and inserting the good (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_sc/embryo_research).LONDON - British scientists say they have created human embryos containing DNA from two women and a man in a procedure that researchers hope might be used one day to produce embryos free of inherited diseases.

Though the preliminary research has raised concerns about the possibility of genetically modified babies, the scientists say that the embryos are still only primarily the product of one man and one woman.

"We are not trying to alter genes, we're just trying to swap a small proportion of the bad ones for some good ones," said Patrick Chinnery, a professor of neurogenetics at Newcastle University involved in the research.

...

The genes being replaced are the mitochondria, a cell's energy source, which are contained outside the nucleus in a normal female egg. Mistakes in the mitochondria's genetic code can result in serious diseases like muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, strokes and mental retardation.

This smacks of the Ubermensch that Hitler was trying to achieve.....
And what a horribly boring way to have a threesome.....

Yeah, it is kinda funny how one century it's eugenics and is "bad", and the next it's great progress.

I'll worry about it when they're talking about taking out the brown hair to put in the blond. There's not much difference between substituting the faulty chromosome that will produce Down's Syndrome in your kid and giving that kid his vaccinations.

The only thing they are using this 'extra' woman for is her mitochondria, which contain separate DNA for a very few genes involved in metabolism, as the article mentions. They aren't having to touch the actual chromosomal genome, which would be orders of magnitude more difficult and isn't feasible with current technology (although we can create 'knockout' mice, *inserting* a coding gene at a specific location in eukaryotes with any accuracy in a single shot, or a handful of shots, is extremely difficult).

Despite the fears a case like this raises about eugenics programs, we're a long way off from 'cut and paste' designer babies - this technology would only be useful to treat a handful of disorders related directly to mitochondrial function, and while decidedly unsexy, might avoid potentially more unpleasant decisions for carrier couples (such as whether to abort once amniocentesis reveals the presence of a life-threatening disorder).

Regards,
Nydia

I'll worry about it when they're talking about taking out the brown hair to put in the blond. There's not much difference between substituting the faulty chromosome that will produce Down's Syndrome in your kid and giving that kid his vaccinations.

Well, if certain traits allow a person to be more susceptible to certain diseases (fair skin + blue eyes = skin cancer) wouldn't they be less desirable?

If we ever do reach that level of genetic engineering capability, why wouldn't we go there? What would there be to stop us?

The eugenics craze pre-WW2 was all about those sort of benign benefits. If it weren't for the Nazis taking it to a genocidal extreme, it probably would've continued.

Red hair, fair skin, and blue eyes may make one more succeptable to skin cancer and sunburn ... but it sure helps with the ladies. Don't be so quick to write those off as bad genes. ;)

And lets not forget how useful it would be to have an ugly baby girl ... no fears of her growing up to be a crack whore.

Come to think about it please sign my future kids up for all of the bad genes.

I'll take the risk that someone might want blond hair on their kid's head some day to keeping that kid from having MD, Down's or epilepsy.

With the steady decline in leisure activities involving physical exertion, the ability to engineer an ambryo not prone to debilitating disease is a good start to balancing a future generation of inert diseased couch potatoes versus healthy inert couch potatoes.

I'm all for having kids with a lower risk of disease or permament illness.

now if we can just cure male pattern baldness so I can grow my mullet out again with business in the front the world would be mine.

on a side note, Just read a study the other day how thin people who dont smoke cost tax payers more in healthcare vs people who are obese or smoke. So what the hell just live life smoke drink and be merry we all are going to die.

So what the hell just live life smoke drink and be merry we all are going to die. Been my philosophy all along.:devil

Heh, yeah. They were saying in the study that folks who lived healthy lifestyles lived longer, and so ended up using healthcare insurance over a longer period, versus the obese/smokers/etc.

Now we are sliding into Orwellian Newspeak. Long life is bad, early death is good!