My Son, Designed to be an Athlete

TAG of the Week:

“My Son, Designed to be an Athlete”

 

It’s clear that improvements from the HGP will lead to more discussion about “fixing” problems within the genome. There are benefits that come from knowing the genome. For example, tailoring correct medicine to individuals that will see results. However, there are also risks. Should one be able to decide what genes to include in their offspring? Is granting scientists, as well as individuals, power over deciding what genes are “better” than others in babies going too far? What if disease could be prevented, but that means “designing” the sex of your child? How far is too far? And, Where do you think the line should lie? The last link lists what other countries laws on the subject are as of 2002.

Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768

Design your own baby here!:

http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/babygame.htm

More info on what other countries have to say:

(If you’re interested… However, please note that this information is a little outdated)

http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_leg1.htm

Recreational Genomics

TAG of the Week:  Recreational Genomics

With genetic testing for disease risk and athletic ability available to consumers online, genetic testing can only tell so much about their inherited genes. Clearly not everyone develops characteristics they are at genetic risk for. So should be concerning ourselves with such tests? Do we concern ourselves with treating diseases and conditions we don't have now?   We see that Dr. Kathiresan does not often recommend genetic testing to patients and can give clinical recommendations without these tests. When do we draw the line of benefiting from this technology and using it for unneeded purposes?
 

Current Event:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222082732063418.html

Patent Mother Nature

TAG of the Week:     "Patent Mother Nature"

Advancement in science and medicine is often driven by the excitement of new knowledge, the ability to search for a cure, and the possibility of improving population health ... in some cases, the opportunity for fame, fortune, and "commercial interest" ... Patenting medical devices, intellectual property, and genes have been vehicles to promote innovation, competition, and better goods for all.  On the other hand, could one really patent something Mother Nature has programmed in everyone of us?   

Our discussion ties back to a previous post asking about who owns genetic property. In this case, does a company have a rights to a gene?  Make a case for how you would support the case for Myriad to keep their gene patents? Would allowing Myriad to keep the gene patents encourage research or stifle competition? Or is the central issue about who gets a bigger cut of the money and profits?

Current Event:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02gene.html