10 votes

World's First Genetically Modified BABIES Born

by Michael Hanlon | Daily Mail

The world's first geneticallymodified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three 'parents'.

Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults --two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

Continue reading at The Daily Mail



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SteveMT's picture

How wonderful!

"Brave New World" versus "The Boys From Brazil."
Watch-out for unintended consequences like that seen with "Dolly" the sheep.

Dolly (5 July 1996 – 14 February 2003) was a female domestic sheep, and the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell, using the process of nuclear transfer. Dolly was born on 5 July 1996 to three mothers (one provided the egg, another the DNA and a third carried the cloned embryo to term). A Finn Dorset such as Dolly has a life expectancy of around 11 to 12 years, but Dolly lived to be only six years of age. A post-mortem examination showed she had a form of lung cancer called Jaagsiekte,...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_%28sheep%29

How can libertarians can stop me?

That is, what libertarian argument can be made that would stop me doing the following...

Prior to my 3 sons being born, and while in the womb, I added electric eel genes. These genes will express themselves in late puberty. They will express themselves along the tips of the ten fingers. That is, when they get angered, they can with practice convey 500 volts and 1 ampere of current (500 watts). Such a shock could be deadly for an adult human. Finally, those 3 boys soon find wives and they have 3 children each. As luck would have it they all inherit dad's "eclectic shock eel fingers".

Again, what libertarian argument can be made to stop me? That is a seriously deep question.

I look forward to your answers...

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

It looks like a medical one might stop you

I cannot verify this story, and I did try. I think we got our chain yanked.
And if you care to scroll down, I made my plea based on a "cling to humanity" argument, I did not say I would try to stop you. I can try to reason with you, though.
For instance, sometimes people misunderstand a statement and get angry, suddenly. It takes a clarification for them to calm down. What if they are holding their wife's hand when she says something that he misunderstands? She will be dead before she can explain.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

That's an issue of 'when does a person gain natural rights?'

What permanent decisions can parents make on behalf of their children and what can't they?

This electric eel gene reminds me of of the 'cocaine vaccination' idea floating around a few years ago. In theory scientists could develop a vaccine that could prevent a person from feeling the pleasurable effects of cocaine, and of course children would be given this.

I think both the eel gene and forced cocaine vaccination are highly unethical. I don't know if there a libertarian argument justifying the use of force to stop you, but you would certainly be a dick for doing this to your children.

I don't know, but I hope the

I don't know, but I hope the libertarian people get the cool eel powers and guard them wisely and not the neocons.

if the source is suspect . . .

what valid source can be found?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

So now some chick can sue TWO

So now some chick can sue TWO men for child support of the same child because both men's genes were found in the baby's DNA? Sounds like a win win for females and a lose lose for men the world over.

2 mothers, one father

They use the "shell" of one woman's egg and put the genetic material from another woman in it.
I am curious - do you require the consent of the woman to bear and raise your children should she become pregnant before each sexual encounter? Or do you rely on HER to take care of birth control? And if an unwanted pregnancy happened, would you demand she carry the child to term, even though you both agreed you did not want children? I don't know you, maybe you are not the type, but often those with an attitude of blaming women for being mothers also demand that they be mothers whether they want to or not.
EVERY pregnancy risks the life of the woman. NO pregnancy risks the life of the man. If a man gets a woman pregnant, you find assigning him some financial responsibility a "lose" for the man? (I am NOT referring to sperm donors.)

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Yeah, so now the father has

Yeah, so now the father has to pay two women, right?

Personally I think human GM is part of the future...

Weather people like it or not. If it's banned, a black market will ensue. If it's legal then the free-market will determine which genes are passed on. There will likely be positive and negative effects.

I think it is the future

of depopulation. You are right, it will be soft-sold to us. First, we will wipe away disease, then we will make everyone brilliant, and good looking. Then we will realize it made them all sterile. Well, not all, but enough.
This is not just speculation, there are a LOT of fertility issues associated with genetic tinkering. Even hybridization causes mutations and sterility in the offspring of many species.
Then we can start making robo-babies in test tubes. No mothers, no fathers, just "designer citizens."
We are being numbed and dumbed to accept transhumanism. They told us straight up 20 years ago, we WILL be assimilated. You are going to join the Borg because it looks cool?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

But can't we just use good ole fashioned natural DNA?

Say freeze it in-case. Even Hybridisation. Especially hybridisation it is the mixing of different species after all.

I don't know I guess I'm slightly more optimistic than that.

You know that could be a good book, a new generation of "designer citizens" made to repopulate a future nation like Japan who aren't reproducing enough. Or an infertile people.

I see the downside of my more free market GM future normal people being just outclassed by rich. Rich white kids running rings around the Usain Bolts. With unmatched intellect cunning and social skills. Creating a new element to class warfare, a new inequality a new envy not just of money but physical and intellectual prowess. The poor could demand Human GM's abolition or its implementation by the state as part of the equality agenda...

If it happens it will be because people demand it I feel. Anyway interesting stuff as always fishy. :)

Prophecies...

I'm totally agnostic / non-religious, but stuff like this makes me wonder sometimes. Specifically, I'm referring to Matthew 24:37 and the Nephilim.

Conversely, I have heard that intelligent people are more likely to draw substantive conclusions from disparate and unrelated sources (ie "conspiracy theories"). I think many of us here fall into that trap.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid. If there is no credible link (or even a date on this article) please do not believe it. It just so happens this did occur, but back in 2001.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/02/worlds-first-genetically-...

Please do not reference the Daily Mail on the Daily Paul. It's sensationalistic garbage.

Join the social network that pays you https://www.tsu.co/tylercox

Thank You!

I can't believe people read that crap. It is like the Enquirer for Sovereign Citizens.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

How does the whole DNA from 3

How does the whole DNA from 3 parents thing work? Like they don't have more genes than a normal child, but do some of the father's genes get replaced by the female genes, or do the two mothers' genes get mixed around in one half? I'm guessing that's the case since the second mother's DNA is just inserted into the egg. Anyways, I'm just wondering what kinds of unforeseen consequences this might have.

and that is why

I would be against it. It's kinda like monsanto corn and gm salmon and all the rest they foist on us. It all sounds whoopee and good at first but what are the long term effects. How will this effect the childs future fertility. What if they mate with another modified person. What if some people don't want modifieds in their gene pool. Are they lying about the what and why regarding these children?? (Probably) The questions just come swarming up and I would be willing to bet they don't know the answer to many, if any, of them. I would also bet they don't really care.

If adoption or surragacy were not so controlled, costly and legally difficult (and why IS it so difficult)we wouldn't "need" to meddle with these crazy experiments that lead down unknown paths.

Can you imagine if Mengel were alive today? He would be salivating at even the chance of combining humans with lions and, no doubt, someone is already attempting it in his name... Just like these kids, we won't know about it until after the fact.

Sigh.. this is not the time in which I wanted to live~

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Do I have this straight?

According to you, anything which could potentially have negative long-term effects should not even be attempted or tested?

Sounds like resistance to change, to me.

Granted this is a scary development and has some scary potential side effects and we should do everything we can to prevent them, but change can't be stopped.

a learning curve

It's the same thing that causes a baby to touch a hot stove even when they've been told over and over that it's hot and will hurt them.

Scientist have the same reaction to something new and they can't seem help playing with it even when they know it's bad and could hurt them. Unfortunately hurting "them" usually means bad for us too.

In that sense babies are quicker and better learners than scientists lol

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

well...

resistant to change...? sure, especially when it's something we don't know what the long reaching effects would be. It could be really bad and difficult to come back from with people waking up to it and lamenting it was such a bad idea and why did they do it etc etc sound familiar?

We have come to a place in our scientific knowledge where our ability to change and create has outstripped our common sense and morality. Who speaks for us when a scientist has an idea that he wants to try out?

Are they a good person with humanity's future in mind or someone who is guided by money and advancement.

Who speaks for us?

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

But wouldn't that be a NWO goal?

To engineer (either or both) "kill switches" and fertility switches directly into human DNA such that they can terminate life whenever they want and/or terminate genetic lines when they deem them "unsuccessful"?

To me if nothing else proves that there's the devil in this world, this is it.

And if there's the devil, then there is God.

The heartiest of the saints are the ones born in the latter days before Christ comes back. It's all a matter of whether you pick up the armor God gave you or not and fulfill your duty.

Interesting that the right thought Bush via his anti stem cell

stance was a Godly man, interesting that he was president while studies on mini franken babies were created in a lab ??.??.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

born, how?

i don't understand.

is it 30 mothers? or is it 30 glass jars from science fiction novels?

Watch Logan's Run.

1976.

It will explain it. It's a sweet flick too.

I have a feeling...

...that this is not going to end well. :(

donvino

It has begun

GATTACA.

For those that dont know,

For those that dont know, Gattaca is a movie about a future where genetic manipulation of babies is routine. Its utilized to remove all genetic defects and give enhanced abilities. It follows the path of a person who was born naturally without genetic manipulation.

Its an interesting movie. Overall though, its far from some of the more nighmarish scenarios that get thought up. In fact, it shows a more utopian future than anything else. It just has the people are classed by how good their genetics are.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

because it's a fairly new science, genetics is overblown. ..

...especially in terms of controlling behavior.

There are many MSM article about DARPA seeking "enhanced" soldie

soldiers. there's a lot of money going into this.