Baby born without cancer gene...

[keithd]

The first British baby genetically selected to be free of a breast cancer gene has been born, University College London has said




She grew from an embryo screened to ensure it did not contain the faulty BRCA 1 gene, which passes the risk of breast cancer down generations.
University College London said the the mother and her little girl were doing "very well".

Any girl born with the gene has a 50% to 85% of developing breast cancer.

Announcing the girl's birth, Paul Serhal, medical director of the Assisted Conception Unit at the hospital, said: "This little girl will not face the spectre of developing this genetic form of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in her adult life.

"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter.
"The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations."

In June the mother, then 27, told how she decided to undergo the screening process after seeing all her husband's female relatives suffer the disease.

The woman, who wanted to remain anonymous, said at the time: "We felt that, if there was a possibility of eliminating this for our children, then that was a route we had to go down."

It is not clear exactly where the baby was born.

The technique, known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has already been used in the UK to free babies of inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease. But breast cancer is different because it does not inevitably affect a child from birth and may or may not develop later in life. There is also a chance it can be cured, if caught early enough.

Permission to carry out PGD for breast cancer had to be obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority by the London clinic which performed the procedure.

The body, which licenses IVF clinics and embryo research, gave the go-ahead after holding a public consultation. Doctors at the private clinic, housed at University College Hospital, conducted tests on 11 embryos by removing just one cell from each when they were three days old. Six embryos were found to carry the defective BRCA1 gene.
Two embryos which were free of the gene were implanted, resulting in a single pregnancy

Faulty genes are responsible for between 5% and 10% of the 44,000 cases of breast cancer that occur in the UK each year. BRCA1 and its sister gene BRCA2 are the two most commonly involved.


of course this is a good thing, yes? playing at god a little of course but this little girl can grow up free in the knowledge she'll never develop breast cancer....

or is there a whole can of them there worms being opened up here?

hmmm... something doesnt sit right with me on this issue....

[timwilky]

Sits very well for me. My wife is recovering from breast cancer, we have had 3 friends die of it, a further friend is in the process despite loosing both breasts to it, she has a little girl of 8, I have two daughters.

Anyone who has lived with this would never want a child to grow up at risk. Interesting in the article, the defective gene was in the husbands family

[600+]

I agree with Tim as we are going through similar for the past 3+ years

[keithd]

tim dont get me wrong of course its great from the POV that this girl wont develop breast cancer, my sister is recovering from 2 years of horrendous treatment so i can appreciate the pain caused.

maybe not so much the birth of this child and the story around it, its the whole "we'll make you live longer" philosophy....doesn't it go against nature?

[Dappa D]

its sits good with me too, if the risk can be removed, providing there are no other side effects (time will tell?) then it has to be a good thing. although no member of my own family have suffered from it, ive seen the devestating effect it can have via a close friend

[SoulKiss]

tim dont get me wrong of course its great from the POV that this girl wont develop breast cancer, my sister is recovering from 2 years of horrendous treatment so i can appreciate the pain caused.

maybe not so much the birth of this child and the story around it, its the whole "we'll make you live longer" philosophy....doesn't it go against nature?

We meddle too much already to worry about this.

If things like cancer are caused by "dirty genes" then without medical intervention these things would go away - people with diabetes would suffer the complications and as such be less likely to breed for example.

I believe that without medicine, we would all be healthier - but only because previous generations suffered/had to watch loved ones die in horrible ways.

My only concern is if we keep meddling, what damage will we do for future generations?

[Grinch]

I seem rather happy with it too...

[missyburd]

Yes it's great that she won't get breast cancer but whats to say she won't get one of the many other hundreds of cancers out there? Whats to say she abuses the fact and smokes and drinks her life away anyway, in the end dying of lung cancer or liver failure?

The fact she doesn't have a breast cancer gene may well make her susceptible to other cancers/diseases, messing about with genes is a very dangerous thing.

I don't believe this has been done to benefit this little girl really, more just to show it can be done, it will probably do more harm than good in the long run. Sorry for the pessimistic post, cancer is awful for all those affected, for families too :-(

[the_lone_wolf]

If things like cancer are caused by "dirty genes" then without medical intervention these things would go awayargumental error highlighted for emphasis

they're not...

the article said women with this gene are x% more likely to develop breast cancer, there is not one cause, and refusing medical treatment based on that assumption would only cause mortality rates to skyrocket

[Dappa D]

im not entirely sure who has children here and who doesnt, im not trying to get anyones back up, but i would imagine the people that have children would be more inclined to see it as a good thing...(i may be wrong!..as i often can be!)

the old saying..."you wont understand till you have kids of your own"..tis true!...

if / when i have another..if its shown that the child could be at risk, and medical science could eliminate that risk..i would take it

[SoulKiss]

argumental error highlighted for emphasis

they're not...

the article said women with this gene are x% more likely to develop breast cancer, there is not one cause, and refusing medical treatment based on that assumption would only cause mortality rates to skyrocket

I was trying to be general in talking about this and other future treatments.

There is, I guess, still no way of saying that she wont develop the cancer ANYWAYS, all they did was reduce the odds.

[gettin2dizzy]

of course this is a good thing, yes? playing at god a little of course but this little girl can grow up free in the knowledge she'll never develop breast cancer....

or is there a whole can of them there worms being opened up here?

hmmm... something doesnt sit right with me on this issue....
It's just hyped up media-coverage.

They get a big pot of eggs, and look at which ones are vulnerable to medical ailments, and then chuck them in the bin. It's been happening (with other conditions) for years, and I see only positives coming out of it.

I do however object to girls turning in to baby making machines at 14, and continuing to sprout ugly kids all their life in return for a house. That neglect (remember Shannon Matthews?), is disgusting.

[jimmy__riddle]

Its not that shes had anything removed or put in, its not like playing god. all that has been done is she has been screened for part of a gene which has the potential to increase the risk of breast cancer. babies are checked for many problems before they are born already. When babies have scans they can see if it has certain problems, this is the same, except done using a different method than ultrasound.

Its not altering anyone, just giving a heads up if somethings wrong.

[gettin2dizzy]

i
if / when i have another..if its shown that the child could be at risk, and medical science could eliminate that risk..i would take it
Ouch! That's got to hurt! ;)

[the_lone_wolf]

I was trying to be general in talking about this and other future treatments.

There is, I guess, still no way of saying that she wont develop the cancer ANYWAYS, all they did was reduce the odds.

i agree with you in theory, if an illness is transmitted via hereditary means and you simply allowed sufferes to perish it would die off quickly, but there are very few diseases like that (probably because they would have already died off before the advent of modern medicine, quod erat demonstrandum)

yes, cancer is a statistic disease, but as my mum, who has had two operations, a mastectomy, has just finished 9 doses of chemotherapy, is about to start 5 weeks of going to a hospital 90mins travel away every day for radiotherapy and is also about to start a year long course of herceptin knows, a reduced chance is better than nothing at all...

[jimmy__riddle]

a reduced chance is better than nothing at all...

Unfortunately the science behind the article does not give a reduced chance to those with the faulty gene, its intended to give no chance as its to determine whether to possibly terminate the embryo or not.

[Magnum]

I think anything that starts prolonging life is a step too far. by this i mean creating something that will make people easily live 100+years old.
But to be able to prevent cancer is an amazing breakthrough, an not an unethical one in my opinion. Breast cancer, and other cancers for that matter, can make people prematurely die. If you can prevent the risk of cancer, then it is not unethical because it only ensures the person reaches a normal lifespan.

I wouldnt say it's any more "playing god" than giving vaccinations for other life threatening illnesses such as TB, tetanus, meninjitis and even the flu for the elderly. If these illnesses were not treated then many people would die prematurely. It is no different from preventing a cancerous gene.

[the_lone_wolf]

Unfortunately the science behind the article does not give a reduced chance to those with the faulty gene, its intended to give no chance as its to determine whether to possibly terminate the embryo or not.

it gives a zero chance of breast cancer caused by faulty genes, but:

Faulty genes are responsible for between 5% and 10% of the 44,000 cases of breast cancer that occur in the UK each year

therefore the chance of developing breast cancer is reduced overall, but is not zero, that's what i meant be "reduced chance is better than nothing at all"

[Dappa D]

Ouch! That's got to hurt! ;)

nah, flew out!:smt040

[gettin2dizzy]

nah, flew out!:smt040
Wouldn't fancy it myself... not having a womb and all :-D

[jimmy__riddle]

it gives a zero chance of breast cancer caused by faulty genes,

because embryos with the faulty gene would not be allowed to live. So if this was implemented in a way remove this faulty gene from soceity people like current sufferers would not have been allowed to live.

Im not arguing for or against it. At then end of the day, im working on the same thing!

[the_lone_wolf]

because embryos with the faulty gene would not be allowed to live...i see your point, but at the end of it all even if each embryo is the same after as it was before, the child - where it refers to the offpring of mum and dad - will have a reduced probability of developing cancer later in life because of the actions of the medical team, and that's the goal

[gettin2dizzy]

because embryos with the faulty gene would not be allowed to live. So if this was implemented in a way remove this faulty gene from soceity people like current sufferers would not have been allowed to live.

Im not arguing for or against it. At then end of the day, im working on the same thing!
Think of those millions of lives that could have been, that you left on the computer monitor last night ;) It's a tough position to argue.

No matter how much wiping you do with the kleenex; it's not going to impregnate it :lol:

[jimmy__riddle]

Think of those millions of lives that could have been, that you left on the computer monitor last night ;) It's a tough position to argue.

No matter how much wiping you do with the kleenex; it's not going to impregnate it :lol:

lol

as i said, im not arguing either way, without people wanting to do things like this i would be stuck

[the_lone_wolf]

Think of those millions of lives that could have been, that you left on the computer monitor last night It's a tough position to argue.

No matter how much wiping you do with the kleenex; it's not going to impregnate it lol

as i said, im not arguing either way, without people wanting to do things like this i would be stuck

it's a sticky situation alright...

[gettin2dizzy]

lol

as i said, im not arguing either way, without people wanting to do things like this i would be stuck

it's a sticky situation alright...
:lol:

it's a mass-debate alright

[jimmy__riddle]

:lol:

it's a mass-debate alright

One which will probably never cum to a conclusion

[ogden]

We meddle too much already to worry about this.

If things like cancer are caused by "dirty genes" then without medical intervention these things would go away - people with diabetes would suffer the complications and as such be less likely to breed for example.

Yes and no.

That line of thought only makes sense for conditions which take effect before the sufferer has had a chance to breed. Breast cancer is a particular bad example because the vast majority of people affected are above the average age for having a first child. So on that basis it wouldn't be eliminated by natural selection:

http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp#2

The same applies to diabetes:

http://statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=71&cat=2&sub=22&yr=60&typ=1

There aren't many hereditary conditions I can think of which affect statistically significant numbers of people which would be likely to disappear by natural selection. One example would be haemophilia - typically only affects males, but is carried by the female, so it could linger on pretty much forever despite being potentially fatal from a young age.

[northwind]

its the whole "we'll make you live longer" philosophy....doesn't it go against nature?

Yup. So say no to penicillin, and cooking food, and verbal communication ;) All of human existance goes against nature at the end of the day. As a diabetic, if they can come up with some way of ensuring that any kids I have won't develop it, then why would I not take advantage?

[SoulKiss]

Yes and no.

That line of thought only makes sense for conditions which take effect before the sufferer has had a chance to breed. Breast cancer is a particular bad example because the vast majority of people affected are above the average age for having a first child. So on that basis it wouldn't be eliminated by natural selection:

http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp#2

The same applies to diabetes:

http://statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=71&cat=2&sub=22&yr=60&typ=1

There aren't many hereditary conditions I can think of which affect statistically significant numbers of people which would be likely to disappear by natural selection. One example would be haemophilia - typically only affects males, but is carried by the female, so it could linger on pretty much forever despite being potentially fatal from a young age.

Ah but society would take care of that - after a couple of generations it would be obvious that someone's bloodline "wasn't right".

However I DID misunderstand the screening vs meddling the original topic was about.

Oh and Northy, my Dad is Type1 I'm Type2 :)

[keithd]

Yup. So say no to penicillin, and cooking food, and verbal communication ;) All of human existance goes against nature at the end of the day. As a diabetic, if they can come up with some way of ensuring that any kids I have won't develop it, then why would I not take advantage?

i have to say no to penicillin anyway, i'm alergic to it y'see!! :smt040

[ogden]

Ah but society would take care of that - after a couple of generations it would be obvious that someone's bloodline "wasn't right".

C'mon, natural selection *or* eugenics, but not both.