Emphasis Placed Upon Genetics in Society

[Tore]

Elaboration on your choice is encouraged.

[Tryggvi]

Elaboration on your choice is encouraged.

Today a friend told me the following on IM which shows how restricted the freedom of man and the application of gene-technology even in the US is, not to mention Europe:

>I was just reading an article about genetic selection yesterday!
>Some clinics on the East Coast were expermenting with this procedure to remove a certain defective, disease-causing gene from these women who were patients at fertility clinincs..
>The women consented, but the FDA found out about it and forced them to stop.
>The experiment Doctors were doing something to help the parents select the healthiest/least diseased embryo to implant. The woman they interviewed for the article said that they had been trying for years to get pregnant and she had had 7 miscarriages before this clinic helped her get and stay pregnant (she had a son).
>It sounded just fine to me... everyone consented and now these people have the healthy brats that they wanted.
>So why on earth the FDA had to swoop in and screw things up is beyond my ability to understand.
>The FDA said that the Docs first had to go through the FDA experiment application/procedure and get their work approved for experiment...
>Well, every American knows that it takes *years* for the FDA to approve anything...
>Even experimental studies can take forever to get the rubber stamp from the Feds, and in the mean time, people die and people loose forever their chance to have children.
>The article was in Ladies Home Journal.

[Tore]

I recall watching a documentary on whether or not extensive Genetic Research should be conducted upon the indigenous population of Iceland, as their gene pool was thought to be the world's most homogeneous(recent studies say otherwise?).

Regardless, the case against the research being done was based around the fact that a disadvantage would be placed upon those shown to have special and unique conditions.

One women who had a history of medical problems who vehemently opposed the pending study voiced concern over the possibility of her descendents being denied medical insurance in the future if it was indeed discovered that her genes were responsible for her run of bad health.

I suppose it could be deemed "unfair" for one to be denied medical insurance based around something that is beyond their realm of control, yet when put in perspective, the practice can be justified.

There is a partial, if not significant, correlation between
intelligence and genetics. If one fails at attaining a moderate standard of living, or is rejected after applying at a post-secondary institution, it could also be said that it truly isn't their fault. After all, they had no say in their genetic composition.

Thoughts?

[Stríbog]

This is a complex issue. I think progress in genetics is great and that situations like the one Thorburn described are stupid and avoidable. However, I'm not sure how to reconcile personal freedoms with the growing intrusion that corporate knowledge of one's genetic makeup would cause. My instinct right now is to keep genetic testing voluntary, allowing parents to make embryo decisions based on genetic results, etc. but not to force people to divulge their genetic profile for insurance, academic applications, etc. I think that such would violate a right to privacy.

[Tryggvi]

Surely, the use of genetic information and the authorization of changes in the genetic structure of one's body or offspring must stay voluntary, but they ought in no way be forbidden, restricted or prohibited.

And with that I refer not only to eugenic modifications, such as the elimination of defective genes and genetic diseases, or eugenic embryonic selections. If someone wants to give his child blonde hair or blue eyes (the nightmare of all Christians, leftists and egalitarians), or a combo of 200 genes related to brain structure which was discovered in highly gifted children, that's perfectly fine, as far as it concerns me.

In the end, everyone wants the strongest, most healthy, beautiful, talented and intelligent children with the best character, so the issue will sort itself out for the best of humanity.

I am absolutely against "singling out" people with genetic defects or otherwise negative predispostions for insurance purposes, though. I would consider that unfair and inhuman, and their "burden" should be carried by the society, i. e. the collective of people with health insurance. In fact, in most European countries such practices of "singling out" persons based on a bad health record or negative genetic patterns would be already now downright illegal.