Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the but-think-of-the-children? dept.

The US House of Representatives is wading into the debate over whether human embryos should be modified to introduce heritable changes. Its fiscal year 2016 spending bill for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would prohibit the agency from spending money to evaluate research or clinical applications for such products.

In an unusual twist, the bill—introduced on June 17—would also direct the FDA to create a committee that includes religious experts to review a forthcoming report from the US Institute of Medicine (IOM). The IOM's analysis, which considers the ethics of creating embryos that have three genetic parents, was commissioned by the FDA.

The House legislation comes during a time of intense debate on such matters, sparked by the announcement in April that researchers in China had edited the genomes of human embryos. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) moved quickly to remind the public that a 1996 law prevents the federal government from funding work that destroys human embryos or creates them for research purposes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-congress-moves-to-block-human-embryo-editing/

[Source]: http://www.nature.com/news/us-congress-moves-to-block-human-embryo-editing-1.17858

We covered a related story, Three-Person Babies Could Be Possible in Two Years just over a year ago.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:01PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:01PM (#203335) Journal

    The thing you're describing are called "mutations".

    And they're mostly random. And frequently fatal before even one cellular division. Getting the exact same (survivable until birth) mitochondrial mutations that you replaced would be a one in 1.5698423615949392083076736687661e+9994 shot.

    i.e. not going to happen. This kind of treatment being widely applied would totally eradicate these diseases within a few generations. And they wouldn't be back for thousands upon thousands of generations of the entire human population of earth.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:20PM (#203350)

    would be a one in 1.5698423615949392083076736687661e+9994 shot.

    Are you really sure about that last 1 in the mantissa?

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:29PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:29PM (#203355) Journal

      It's the 4^x where x is the number of base pairs(16,600) in the mitochondrial genome.

      Now, you can spot that that number actually cuts off at 3 sig-figs.

      Buuuuuuuuuuuuut. The bigger problem is the e+9994, actually. Because a lot of these mutations actually involve multiple changed base pairs. I could see it being even less likely.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:23PM (#203380)

        Now, you can spot that that number actually cuts off at 3 sig-figs.

        That's the whole point. That many-digit monster surely looks impressive, but it is completely meaningless to provide all those digits.

        Not that your number gives even a rough approximation of the probability anyway (it would if the mutation would generate a completely random new genetic sequence from scratch; that's quite obviously not what happens).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:45PM (#203395)
    People with such diseases not having babies at all would eradicate these diseases too.

    With 7+ billion people infesting this over-burdened planet it might be a good time to focus on quality instead of quantity and having babies just because you can. And no it's very unlikely that your genes are that wonderful to keep around (especially with those flaws already present). Even if they were great, as I said there are 7 billion others, I'm sure we'd eventually have one about as good but without your flaws.

    p.s. in case you ask, no I do not intend to have kids. The world is fucked up enough as it is, no need to have more assholes like me.
    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:05PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:05PM (#203405) Journal

      Yes, yes, the "let the anonymous idiot on the internet select who can breed" solution to the overpopulation problem.

      I choose you instead.