy. I assume you were talking about eugenics, and yeah that philosphy is appaling.

It is the same science though. Serious American academia advocated sterilizing the infirm, mentally unsound and diseased - and also segregating races and halting immigration. The theory was, in x number of years, you would produce a race of perfect apple pie American super warriors. History has told us that once you determine some things to eradicate through eugenics such as 'cancer', it does not stop there. People will find a plethora of undesirable features and traits, said ''impediments' to phase out. History tells us that.

[classicrawker]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

Yep! Because cancer is just awesome eh?

You do not have to take my opposition to Nazi eugenics quite so far that I oppose medical treatment to cancer!

treatment is different from prevention. If science can prevent cancer by using gene therapy how if the bad?

Where do you draw the line though with this sort of stuff? There is a slippery slope from preventing diseases to genetically removing your kid's ginger hair or big ears. A far better idea is to invest the expertise in cancer treatments. Cancer research has improved to such a wide extent that, whereas before you would hear the 'dreaded c word' and start writing your will, now there is an excellent chance of surviving. Just think where cancer research will be in x number of years? This is a far better science than messing around with freaky Frankenstein research.

So you would rather put people through the painful and horrific experience of cancer treatment than prevent the disease to begin with? Sorry but I am not seeing the logic in your approach. I saw my father die from cancer despite the radiation and chemical treatments and would not wish what he went through on anyone.

[SoulMonster]

This is a far better science than messing around with freaky Frankenstein research.

With all due respect, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what you are talking I don't think you know what gene therapy is, how it works, what the problems are, and what the possible benefits are.

In the general view of progression and development you have people who lean towards accepting change because they are good at recognizing the potential, real benefits of that change, and those who lean towards restricting change because they tend to recognize the potential, real problems. Then on the fringe sides of this you have those who haven't got the faintest clues but are simply traditionalists or nontraditionalists and hence apply value to change itself.

[classicrawker]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

Yep! Because cancer is just awesome eh?

You do not have to take my opposition to Nazi eugenics quite so far that I oppose medical treatment to cancer!

treatment is different from prevention. If science can prevent cancer by using gene therapy how if the bad?

Where do you draw the line though with this sort of stuff? There is a slippery slope from preventing diseases to genetically removing your kid's ginger hair or big ears. A far better idea is to invest the expertise in cancer treatments.

Gene therapy can be used to prevent cancer by fixing some of the errors that already exists in cells that are on their way to be transformed into cancer cells. I don't see it as a particularly viable method, though, because it is next to impossible to detect such cells in the body since they don't display the tell-tale signs of cancer (unrestricted growth, metastasis, etc).

A much more relevant example of the usefulness of somatic gene therapy, in my opinion, is for diseases like Huntington's, ALS, etc, where treatments are completely non-existent and where the mortality rate is stably at 100.00 %.

I don't see a slippery slope problem in this case. All gene therapy applications will have to be approved by FDA and other regulatory bodies on a case-by-case scenario. I see absolutely no probable scenario where gene therapy will be approved for non-illnesses and for purely aesthetical applications. Additionally, we already allow body augmentation by various other methods already, like plastic surgery, without a huge amount of problems. Geting rid of horrible diseases with the limited price of accepting one more way of modifying bodies, is a mild price to pay, in my opinion. But again, I just don't see it that FDA will accept somethign as drastic as gene therapy for non-therapeutic applications.

I thought it was possible to check for genes that transmit breast cancer for instance. Would it not be possible to change those to prevent passing them down to descendants?

[SoulMonster]

Appalling 'science' for appalling people.

What?

Well unless you consider Himmler, Hitler and Heydrich decent chaps! There were all these weird British and American cranks also who supported it, at the turn of the 20th century. They were all vehemently racist and advocated programs like, sterilising the poor and infirm.

I'm sorry but I think it is a repellent 'Frankenstein' science. Best leave mother nature alone.

My "what" was in regards to what you were actually talking about, because my post was about different things: eugenics, somatic gene therapy and germ-line gene therapy. I assume you were talking about eugenics, and yeah that philosphy is appaling.

It is the same science though.

No, eugenics and gene therapy isn't "the same science" . Eugenics isn't a science at all, it is a philosophy where the theory of evolution is applied on humans to achieve a certain outcome. And gene therapy isn't a science, either, it is a tool used to alter DNA in vivo. The latter is used by scientists, though, more precisely geneticists when they study genes.

[DieselDaisy]

This is a far better science than messing around with freaky Frankenstein research.

With all due respect, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what you are talking I don't think you know what gene therapy is, how it works, what the problems are, and what the possible benefits are.

In the general view of progression and development you have people who lean towards accepting change because they are good at recognizing the potential, real benefits of that change, and those who lean towards restricting change because they tend to recognize the potential, real problems. Then on the fringe sides of this you have those who haven't got the faintest clues but are simply traditionalists or nontraditionalists and hence apply value to change itself.

Probably correct. Atheist scientific nordic aryan crap bores me to smithereens. Give me a good debate on Shakespeare, or food, or history, or.., any day.

[SoulMonster]

I thought it was possible to check for genes that transmit breast cancer for instance. Would it not be possible to change those to prevent passing them down to descendants?

In some cases you can be born with predisposition for cancer. With breast cancer there is among others a specific genetic marker called BRCA2 (it is a mutant form of a cancer-suppresing gene) than can be detected by checking a random cell in your body (all cells will carry the same BRCA2 variant), and when it is found a person carries this allele gene therapy may be used. Right. In most cases, though, people get breast cancer, or any other type of cancer, without being born with any such predispositions, and in these cases gene therapy won't be useful. Thanks for correcting me on this.

Yes, if a person is shown to carry the mutated form of the BRCA2 gene, then one could use somatic gene therapy to fix tissue in her breasts so the probability of developing cancer drops significantly, or use GERM-LINE gene therapy to fix the DNA in an egg cell that will later be used in in vitro fertilization to result, if everything goes well, in a child that doesn't carry this problematic gene variant. As I said earlier, the former is more realistic, altering egg cells is very much a no-no.

[classicrawker]

This is a far better science than messing around with freaky Frankenstein research.

With all due respect, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what you are talking I don't think you know what gene therapy is, how it works, what the problems are, and what the possible benefits are.

In the general view of progression and development you have people who lean towards accepting change because they are good at recognizing the potential, real benefits of that change, and those who lean towards restricting change because they tend to recognize the potential, real problems. Then on the fringe sides of this you have those who haven't got the faintest clues but are simply traditionalists or nontraditionalists and hence apply value to change itself.

Probably correct. Atheist scientific nordic aryan crap bores me to smithereens. Give me a good debate on Shakespeare, or food, or history, or.., any day.

This shows the negative side of religion.....deny and condemn science you don't understand based on a set of archaic rules written by man 2000 years ago to try to control peoples lives.........

I thought it was possible to check for genes that transmit breast cancer for instance. Would it not be possible to change those to prevent passing them down to descendants?

In some cases you can be born with predisposition for cancer. With breast cancer there is among others a specific genetic marker called BRCA2 (it is a mutant form of a cancer-suppresing gene) than can be detected by checking a random cell in your body (all cells will carry the same BRCA2 variant), and when it is found a person carries this allele gene therapy may be used. Right. In most cases, though, people get breast cancer, or any other type of cancer, without being born with any such predispositions, and in these cases gene therapy won't be useful. Thanks for correcting me on this.

Yes, if a person is shown to carry the mutated form of the BRCA2 gene, then one could use somatic gene therapy to fix tissue in her breasts so the probability of developing cancer drops significantly, or use GERM-LINE gene therapy to fix the DNA in an egg cell that will later be used in in vitro fertilization to result, if everything goes well, in a child that doesn't carry this problematic gene variant. As I said earlier, the former is more realistic, altering egg cells is very much a no-no.

I know it scares people to death but why shouldn't we allow the genetics of the egg to be modified, based on a very strict set of laws, to eliminate potential congenital health risks so that the benefits can be passed on to future generations?

Edited January 3, 2016 by classicrawker

[DieselDaisy]

This shows the negative side of religion.....deny and condemn science you don't understand based on a set of archaic rules written by man 2000 years ago to try to control peoples lives.........

I'm not religious so what you say does not apply to me.

[SoulMonster]

This is a far better science than messing around with freaky Frankenstein research.

With all due respect, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what you are talking I don't think you know what gene therapy is, how it works, what the problems are, and what the possible benefits are.

In the general view of progression and development you have people who lean towards accepting change because they are good at recognizing the potential, real benefits of that change, and those who lean towards restricting change because they tend to recognize the potential, real problems. Then on the fringe sides of this you have those who haven't got the faintest clues but are simply traditionalists or nontraditionalists and hence apply value to change itself.

Probably correct. Atheist scientific nordic aryan crap bores me to smithereens. Give me a good debate on Shakespeare, or food, or history, or.., any day.

I find the practise of engaging in discussions for which one has no interests but actually finds boring for the sole purpose of disruption through spreading erronous, abrasive, and teasing comments, as part of a forum-wide meta-game or as part of forcing an overall off-topic point, just another way of trålling.

[DieselDaisy]

This is a far better science than messing around with freaky Frankenstein research.

With all due respect, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what you are talking I don't think you know what gene therapy is, how it works, what the problems are, and what the possible benefits are.

In the general view of progression and development you have people who lean towards accepting change because they are good at recognizing the potential, real benefits of that change, and those who lean towards restricting change because they tend to recognize the potential, real problems. Then on the fringe sides of this you have those who haven't got the faintest clues but are simply traditionalists or nontraditionalists and hence apply value to change itself.

Probably correct. Atheist scientific nordic aryan crap bores me to smithereens. Give me a good debate on Shakespeare, or food, or history, or.., any day.

I find the practise of engaging in discussions for which one has no interests but actually finds boring for the sole purpose of disruption through spreading erronous, abrasive, and teasing comments, as part of a forum-wide meta-game or as part of forcing an overall off-topic point, just another way of trålling.

My originally reply was succinct. Alright, alright, I'll leave you lab coat types to it then...

[classicrawker]

This shows the negative side of religion.....deny and condemn science you don't understand based on a set of archaic rules written by man 2000 years ago to try to control peoples lives.........

I'm not religious so what you say does not apply to me.

I thought you argued on the side of God when we have discussions over religion or am I mixing you up with another poster. If I am I apologize...........