Test-tube babies forum
This forum on the issues surrounding genetic testing is part of our poll about whether or not YOU think such testing is ethical in certain situations.
Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas
Science Buzz is supported by the National Science Foundation.Copyright © Science Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2010, except where noted.
I love this set of questions, because my hesitation is never about the information gained from testing. It's always about what people might DO with the information.
It's a brilliant piece of work, and I'm surprised that more people haven't left comments. C'mon: what's everyone thinking?
i totaly agree...
dito.
ur right!!
this is so weird i didnt know they had anythimg like this wow the world is changing an fast.
See, I think the answers I gave are answers that depend on the parents. I don't know how they'll end up. For example, getting a kid to save your other kid depends on if you love that kid just as much. And for the homosexuality one, as long as you still love that child, it's OK to test it.
this is a great quiz. it made me this about things that i had never thought abotu before.
really
My thoughts were just like yours, Liza. It seems to me that people should be able to have access to information, especially about their own bodies. How do people make decisions then, based on this information? I am not familiar with the details of genetic counseling or access to it.
I thought the "homosexuality gene" was sort of cool. I know it said that reasearchers are working on it, but does that mean it's real??
I would love to know if I have it. xD
Not that I'm gay--I'm just a little curious.
Discover magazine ran a feature in 2007 on the current state of scientific research into a "gay gene." You might want to check that out for more information. The article kicks off with a great reality check. It's not just that we don't know much about the genetic determiners for homosexual attraction and partner selection, we barely know how heterosexual attraction and partner selection work either.
I mean, am I genetically predetermined to be attracted to women with dark black clunky glasses? OK, OK, I know....too much info.
How peculiar...
same here.
but i am gay
Testing for health reasons is ok......but not for sexual inclination.
Why do medical doctors have to experiment on the future generation, saying no hsrm can be done, it may work and it may not. Don't you know that it will cause harm it will set the world in a backwards spin. Gender population will go haywire. I believve it is the worst thing ever, it just like cloning almost. IT IS ALL WRONG!!!!
The question that creeped me out the most was basically should parents be allowed to have a second child as a donor - that was creepy. Then the testing for the "gay gene" trumped that. I hope that never, ever comes to pass. We should not play god in that manner.
Well, it creeps ME out to think that people might be "allowed" -- or not allowed -- to have children.
Say you want to have a second child anyway, and cord blood or marrow from the second child might save the life of your first. You'd donate yourself if you could, but you can't, and this solution is your first child's last, best hope. Still think it's creepy? (Legit opinion. I'm just wondering.)
As for the gay gene...Well, I don't want to compare sexual orientation to disease. Right? One argument people often make for prenatal or even preimplantation screening is that a couple choosing to continue the pregnancy might use the time to get comfortable with the idea of a child with a disability, get educated, and surround themselves with a support system. Similarly, maybe couples might choose to consciously create a supportive environment for a gay child. Now, you might say that parents should create open, supportive, diverse environments anyway (certainly that's my view), but it might take on a certain urgency if you knew it was going to directly impact your child...
I know we shouldn't have kids to be a cure for our other chldren. babies aren't medicine.
The thing that worries me the most is the "homosexuality gene." I don't believe remotely people should be allowed to test for it because people are unfortunately going to use this information to determine to not have a child versus having a possibly gay child. A horrible thing to imagine, but completely believable and thus should be prevented. There is no need to know this before hand and no good can come out of it.
So your saying that its wrong on deciding to have a gay child or not???But it's ok to kill the child if its not physcially or emotionally normal???
Your picking and chosing everything else in the child. Why not then gay or not. My opinion is that leave nature alone! If later test in pregnacy can help that child after delivery then yes, have the test.
If your going to say ok to everyother test to decide if you want that child or not, then it opens the door to everyother issue.
I agree. Testing for medical purposes is acceptable in that it can actually benefit the child, but the testing of social conditions and "emotional problems" is wrong. It may not actually exsist now, but in the future if it does it should be banned. By testing for homosexuality, parents pave the way for other superficial tests such as eye color or height.
At the same time though, maybe the testing of these specific appearances would be better for the child depending on the parent. If a mother and father would hate their child or beat their child because he or she is gay or shows homosexual tendencies, or has specific unwanted physical properties, the maybe for the life of the child it would be better to never have been born (and yes i know that parent should have never been a parent at all).
This issue proves difficult. I guess in the end there is no one "right" answer.
It is interesting, because the questions should be made. Personally, I think people should be able to check for things, but like everything in life, there is no black and white answer. Everything is gray.
Genetic testing is in itself a good thing. It will lead to better health of people in general. Now, as with the "gay gene" question, there is a point where it becomes something else all together.
People should have to option to check, and even make changes to the embryo. It should be monitored, and there should be a limit. And as time goes on, and things become easier to do, and safer to do, the issue should be constantly reviewed.
Telling people they have no right to make choices for the health of their embryos, is like telling people they have no right to make choices for the health of their 10 year old child. You are taking away their right and responsibility if you don't allow them the choice. Parents are in charge of their child's health while the child is out of the womb, they should have that responsibility while the child is in there as well.
I'm in agreement with those who say there's nothing wrong with giving people access to information. I'm also in agreement with those who say it would be horrible for people to use such access to "screen out" a potentially gay offspring. Unfortunately, there really doesn't seem to be much we can do to make people behave decently. If they feel they'd have difficulty loving their gay child, then I guess that's just the way they feel. But I don't think restricting everyone from access to information in an attempt to save the "lives" of embryos in danger of being born into unloving homes is fair to the rest of us who aren't worried about the sexual preferences of our future family members. Nor is it fair to the scientific community which might be able to use such screenings for all sorts of unforeseen good.
Maybe the best place for screening would be in the lobby of these fertility clinics and should be performed by psychologists before a couple puts any of their stuff in a test tube.
i like these questions but do you think its nessicary for what people think?
What troubles me most about this discussion is that we disregard what affect genetic testing might have on children/adults already living with genetic disorders. What are we saying about people living with these conditions if we are choosing to select against them? Some are making that argument with the homosexuality question, even if it is entirely hypothetical at this point. It all seems a bit engineered to me when we are saying a segment of our population is "out-of-date" so to speak because of their condition and from now on we will select against it and eliminate people like them from future generations. What is the standard of normalcy/genetic acceptability and do we want to have one? And how will that continue to change as our ability to manipulate genes develops?
In response to the question of children used as transplant matches, I do not normally recommend fiction but the book My Sister's Keeper addresses that issue. While not exhaustive, it gives a glance into the human dimension of that decision. My personal opinion is that children should be brought into the world for the sake of existing on their own merit. Not because they serve some function even before birth. I cannot possibly understand the implications or heart-ache of a sick child and I hope I never will. Having said that though, I think bringing a genetic match into the world rather than a sibling/child is detrimental to everyone involved.
"I think bringing a genetic match into the world rather than a sibling/child is detrimental to everyone involved."
But...
I follow the ethical concern of creating a child solely for the purpose of having a matching donor, but I don't think that's exactly what's happening here; I very much doubt that any parent considering this would for a moment consider their second child as just some sort of organ bank.
I mean, kid #1, who is sick, gets a chance to be healthy. Kid #2, who is a tissue match, gets the chance to be alive. Parents get to have two kids.
If it's a matter of sorting through multiple embryos for a good match (and I think it is), I don't feel like it's all that different from in vitro fertilization, where extra fertilized embryos are discarded anyway. In this case, one of the embryos just got lucky.
It'd be a different issue (although I can see where it might get a little fuzzy) if we were selecting out embryos for "unfavorable" characteristics, but perhaps finding one that can provide a vital gift to its sibling isn't so bad. (Even if being forced to give a gift kind of sucks when you're a kid, I can't imagine regretting helping a sibling once I reached adulthood.)
This is a great conversation. I believe that genetic testing can be a great tool, as people will have the benefit of making themselves informed and prepared for some of life's possibilities and circumstances.
However, I get nervous about the idea that people will use this information to "choose" or select which embryo is fit to receive life. I would be greatly concerned that as this option becomes more available to parents, our judgement and decisions about human life would be made based upon our fears and biases about illness and disabilities. So many people (who could have lived happy and productive lives) with a debilitating illness would not exist.. Might we quickly turn into a society lacking the benefit of diversity?
award
Having suffered through an infertility problem, I fully support invitro fertilization. Fortunately I did not need to endure this, but gratefullly this day in age it would be a coice for my husband and I.
Why in the world would we ever want to deny scientific information to anyone? Is the fact the info might be used against a person at some time a legitimate argument for never reliquishing the info?
What worries me about genetic testing is who has access to the information. As our health care "system" is set up, could insurers deny coverage for a genetic predispositon to a disease? I think Congress is in the process of enacting a bill to prevent discrimination based on genetic makeup, but not certain. Knowing you have a better than average chance of getting a specific condition or disease allows you to do screening or preventive measures. What if there is no treatment for it?
I don't think the testing should be allowed, because it would effectively allow parents to design their babies. This isn't right, parents should take whatever nature has given them.
i think that screening is wrong unless it is for a very serious matter. especially on babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i think that your very wrong i think that we can scream when ever we want to it expresses our feelings!!!!!
What is screening?????????? Sad this is horrible!
i think screening is an excellent idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Homosexuality is a state of being, as one may have blue eyes or dark hair. Medical science should not be given the power to destroy a natural state of being.
well ur right we should be able to scream
Genetic screening may be useful in identifying illnesses or diseases, but it leaves open the door for parents to choose "perfect" children. Who are we to decide what life is better than another?
People are playing "God" we shouldn't have babies to cure other babies and those unable to concieve should adopt. Science is awesome but just because you can doesn't mean you should! Let fate play her part.
cannot help but wonder what would the couple do if they found out through testing that the embryo was trisomy would the abort or what. also the gay gene........thinking science fiction here......and lastly there are other ways to glean this information not just on embryo testing......
I think that the only reason this would be beneficial is for the identification of a donor. The choice to conceive a child is between a couple and not among anyone else. The case of identifying a homosexual gene is ridiculous. Being opposed to having a child who is homosexual is similar to being opposed to your child having blue eyes or the ability to roll their tongue.
Hi
I just read today headline report which made me really upset. There are so many people
so desperate to offer a child a loving home yet cannot have children. Then people
like this just discard two lives...
A British couple, who travelled to India for fertility treatment, abandoned their twin babies in
the UK because they wanted a male child. The mother aged 59 and father, 72, conceived in
india with fertility treatment ....>>>
(Full article http://fertilised.com/ivf-treatment.html )
What is your opinion about this?
Do you think pregnancy help should be available to anyone?
Do you think that IVF treatment should be better regulated to prevent this kind of thing from
happening or do you think it just remain as it is where the amount of money you have prevails.
I thought this was a shocking thing to do but maybe you disagree & comments
Looking forward to your replies
Amanda
This is a very intersesing topic! I agree that all testing shud be done to prevent it!!! LOL
Genetic testing definitely has its advantages and disadvantages. I think getting more opinions about genetic testing would be beneficial to the general public and to our government. That way more progress and decisions can be made that will affect our future for the better.
this was not a very good quiz cuz it is sorta like abortion
I don't know that we can look at this issue in a holistic way. If we only approach this issue with science, are we asking all the questions that need to be asked. Does the embryo have a soul for example? Is it ok to breed humans for parts so to speak? If we look at the issue from a religious perspective than it seems we do it from a fear based perspective. Good versus evil, and totolitarian interpretations of the bible. We have to come to some semblance of balance before we can decide I think.
as always more information assists in greater understanding an d making informed decisions. There is always moe than yes, no and I don't know.
Genetic testing gives people way too much information...more than we know what to do with.
ok just hear me out mankind and yes women too, we are a culter that have some much knowloge we start to abuse it testing on animals is wrong and testing on humans as wells as creating life that is not up to us if some one is ment to die then they will die, if you really what to know about how wrong this could get read maximume ride, yes it is a fictional storie but it also has the possibelity to become fact
The 'gay gene' question was completely inappropriate. There is NO proof of such a gene, and it is horribly bias to ask a question for the screening of a make believe gene. This activity should appeal to both sides of the political, moral, and religious spectrum, not just one side. I am glad that it said that it hasn't been proven in the real world, but if it hasn't, why put it in an activity ESPECIALLY on such a delicate issue????
all of this should be left to god just because they have disabilty does not make them any less valuable.
The questions are no longer hypothetical. A couple in Britain are expecting the first baby screened for breast cancer. The husband's family has a history of the disease, and they wanted to make sure their children didn't carry the gene associated with it. They produced 11 embryos. Doctors screened them and found five that didn't carry the gene. Two of those were then implanted into the woman, who is now 14 weeks pregnant.
i really liked the questions and from my opinion if its avaliable and someone needs it. why not? its their body and they shall do what they want with their selves.
It's never appropriate to kill a child.
My cousin took the test, and I read the questions. This test is really creepy...
Yes it is ethical. Beacause the Test tube babies are babies that are created in a test tube by taking one sperm cell and one egg cell and combining them. So the baby starts to devolope in the test tube and is then implanted into the mothers uterus. This is the most risky part of the process, as the cells have to bond to the Uterus wall. After they have bonded, the process is officialy complete.
=============================================================
Michael Smith
SuperBabyGuide
this is so bizare! it should not be done. Only if and only if it was a critical situation then it would be okay.
I say let Scientists do their thing. Look at how much was gained when we landed someone on the moon. Just imagine how much could come from this science. It could save your life someday!
I'm not entirely sure about how to solve situations like this. All I can say is that its the couple's responsibility to decide whats for the best.
I dnt think that right because do people know if their are some swerious side effects to getting this procedure. Why can't they just adopt a Child so that they get a child they always wanted and the child gets parents (s)he always longed for.
I think if you had a child it should be out of love. In one of the question it say that what if the parents want to have other child to save the first born?
If they had to baby to save the the first baby what does the second baby mean to the parents do they even love the second baby.
how can you make better human?
how can you make better human?
what kind of thing would they do to people?
It's hard to answer questions like this unless you've been in the position and since I haven't I honestly don't know what I would do and everyone has their own reasons for doing something and shouldn't be judged for it...
These are all controversial subjects. One never knows what they would really do until or unless they are in the same situation.
This story had alot of information and some of the questions were difficult to answer.
According to this blog, a couple in Spain have genetically engineered their baby...
This is a tough question. I think it is wonderful that science has found a way to help people that are not able to conceive. It is also neat that they can tell if the embryo is male or female, but my concern would be if something goes wrong because of the testing. Will they still love and care for the child if something went wrong?
Although I feel mixed feelings about this subject, I would have to allow testing. I feel that in the correct contect this is a very beneficial thing, especially for third world countries where disease still plagues the regions. If "test tube babies" can help save a greatere population then I am all for the research.
If someone is "playing" with embroys just to try and creat a more superior race..........then NO the embroy research should be haulted and stopped immediately.
I find this really interesing but kind of weird because i never knew this was possible to happen maybe thats why i find it so weird!!!!
juss as i thought the results are not likely it's so weird.
i say if people really feel the need to have test tube babys... go rite a head and do it. its not like it harms the baby. i actually think its a more smarter way...
but would the baby still b born
yes
The questions made me think, as someone else mentioned, about what *other* people might do with the information. The hardest one for me was the one about transfusions from a younger sibling to an older one. I wonder if parents think about the quality of life of the younger sibling. Is (s)he still a person? a part of the family? Or just a necessary component to keep the older sibling alive...
i agreee
but wat if something bad was to happen with the babies are the parents willing to accep that?
i believe in stem cell research, even though it has morally controvercial. i believe if taking the stem cells from aborted fetuses betters the lives of those living, then we should not be afraid to do it, because they were already dead!!!!!!!!
Just to clarify: stem cell research *is* morally controversial, but the stem cells used in such research do not come from aborted fetuses. (Most stem cell lines are developed from "surplus" embryos created at fertility clinics and later discarded.) Stem cells come from embryos that have developed for just a very few days, before the cells differentiate and become specific tissues. (If an embryo were created naturally, it wouldn't have implanted in its mother's uterus yet at this point, and she wouldn't have any idea she was pregnant.)
President Obama is expected to sign an executive order today that will allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. (It will not, however, allow human embryo experimentation with federal funds, so there's definitely a lot to figure out, still.)
Ah, Liza beat me to it here.
Something sort of interesting just occurred to me, though: remember that recent story about the kid who apparently developed tumors from stem cell treatment?
That's kind of a scary thing, and I bet it made some people less enthusiastic about stem cell research. However, the Russian doctors who gave the kid the treatment were using fetal stem cells, not embryonic cells. (It sounds like it was kind of a crazy procedure to begin with, too—bad scientific procedures.)
While the story probably should serve as a cautionary reminder for all stem cell researchers, it also illustrates the difference between fetal and embryonic stem cells, and between careful, meticulous science (where we'd expect federal funding to go) and "procedures that would never be accepted in the US or any first-world country" (like the Russian doctors' treatment).
So there is such a thing as fetal stem cell research... but that's not what we're talking about here, really.
This is for the gay gene!
I have a question what is the gay gene?
Not every thing is related to science and it doesn't
matter if a person has the "gay gene" or not. It depends on the person to decide if she/he want to be gay. Don't try to play God!
If your child has a illness that needs help and your next child can help then lets do that, but the "Gay Gene", well you shouldn't have that as the desiding facter if you would have a baby or not, Gay or not you should love your child.
some words i did not anderstand
but some i did
its weard thinking about thos kindof things
i think i should be allowed... after all it is easier!!
what are the advantages and disadvantages for test tube babies?
i think testing for health reasons is fine, the homosexual one seems odd, i put they shouldnt test for it mainly because statistics dont mean that much to the individual, do you think they would treat their child differently if they knew he had the gene and the child may not turn out to be gay so it seems like that one is going too far
Post new comment