Eine Studie zeigt, dass 77 % der US-Bevölkerung die Auswahl von Embryonen auf der Grundlage von DNA (Polygen-Scores) im Hinblick auf die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Entwicklung gesundheitlicher Probleme befürworten, und 30 % befürworten sie im Hinblick auf Merkmale. Fast alle äußerten Bedenken hinsichtlich möglicher negativer Folgen für den Einzelnen oder die Gesellschaft. Was denken Sie?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818674
16 Kommentare
Participants were presented with an introduction to this technology depicting two embryos‘ (presently realistic) absolute risk for developing a variety of conditions (e.g., type 1 diabetes embryo 1= 0.4% and embryo 2=0.8% absolute risk, or schizophrenia 0.5% and 0.6%. Those are tiny effects, yet people seemed not only approving but also interested. At the same, they also report being highly concerned about false expectations. Given the practical limitations and ethical concerns, do you think people will be interested in doing this in the future?
We’re getting pretty close to the GATTACA timeline I see
Absolutely for, issues and traits. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to accurately predict these things to the point that I’d have confidence that I’d be getting the desired effect. But if we reach the point that we do get that confidence, I don’t see any reason to oppose it. I am very hesitant about genetic manipulation, but if you’re making embryos from the parents materials without adjustment and just picking the one most likely to have desirable traits, sounds good to me.
We could eliminate basically all genetically inherited diseases. That would avoid a lot of suffering.
I’m going to be honest; I can’t see any valid criticism of weeding out bad genetic traits that aren’t some variant of “but that’s unnatural”.
This feels like a big decision. Do we know enough yet? Might be too soon.
What if, for instance, the gene that may increase the risk of diabetes by 0.5% happens to occur predominantly in highly creative people? We accidentally eliminate our most creative thinkers just to weed out diabetes?
In theory, I love the idea of eliminating inheritable diseases, but only in theory so far.
Sounds a lot like eugenics to me. Now don’t get me wrong I think it might be good but we all know how good things like this go awry.
It’s morally questionable, especially if it starts to slide into eugenics areas. The benefit is there, being able to potentially prevent specific genetic ailments, but the last time they did something like that, it was a war crime.
This technology like many others is inevitable. It doesn’t particularly matter what people think of it because it’s going to be prevalent soon and kids who have it will have major advantages over kids who don’t. Increasing the gap between the poor and wealthy further.
There will be side effects, but the profit incentive for whoever can make those minimal will iron out the wrinkles. Animals will carry the brunt of that work for sure.
Unless there’s some sort of government programs that provides these services for free to rid humanity of major illnesses etc prior to birth. That’s the hopeful outlook.
I think there’s little likelihood you can approve this type of thing and then ban selection for other traits (like purported intelligence) that would impact humanity at large.
My life plan includes having a perfect baby. So I will absolutely select on IQ, no genetic illnesses or defects allowed and advanced genes so I don’t even need to raise it.
It is Eugenics. But Eugenics is not bad per sey. Its only because its often paired with bad things that its seen as bad. Id say if you can make a Childs life better trough genetic manipulation do it. No reason not to reduce suffering and improve our children. The improvement just needs to be subjectively good for their lives and not just preference(Skin color, hair color, sexuality(Unless its pedophilia),etc)
Being against preventable genetic suffering seems cruel to me
Imagine you select the “perfect” genes for your baby only to not have them expressed because you nurtured wrong
I am very hesitant to support any restrictions that limit personal reproductive autonomy at this point. I think it’s is a very slippery slope and it’s better not to interfere in family medical decisions. Why should the government be able to tell a family that wants to try prevent their kids from suffering from a disease that they are not allowed to do it. Now that we have the technology to reduce genetic risks for disease, it seems fundamentally unfair (and immoral) for the government to force families to pass on genetic bad luck to their offspring when they don’t want to do so. Let people decide for themselves and don’t force anyone to use the technology or ban people from using it.
It’s inevitable, it’s always going to be uncomfortable to talk about but in 500 years it will be so common it will be like wearing shoes today in its normalcy