Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Panels OKs polyparental offspring experimentation - on male fetuses only
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2016-02-03 20:16
Article here. It's fine -- provided you don't place female fetuses at risk, of course. Don't let the supposed "medical rationale" for it fool you. If the sexes were reversed in the so-called explanation, you can be sure the panel would not have approved. The closing article makes that clear to anyone paying attention. Excerpt:
'The 12-member panel, assembled by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, released a 164-page reportWednesday outlining a plan for how scientists could ethically pursue the controversial research.
"The committee concludes that it is ethically permissible" to conduct such experiments, the report says, but then goes on to detail a long list of conditions that would have to be met first.
For example, scientists would have to perform extensive preliminary research in the laboratory and with animals to try to make sure it is safe. And then researchers should initially try to make only male babies, because they would be incapable of passing their unusual amalgamation of DNA on to future generations.
...
Nevertheless, the committee says the potential benefits make the work worth pursuing with careful oversight.
Moreover, the FDA could at some point even consider letting experiments proceed to try to create female babies if certain criteria are met, the report said, including the production of "clear evidence of safety and efficacy from male" experiments and signs that it would be publicly acceptable.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
zeig heil!
dr. Mengele would be sooo proud. (tears pls)
ve vill only experiment on the male children today.
yeah, women want equality. lol
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...
The study of ethics is always intriguing to me, especially medical and reproduction ethics.
I recommend everyone read the article before commenting.
And another thing....
Just to be clear, the title of the article is "Babies with genes from 3 People Could be Ethical, Panel Says" and then the article indicates that the experimental stage would be done only with animals and then when proven "safe" it would then have to get approval to be done on male fetuses, "because they would be incapable of passing their unusual amalgamation of DNA on to future generations."
Just a note, I have had a lot of biology for my nursing degree, but geneology was always the most complicated unit and we barely touched the surface of an extremely complex science. If one is okay with this medical ethics of DNA swapping to prevent birth defects. I dont think "only on male fetuses" is a detail to get hung up on.
Male-only is very much a detail to "get hung up on"...
... as you put it, Kris. It goes to the very essence of male disposability in our nymphotropic society. And indeed, they would not have dared render such an opinion without indicating that first 3-parent babies be male-only. And yes, they are concerned about the "efficacy" being first proven on male babies, then only thereafter h@ving female babies possibly be created with 3 parents. As any researcher can tell you, animal experimentation is stage 2 of the research/experimentation process in medical research. Stage 1 is pursuing any level of experimentation one can non in-vivo (for those unfam. w/ the Latin stuff, "vivo" refers to "life", in this case, a living organism, and "in" as used in "in vivo" refers to "inside" or "within", so "in vivo" refers to things done to or inside a living being, such as a non-human animal or a human being), then in-vivo animal experimentation is stage 2, which yields results *sometimes* applicable to human beings. (E.g.: feed a cat heroin all day and the cat will be fine, though not too happy about the taste of the heroin. Do the same to a human and he'll OD and die. Cats and humans are *not* the same creatures, neither are mice and humans, etc. Oft-times, experimenting on animals is largely about making the experimenter feel better about trying out on humans whatever new drug/procedure they are working on.) Stage 3 is "clinical trials" or in this case, experimenting using human genes.
Showing that genetic modifications via some process works OK on mice, rats, cats (God help us - I think there is a special place in Hell for people who experiment on cats), etc., does not ensure that it will be hunky-dory when done to human genetic material. But of course, the first humans they will try this on will be males, ostensibly to avoid the chance of the humans from passing along a problem of some kind to their offspring. Well stop and think about that a second - if the procedure is successful, then the fetus will be viable and survive. So only *if* the process succeeds could the male person live to spread his genes further in the first place!
The whole reason for experimenting only on male fetuses is because people accept using human males as experimental subjects (yet even before they are truly conceived) much more readily than using females or both males and females. It comes down simply to anti-male chauvinism arising from nymphotropism.
And yes, I am quite "hung up" on the 2x-standard and will remain that way.
I respect your position, Matt
I respect your position, Matt and I think you make some good points. Being pro-life, I shy away from supporting genetic engineering and any type of artificial conception. However, I tried to make my comment above from a more neutral perspective.
I originally quickly scanned the article and left a comment about how unethical experimenting on male fetuses is. However, about 10 hours later I re-read the article in-depth and realized it is about preventing birth defects and says all experimentation would be on animals. The birth defect they are trying to prevent just happens to be passed on by mothers*. So I deleted my original comment, and wrote what you see above.
Here are some key points I picked up on which made me change my original comment:
1. It is the OFFSPRING of genetically modified women who would be at risk. Not the genetically modified person themselves. These offspring could be male or female.
2. The goal is to avoid birth defects for couples wanting biological children in situations where the mother has high risk genes- it is not to create a 3 parent family.
3. the article indicates all experimentation would be done on animals, not male human fetuses. Being pro-life I am against any experimentation on human fetuses. However, if one is not pro-life and experimentation is eventually done on fetuses created in a lab (donated sperm, donated eggs) and especially created for destruction, it is hard to justify any moral opposition to destroying these experimental fetuses.
4. Based on what I know about genetics and knowing it is about swapping out specific genes on a specific chromosome, I assume a child would be 50% biologically related to father, about 49.9% related to mother and about .1% related to donor (maybe even much less).
5. the article indicates, this is hardly anywhere near getting approval
6. After all experimentation and the process is deemed "safe", embryos made for a couple would have to be created in a lab, so a full screening of birth defects would be done before implantation. So I don't see it as putting males as more at risk for anything. You could even say they have a higher percentage of being "perfect." It is only OFFSPRING of genetically altered females which would be at risk, which is why they are not going to create any.
Since genetic engineering is not something I really support, I don't have the energy to debate, but just wanted to explain my perspective, and I do share your concerns, Matt. If I am wrong in my assumptions and if there is any experimentation or higher risk on fetuses meant to be born, I will certainly be more opposed.
*just a quick note: as I said before genetics are an extremely complicated science. Some defects are passed only by mothers (M), but can effect either son (S) or daughter (D), some defects are passed only by fathers (F), but can effect either S or D, and some defects are gender specific and are passed M>D, F>S, but some are crossed-gendered and pass only M>S or F>D.
You are simply wrong
Experimentation on human embryos would indeed be occurring the moment genetic material is extracted from a human fertilized cell cluster and implanted into another. An experiment on human embryos is then being performed regardless of how many animal experiments came before it. And as to the specific condition, do you believe for a single moment that they'd've OK'd any other experimentation on a condition affecting females peculiarly? They chose this condition *specifically* to target male experimental subjects over female ones.
I doubt seriously based on your position re females and the draft that you'd've been so blase about the subject had that been the case. You're fine w/ things as long as males are the subject of experimentation and in general, as long as males are placed at risk ahead of females in this and other matters.
No, I don't respect your position. I condemn it as a further example of anti-male chauvinism and nymphotropism in society, and feel likewise about your anti-female-draft position as well. It's pretty clear to me your general POV on matters is nymphotropic.
Whatever...
If one supports experimentation on fetuses, its hard for me to sympathize with their dismay over the specific gender of fetus.
I feel the same when someone supports abortion for any reason and then gets upset when a mother chooses abortion because of gender.
I don't support experimentation on fetuses (or embryos). But I think you are so upset that I am not mad about the gender of the fetuses, that you cant see anything else. BTW - the procedure doesn't involve altering embryos like you speculate, it alters the mother's mitochondrial DNA in her eggs before fertilization. The reason the procedure would only be used to create males is because, unlike women, men do not pass their mitochondrial DNA to their sons or daughters.
The mother is the first generation, the male baby created is the second generation, and his future children will be the third generation. The second generation is not at risk, and since fertilization takes place in a lab I'm sure a full round of genetic tests will be done before implantation (which even increases the odds of a "perfect" baby). The third generation and beyond is who is at risk. The risk to third generation and beyond can be completely halted if the second generation is male only.
Someone who is not opposed to genetic alterations might see this as a chance to completely wipe out a genetic defect which effects both males and females. I am not one of those people, but I can respect that perspective. Since the alteration is done before fertilazation, I don't see this as being any different ethically compared to other proposed biological modifications performed on sperm or eggs before fertilization. The controversy is more about h*ving a very slight amount of DNA from a third person which is what makes it different from other proposed biological modifications (the amount of donor DNA is so slight, like a fraction of a percent).
But...yeah...thanks for telling me how ya really feel. LOL
Kris, you know that I know...
... that you know that I know that you know that I know that deep inside, you agree with me. It's just that you are struggling uphill against your midwestern motherhood-and-apple pie upbringing combined with the effects of a constant barrage of nymphotropic programming delivered via TV, movies, and watercooler banter.
One day, the worm will turn for you. One day.
People working against biology have uphill battles.
Me...struggling uphill???
People who understand biology and life's unfairness, have a much easier time in life.
Those who try and force "equality" and "fairness" in areas where biology isn't equitable and fair are the people who have uphill battles.
The fact is Matt, if you were in a life or death situation, or any extreme situation where efficiency counts, you would revert to gender roles and put different values on people in a heartbeat. Just ask yourself this: If you were about to do battle and could choose 4 comrades, would they be all male, all female or a 50/50 ratio? or if the world was flooded and you had the only lifeboat, and could save 10 people.....