Comments for The DNA Exchange

Comment on Genetic Counselling Awareness Week hits Canada! by Canadians celebrate 2nd Annual Genetic Counselling Awareness Week | The DNA Exchange

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:39:40 +0000

[...] across Canada will be participating in the 2nd annual Genetic Counselling Awareness Week (see my post on this topic last year.) The theme for this year’s event is centered around dispelling common [...]

Comment on Why We Love Genetics: A Group Post by The Staff of The DNA Exchange by Shelly Bosworth

Shelly Bosworth — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:42:40 +0000

Great factoids! A tangent to “unintended consequences” might be the helpful people who were flagged as “should have developed HIV and didn’t,” who participated in research to help ID inherited changes in receptors or ligands. These anomalies aided in the development of treatments. Of course, I can’t describe it with the pizazz that you all do and I can’t find a reference, except this old NOVA clip http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_06.html . Thanks for your blog.

Comment on Why We Love Genetics: A Group Post by The Staff of The DNA Exchange by J Kushner

J Kushner — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:11:02 +0000

Great post-thanks! While in Gc grad school my fiancé (now hubby) and I used to (jokingly) say such risqué words as ‘meiosis’ & ‘mitosis’ to ‘get in the mood.’ You know someone really loves u when they buy you a t-shirt that says ‘science is fun!’

Comment on The Myth of the Designer Baby by The Myth of the Designer Baby | her Nature his Nurture

The Myth of the Designer Baby | her Nature his Nurture — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:28:18 +0000

[...] post was originally posted on theDNAexchange.com) Spread:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted [...]

Comment on Blind Spot: Genetic Counselors and Financial Conflict of Interest by June Peters

June Peters — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:36:43 +0000

Well thought and spoken Bob; I believe that you have articulated concerns that have voiced in many a private conversation in which I’ve participated or overheard.
Working for a government entity entails multiple annual trainings on many possible types of conflicts of interest and other ethical dilemmas as well as education about the many rules that cover our behavior when we are in our professional roles. While some of the regulations can border on the absurd, the emphasis remains on being cautious about perceived as well as tangible conflicts. In our rush to grow our organization and it’s influence, NSGC would do well to protect its reputation from internal as well as external tarnish. It seems to me that the solutions are multiple – first, increasing awareness among all members by having conversations such as Bob is initiating. Next, by having clear and widely distributed BoD and funding policies to avoid egregious violations. Additionally, we could add to NSGC some structural means of addressing conflicts of interest – e.g., an ethics committee extension. Finally, those counselors who work for laboratories or other commercial entities could entreat those companies to articulate and enforce policies by which they avoid putting their employees in situations of potential conflicts of interest.
We now have an opportunity to protect and enhance the decades of good reputation that NSGC has enjoyed. Let’s not squander our ethical capital for short-sighted gains. Thanks, June

Comment on The Myth of the Designer Baby by laura hercher

laura hercher — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:42:29 +0000

Great post, Allie. As for picking traits in our children, that day is already here. There are 160 million less women in the world than there ought to be — the equivalent of the entire female population of the U.S. And the rest will follow. For complex traits, I think the question will be not can we? or can’t we?, but how much predictive power can we muster — raising the added concern that in addition to the obnoxious, socially divisive specter of parents selecting for “better” children, we have the queasy-making specter of parents not getting the child they paid for. But ultimately, it is going to be a huge societal issue.

I saw a great post in wired about the difference between traits and behaviors that I think is relevant here: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/enough-with-the-slut-gene-already-behaviors-aint-traits/

Comment on The Myth of the Designer Baby by Flora P.

Flora P. — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:17:58 +0000

Selecting for “cosmetic traits” is a closer reality than we think. Advances in technology are exponential and we are already witnessing sharply declining costs for DNA sequencing. Designer Babies will be born – either in our lifetime or our children’s lifetime.

If testing for “cosmetic traits” does become available, fertility clinics and genetic testing companies will surely jump at the opportunity to offer all new options to the individuals seeking these alternatives. After all, they will not want to fall behind their competitors. Further still, if making Designer Babies will be possible, this will create more incentive to make PGD, IVF accessible to all – health and cost wise. Couples seeking infertility assistance and those that need PGD to select unaffected embryos will make up just a sliver of the market, with selection for “attractive” traits becoming the meat and potatoes of the business.

As Robert highlights, an analogous forerunner is the booming sperm and donor oocyte market. Despite the strict regulations surrounding gamete donation, there are registries and businesses sprouting up to service this increasing demand. Some couples are willing to pay upwards of many tens of thousands of dollars for their ideal oocyte donor (ivy league educated, tall, blond, healthy weight, etc.) In this sense, “cosmetic selection” is already a reality, although, obviously, it is not yet strictly biological.

Maybe I am getting ahead of myself, but perhaps we as genetic counselors, need to stop wondering if it’s possible to make Designer Babies and start planning how we might want to fit into this picture of helping people make them. After all, we will be shaping the conversation around such future services? Maybe our job will be to set up outreach programs to encourage the stragglers to take advantage of these technologies …

Thank you for your thought-provoking post.

Flora

Comment on The Myth of the Designer Baby by Robert Resta

Robert Resta — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:07:23 +0000

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world!
That has such people in it!
– Miranda, from The Tempest by William Shakespeare

I used to believe that Designer Babies were a figment of the paranoid imagination, but all this exome and whole genome sequencing stuff is creeping me out. Presumably many of these aesthetic traits will not have a straight-forward genetic basis, so selection for them may not be so easy. And I suspect that human reproduction will continue to be largely driven by hormones, passion of the moment, lust, and alcohol, so I don’t believe (hope) that there will be wide scale baby-making in Hatcheries and Conditioning Centres or reproduction controlled by Malthusian Belts (a la Huxley). Still, there is a strong interest in trait selection among a certain portion of our society. Just take a look at the donor trait forms offered by Sperm Donor Centers – eugenics by clerical checklist.

Ironically, the attempt to select for Penelope Cruz/George Clooney looks, Michael Jordan Athletics, and Stephen Hawking intelligence (irony intended) may be offset by the complications of prematurity, low birth weight, etc. associated with Assisted Reproduction Pregnancies.

Bob Resta

Comment on Blind Spot: Genetic Counselors and Financial Conflict of Interest by Lori Ballinger

Lori Ballinger — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:23:42 +0000

Our institution banned, as of two years ago, drug companies from providing food and “do-dads’ to us. Interestingly, this change was brought about because of complaints by medical students and residents who were concerned about undue influence, not by long time staff and faculty who had enjoyed these perks for years. Point well taken, Bob.

But we did have to increase our budget for pens and sticky notes…

Comment on On The Old Saw: That Personalized Medicine Will Cost Money In Theory But Will Be A Money-Saver In Practice* by David Heberling

David Heberling — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:17:42 +0000

Why do we not look at personalized medicine a different way. For those folks who already have a disease and the one size fits all approach is doing nothing to help them. Isn’t that the promise of personalized medicine? We would be able to identify the genes that are corrupted and devise a treatment plan based on that information. I am a prostate cancer survivor ( so far) and would love to be told that base on your profile, we have a treatment plan that will cure you of prostate cancer 100%. But that is not how it works in todays world of medicine.