Baby born free of cancer gene

User avatar
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:19 pm

PostSat Jan 10, 2009 6:27 pm » by Towelie

Im never sure what to think about this type of thing, as i love the fact that we can do this but i hate the idea of messing with the natural form. I guess this one isnt to bad atleast there not changing it for asthetic reasons - thats one thing im against no gen-mod to change eye colour thats just rediculous.
Kill em all and let god sort them out!

Atheism is a non-prohet organisation.

Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:06 pm

PostSat Jan 10, 2009 7:24 pm » by Alexrubic

Ah, the devil is always in the details!

You could be excused for believing - from taking this article at face value - that getting rid of the faulty BRCA1 gene has guaranteed that this child will not now go on to develop the cancers ascribed to it.

But the science states that:
Women with a defective BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene are up to seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than those without the mutations.
So the risk or likelihood is only reduced (by up to seven times) it is not a certainty. Clearly, women who do not have these faulty genes also have a (reduced) risk of developing the same cancers.

It also leaves out the epigenetic factors. Just because you have a gene that, if expressed, could result in illness or disease does not guarantee that that gene will be expressed - environmental factors (diet in particular) have a significant bearing on that.
When Britain first, at Heaven's command arose from out the azure main; this was the charter of the land, and guardian angels sang this strain: "Rule, Britannia, rule the waves: Britons never will be slaves."

James Thomson (1700-1748)

  • Related topics
    Last post