Brave new world of genetic testing and coronavirus

An article from the Guardian Australia which raises some interesting considerations as we rush into this brave new world of testing for coronavirus/COVID-19

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/11/strange-case-australia-10m-covid-19-tests-andrew-forrest-coup-fell-flat

In the shadow of Mönchberg

Very beautifully said. Elizabeth paints the picture eloquently. She describes how the personal, and seemingly justifiable, decisions made by individuals, one by one, amount to genocide.

dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/parenting-and-families/why-i-kept-my-baby-after-finding-out-he-had-down-syndrome

I'll have to read the book now: Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics

In the same situation, what would you do?

Pick up a genetic test at your local supermarket - too easy!

I was shaking my head the whole time I was reading this article:
Over-the-counter DNA kit worries genetics experts...

It's really hard to explain just how complicated genetic testing is. I think an early assumption many people make is that you do the test to look for 'the gene' and it's either there or it isn't - simple! When the fact of the matter is we all have 'the gene' i.e. basically the same set of around 30,000 genes, and genetic testing searches for miniscule changes within genes (and even that's a simplification of the process!).

One single letter change amongst a million letter long piece of DNA is pretty easy to miss, yet one single letter change can have vast consequences (such as leading to an 100% lifetime risk of bowel cancer in the case of the genetic disease FAP). These over the counter DNA kits simply cannot test for everything. Not even close. There is a very real chance that the results people get back from these tests will be misinterpreted.

Love vs Genetics

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=173921

(Would it) be better if people with disabilities, people such as Beethoven and Stephen Hawking, did not come into the world and that parents of the genetically disabled should never be married, for fear of producing a defective child?

...Certainly, the battle between our hearts and our intellect, love and convenience, is one as old as the Jewish people.

Buying brains

Buyers of "donor" eggs offer more money to women who are likely to yield smarter kids...

Levine analyzed more than 100 ads placed in 63 college newspapers to recruit egg donors. Of these ads, 21 specified a minimum requisite SAT score.

http://www.slate.com/id/2249098

Eugenics in 2010

Creepy...
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3080.html

Rise in marriages between cousins ‘is putting children’s health at risk’

I'm not an 'arranged marriage' advocate, but I think this may be a little OTT, Lady D:

Lady Deech, who chaired the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for eight years, will also suggest that married first cousins use in vitro fertilisation so that embryos can be tested for recessive diseases.

See the UK Times Online article about Lady Deech's campaign to "deter the practice of marriage between first cousins" here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7069255.ece

Talk about controversial. In my Grad Dip of Genetic Counselling, I was always taught that the idea that marrying your first cousin would produce a baby with three heads was a lot overrated. And that in fact consanguineous marriages only had a slightly increased chance of producing a baby with a birth defect over the general population i.e. 6% affected births as opposed to 3-4% in the general population. This is because many recessive genetic conditions are exceedingly rare in the first place. When you put it like that, 3-4 vs 6, it doesn't seem like much, does it? Just goes to show the power (and tyranny) of statistics in furthering (and ?twisting) an argument.

Afterthought: Risk perception is very subjective. Non-directive genetic counselling is practically difficult.

Can a bad mother help her nature?

The old chestnut (debate) about genes and the environment, and how much influence each has on shaping who we are... Could some behaviours be 'written' in your genes? Or is there always room for social intervention?

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article7076033.ece

“We believe that a certain number of these ‘maternal neurons’ need to be ‘switched on’ for good mothering to take place... ...Our research showed that the (rodent) mothers with fewer than this number of ‘maternal neurons’ tended to neglect or abuse their offspring, while those animals with the lowest numbers actually savaged or killed their own young.”

Similar techniques could soon be used to identify human mothers with the capacity to abuse their children...

Hmmm. Crazy world we are headed for.

Our society will be worse off if we reject Down syndrome children: a view from the archdiocese

Article from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Our society will be worse off if we reject Down syndrome children
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/our-society-will-be-worse-off-if-we-reject-down-syndrome-children-20100328-r51x.html

Very interesting comments at the bottom of the article too, from people who disagree.

Eliminating Suffering or Eliminating People?

Below are a couple of articles which help us to explore a world where genetic knowledge is at our fingertips, and lives can be planned or avoided, as the case may be.

Eliminating Suffering or Eliminating People? article by Amy Julia Becker.

No parent wants a child to suffer. Screening tests at every level help humans to eliminate genetic disease and, therefore, human suffering. And yet Christians have good reason to be concerned about the use of these tests, and to advocate for the protection of human life, however it is given to us...

Maybe it's not just the Christians who should be 'concerned'. The use of preimplantation diagnosis (PGD), prenatal diagnosis (PND), and genetic screening, their feasibility and uptake, are increasing at a rapid rate. And with an ever-increasing array of genetic 'conditions' being selected against, what is the logical endpoint?

Reducing people to a medical diagnosis, and the devaluation of disability and illness are themes in a well-written article 'The Gene Genie' by Kathy Evans in The Age, 14 March 2010.

But Dr Leeanda Wilton (Scientific Director of Preimplantation Genetics at Melbourne IVF) also has a practical point of view:

''Given the cost of raising a child with a serious genetic disease - that's a massive cost to the community over many, many years - PGD is very economical. We do not make a profit out of it; we do it because we believe it is a worthwhile service... You have to take into account a family's personal circumstances and the impact of the disease on the family,'' Wilton says.

It's a bit sad when lives get drilled down to dollars and cents. But maybe naive to believe society won't operate like that. And for families who have been terribly affected by a genetic condition, who can blame them for wanting to prevent their children (and themselves) from more suffering?

But what do the rational decisions made by a multitude of well-meaning individuals add up to on a societal level? Eugenics!

Afterthought: And reducing variation runs counter to natural evolution. Nothing religious or superstitious about that.