Baby born free of cancer gene

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:19 pm

PostSat Jan 10, 2009 7:27 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.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:06 pm

PostSat Jan 10, 2009 8:24 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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5485224.ece
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.
Image
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
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook