Breast cancer gene-free baby born - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-09-2009, 08:56 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Breast cancer gene-free baby born

BBC NEWS | Health | Breast cancer gene-free baby born

Quote:
Breast cancer gene-free baby born
The first baby in the UK tested before conception for a genetic form of breast cancer has been born.

Doctors at University College London said the girl and her mother were doing well following the birth this week.

The embryo was screened for the altered BRCA1 gene, which would have meant the girl had a 80% chance of developing breast cancer.

Women in three generations of her husband's family have been diagnosed with the disease in their 20s.


Paul Serhal, the fertility expert who treated the couple, said: "This little girl will not face the spectre of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life.

"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter.

"The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations."

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves taking a cell from an embryo at the eight-cell stage of development, when it is around three-days old, and testing it.

This is before conception - defined as when the embryo is implanted in the womb.

Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes to continue the pregnancy, and discard any whose genetic profile points to future problems.

Using PGD to ensure a baby does not carry an altered gene which would guarantee a baby would inherit a disease such as cystic fibrosis, is well-established.

But in 2006, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said doctors could test for so-called susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1.

Everybody carries a version of these genes - in fact a properly functioning BRCA1 protein helps stop cancer before it starts - but some particular variations of the genes greatly increase the risk of cancer.

Increased chance

Carrying the key BRCA1 mutation in this family's case would have given the increased chance of breast cancer and 50% chance of ovarian cancer later in life.

However, carrying the gene does not make cancer inevitable, and there is also a chance the disease could be cured, if caught early enough.


The couple, who wish to remain anonymous, wanted to eradicate the gene flaw from their family.
The husband's grandmother, mother, sister and a cousin have been diagnosed with the disease.

If the 27-year-old woman and her husband had had a son, he could have been a carrier and passed it on to any daughters.

Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This is nothing personal towards the girl, but I think we have gone too far.

"Underlying all this is eugenics."

Mrs Quintavalle said the message was that "you are better off dead, than being born with this gene".

"I hope 20 years down the line we will have eradicated breast cancer - not eradicated the carriers.

"This testing procedure is being used more and more for less and less significant reasons."

But Kath McLachlan, of Breast Cancer Care, said those with the faulty BRCA1 gene would be very interested in the development.

"There are many complex issues to take into account before undertaking PGD, and the decision will finally come down to an individual's personal ethics."

And Professor Peter Braude, director of the Centre for PGD at Guy's Hospital in London, said: "The decision as to whether PGD is appropriate for a couple will be made after a thorough discussion with knowledgeable genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists.

"It will not be suitable for everyone who has experience of breast cancer in their family, nor where the chances of the IVF needed for PGD has a low chance of succeeding."
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:02 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:40 AM

Excellent news
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:23 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Thank goodness, and can we take a poll of those who feel that genetic modification is wrong because it goes against nature?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:28 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Very cool.

I wonder why they didn't screen for BRCA2 as well?
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:48 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Well I don't see any embryos destroyed to cure the disease. The only thing could be if there was some unintended consequence that led to some damage in the future. There is no evidence of that. I'm all for curing diseases instead of abortion as long as there are no unintended consequences.

The ethicist may have a point if people start using the technique for cosmetic reasons or enhancement reasons like in the movie Gattaca. The procedure is complex so they seem to screen for people with enormous genetic deficiencies.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:49 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:40 PM
It seems that there is some nastiness from "pro-lifers"
Quote:
Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, expressed concerns.

"The goal posts have already be moved so much in this area it is worrying what might happen next," she said. "People have to realise that we will not cure diseases by eradicating the carriers of particular genes."

Michaela Aston, from the Life charity, added: "Life celebrates all new life and welcomes this child into the world.

"However, we are greatly concerned for the loss of those embryos discarded as not being considered worthy of life.

"The big question is: Where is this going to stop?

We need to remember that we are more than the sum of our genes."
'Designer' fear after cancer-free baby is born - Scotsman.com News

I think that this deserves serious consideration, especially from those who consider themselves pro-life.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:59 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
People have to realise that we will not cure diseases by eradicating the carriers of particular genes
I would like to know more about this. I think the discussion and introspection of the results will yield more information. Is it mutiple embryos or cells in an embryo?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:01 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I would like to know more about this. I think the discussion and introspection of the results will yield more information. Is it mutiple embryos or cells in an embryo?
I don't really understand the 2nd half of your post, but regarding the first one, well obviously in this instance, even if you removed all BRCA1 mutation carriers, that would still leave a significant number of women who would get breast cancer.

That's not to say that we shouldn't work to reduce the numbers the best way we know how.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:08 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:40 AM
I just wanted to know if the method meant multiple zygotes are created and some destroyed (pro-life people wouldn't like that) or cells of one zygote are tested and they can choose which cells grow based on the results. It's at a state considered before "conception" meaning before implatation in the womb. The biology is confusing me.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:13 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Where do you think the different genotypes come from?

Are you a chimera? Do the cells in your body have different genotypes?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:25 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
PRE-IMPLANTATION Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) was developed in the late 1980s and involves testing a live embryo to see if it contains genetic abnormalities that cause disease.

After testing a single cell of an embryo, doctors can select which to use or discard.
Okay your article has more detail. It's multiple embryos and they choose the one without the problematic gene and destroy the rest.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com