Are GM humans finally here? - May 14, 2008
So how did this one slip in under the radar? The Times reckons that researchers at Cornell University not only created the world's first genetically engineered human embryo, but also that they presented it at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's conference last year.
One wonders how the ravening press pack, always on the lookout for a controversial story, managed to miss one that hit two of the biggest news buttons — GM and human embryology.
The Times article quotes one critic calling it "the first step on the road that will lead to the nightmare of designer babies", while perhaps more even-handed commentators will point out that all they did was introduce a gene for green fluorescent protein (a standard proof of principle when doing transgenic work), and that the embryo was allowed to live for no more than five days.
This kind of work will explicitly be made legal under Britain's new draft laws which are currently being debated in parliament. Ultimately, some researchers hope that, instead of just making glowing green embryos, gene modification could be used to imbue stem-cell lines with faulty genes that characterize a host of genetic diseases — thus allowing biomed experts to get a better handle on how cells behave when they have such mutations.
Wired has picked up the baton and is now asking readers to debate the ethical merits (or otherwise) of the advance, under the strapline "Advance or abomination?", which just shows what an emotive issue this is.
Comments
You call it a 'designer baby' or 'Baby Frankenstein' -both appear same as we do not know for certain how such GM humans shall perform in society.Is there 100% guarantee that they would not cause any discomfort to fellow humans ?It may be also possible that such creatures may not survive/adapt in long run and may succumb to diseases etc .Would then it be moral/ethical to produce such breeds?Issues like these may be thrashed out first before embarking on such ambitious{?}projects.
Posted by: Dr.Arvind Mishra | May 14, 2008 11:24 AM
I'm surprised that Nature indulges in such sensationalist headlines.
As you said, the embryo 'lived' for 5 days. Why the worry about 'Baby Frankenstein', or 'GM Humans' when it's only a collection of cells? It's not like there's anything remotely conscious and alive in those collection of cells.
IMO, Research like this is absolutely essential to understanding and possibly treating genetic diseases.
Posted by: Siddharth | May 14, 2008 11:57 AM
I too am surprised by this extremely sensational, highly erroneous and totally misleading headline. It could easily belong to a yellow journal like the Sun or the News of the World rather than a scientific journal.
Not only is green fluorescent protein used as a standard proof of principle for gene expression in an organism, it is also used to tag other genes and proteins to figure out the mechanisms of biological processes optically, in vitro and in vivo. To equate what was done to creating a 'designer baby' or 'Baby Frankenstein' is ridiculous and unscientific to the extreme.
As for Dr Arvind Mishra's comments - they make absolutely no sense.
Posted by: Richard | May 15, 2008 07:19 AM
Richard wrote:
"I too am surprised by this extremely sensational, highly erroneous and totally misleading headline."
The headline may be sensational, but how is it erroneous?
Posted by: Jon D. Moulton | May 15, 2008 09:20 PM
"The headline may be sensational, but how is it erroneous?" - Because "GM humans" are not finally here. When we have a baby which is genetically modified then they will finally be here.
All that was done was the introduction of one gene that produced green fluorescent protein in a fertilised egg, that survived for 5 days. No human was produced.
Posted by: Richard | May 18, 2008 11:30 AM
I'm allowed to select my children's genes positively by choosing a mate.
I'm allowed to select their genes negatively by using Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis to prevent certain genes getting into my child's genome.
However, it seems I am not allowed to select a gene positively by picking one I like and inserting it into my child's DNA prior to embryonic development.
How very odd.
Posted by: Darren Reynolds | May 18, 2008 04:06 PM