/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 18952
166 kB, 1200 × 800
Would it be moral to select embryos for IVF that have lower polygenic risk scores for diseases like diabetes, hypertension, etc.? What if those diseases had epidemiological and perhaps genetic correlations with traits that we are less comfortable with people selecting for? When does therapeutic use become enhancement? For instance, lower cognitive ability in early life is associated with increased risk of late life dementia, as well as increased risk of schizophrenia. Should people be allowed to select on the basis of such criteria?
>>
No. 18953
Why would they be "selecting embryos" for IVF to begin with?
>>
No. 18955
>>18953
I guess parents would want to have a healthy child.
>>
No. 18958 Kontra
we have a philosophy thread were you can discuss ethics
>>
No. 18959
>>18955
IVF is in vitro fertilization. It means you're basically surgically implanting embryos instead of fucking. Hence my confusion. If OP is strictly talking about designer babies and cosmetically selecting offspring that doesn't even take natural intercourse into the equation, then no, I don't see it as being particularly reasonable. It sounded to me like he was confusing separate things? Since I would imagine we basically do the same in screening fetuses in pregnant women for abnormalities, although I needed a clarification on terms and what he actually meant. Also on the whole "polygenic" topic and gene editing I should point out that not all genes get activated. It would probably make as much sense to simply have a better understanding of the complex interplay of genetics and environment, and to select for gene expression rather than trying to manually butcher genomic sequences.
>>
No. 18970 Kontra
>>18958
Since ethics of genetic enginerring is a not complex and narrow topic which just belongs into a general.
Sure thing, Ernst.
>>
No. 18973
I don't think the ethical aspect is particularly interesting, but can we please first of all clarify that technically genetic engineering != IVF embryo selection

From Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering):
>Genetic engineering: Process of inserting new genetic information into existing cells in order to modify a specific organism for the purpose of changing its characteristics.
>Genetic engineering does not normally include [...] in vitro fertilisation [...]

While embryo selection can be described as following (from https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection):
>A few eggs are extracted from a woman and fertilized; each resulting sibling embryo is biopsied for a few cells which are sequenced. A single (or multiple) polygenic score is used to rank the embryos by predicted future trait-value, and surviving embryos are implanted one by one until a healthy live birth happens or there are no more embryos. By starting with the top-ranked embryo, an average gain is realized.

>>18959
>Also on the whole "polygenic" topic and gene editing I should point out that not all genes get activated.
True
>It would probably make as much sense to simply have a better understanding of the complex interplay of genetics and environment,
As you say this it's very complex, so the easy brute-force way is to rely on pure correlation and massive amounts of data which is the basis of GWASes.
More on that and the possible drawbacks: https://gcbias.org/2018/03/14/polygenic-scores-and-tea-drinking/
>to select for gene expression rather than trying to manually butcher genomic sequences.
Here again I think you are mixing things up since embryo selection has nothing to do with editing.
>>
No. 18974
97 kB, 948 × 653
>>18973
Why doesn't it fug up the embryo to biopsy a few cells?

t. knows little of developmental biology

Also, attached is a list of PRS that a company in New Jersey will give you from embryo biopsies.
(from https://genomicprediction.com/faqs/#faq-7.2)
>>
No. 18978
85 kB, 316 × 474
>>18974
>Why doesn't it fug up the embryo to biopsy a few cells?
I'm not an expert it either, but from what I've gathered: It can, and there are also other things which can go wrong, which is why even for IVF without PGD multiple eggs are fertilized.
Cell extraction usually seems to be done on Day 5 after fertilization so the embryo already consists of hundreds of cells so it's not a big deal to remove a few, though apparently sometimes it is even done on Day 3 when the embryo consists only of 8 cells and this is still fine.
I found some more info here (https://www.quora.com/Is-removing-a-cell-from-an-8-cell-embryo-harmless):
>However, this one paper looks at the blastocyst development rate of 8/8, 7/8, and 6/8 embryos and found that the success rate was 59%, 79%, and 71% respectively. Why the 8/8 cells were arrested more often, I have no clue.
>From what I understand, the more important factor in the success rate of IVF isn't the number of cells in the embryos but the timing of the cell divisions. If the divisions go slowly or fall out of sync, that is more indicative of IVF success.
>>
No. 18982
>>18978
That's true.
It doesn't really harm the embryo to get a probe into mommy and collect some skin cells. But it could be problematic that a probe is put into mommy.

So people do pre natal diagnoses which is okay in my book, especially when you are 40 years old and considering the fact that a full gene sequencing is somewhere below 600€ today. It's not even an elite-thingy.
Also I like the thought that you can dodge abortion that way for the case that a seriousness health problem you couldn't handle would be detected. I think it's good to make 100% sure that this little thing will not suffer and is not concious when it goes into the bin (it's below <18 cells AFAIK).

t. Not an expert working in a very remotely related field knowing people doing such diagnostics
>>
No. 18983 Kontra
>>18982
I was typing too fast. Shamefur dispray.
>>
No. 18996
>>18982
>It doesn't really harm the embryo to get a probe into mommy and collect some skin cells. But it could be problematic that a probe is put into mommy.
Just to clarify, I think you are conflating in vivo and in vitro. With IVF there is no "probe into mommy", the embryos are conceived and raised in laboratory dishes for several days, and only after that transferred into an actual womb. Also at this point there are no "skin cells" to speak of, cells aren't that specialized at this point of development AFAIK.
>>
No. 19047 Kontra
>>18996
Uhm, yes I know. I have no idea where you got me that wrong, but as said my sentence was fucked up so that's okay.