Talk:Designer baby

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bednariknicole.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lefereol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Editing for Educational Assignment

Hi everyone, I'm a final year biology undergraduate student at Imperial College London, and am hoping to study medicine next year. As part of a science communication course I am expected to contribute to an article requiring significant editing, and am hoping to edit this page as I'm surprised at how much needs adding and think it's a really important topic. I have some ideas of how I would like to edit/change some things, but please let me know if you have any thoughts!

Here are some of my suggestions (which I'm planning on adding incrementally):

• Improving the lead section to make it more accessible, improving the language, potentially including information about the applications/implications in a way which is accessible to a general audience. Maybe include some discussion of recent developments in the field, i.e. the Lulu/Nana controversy etc. Any recommendations for things to include here are welcome, including any suggestions for including any image - I am happy to provide/create images for techniques later in the article but am slightly stuck on an image to include at the beginning of the article.
• Improving headings/subheadings - creating more useful subheadings/remove ones which aren't needed, making sections more cohesive; especially in the human germline engineering section.
• PGD section - improving language, explaining the process more clearly/in more detail, including a diagram of the process. Cleaning up regulations section, maybe creating an implications/applications section to include some of the information from regulations - this may be better placed in a separate section altogether (e.g. information regarding saviour siblings, gender preferences etc). Perhaps including some more information and citations for country-specific regulations.
• Human germline engineering section needs to be heavily expanded - I plan to include more detailed discussion of the different techniques possible, explaining how these work. Discussion of CRISPR needs to be much more in depth as it is only fleetingly mentioned - I plan to dedicate an entire subsection to this and probably include a diagram. I would like to include a discussion of the Lulu/Nana controversy here, but am also considering creating a new dedicated section on examples of existing 'designer babies' or examples of using the technology - I will probably see as I go along how this best fits, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on this. In the Lulu/Nana section, I would like to include some discussion of the implications for the event and how scientists/media/governments have responded.
• I'm currently unsure of how to tackle the 'understanding genetics' section - this either needs expanding and rewording or deleting and including some parts of the information elsewhere. Recommendations are welcome, I plan to see how it goes when I edit the section.
• I'd like to expand the 'Techniques in gene therapy' section, including more information about the techniques and potentially separating the section into subsections. I might also remove 'Disease control in gene therapy' as a subsection and make it its own section - or create an applications of gene therapy section in which disease control can be placed.
• Ethics section needs better structuring with more sources/citations for ethical concerns and opinions - this and careful wording will ensure the NPOV line is trod very carefully. Additionally general tidying up of the language and editing is required.
• I would like to include more citations and references to some recent news articles as well as references to in depth discussion of the techniques available to use for genetic engineering.

Please let me know what you think about these edits/whether you have any additional suggestions or edits you would like to see, and I will see what I can do! Thanks. Bananapancake212 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

I have now incorporated all these edits, and am wondering whether the proposed merge with Human germline engineering is still necessary. Although lots of the information for Designer baby can be found on the respective pages for different techniques (PGD, human germline engineering etc), however, I believe that the general public might be more likely to search for Designer baby and the page now encompasses lots of different aspects - techniques as well as an expanded ethics section, discussion of Lulu/Nana etc. Please let me know your thoughts. Bananapancake212 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential Edits

This group will be adding information to the pre-existing sections of the article. We will be including additional subheadings to ensure the article remains organized. Our focus is on the medical process, gene editing techniques, regulation of PGD, germline modification, aspects of genetics, gene therapy, the statistical significance of each technique, genetic diseases that can be cured using these techniques, and the ethics behind germline modification. Lefereol (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

For some reason I fail to grasp, of the 100 articles I watch over, Designer baby is the article that attracts the most (juvenile) vandalism. How can we stop this once and for all? --Loremaster (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis section: There is a difference between embryo screening for genetic defects and making a designer baby by selecting physical features. This article needs to differentiate between the two procedures. Furthermore, the article explains that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is a procedure done before fertilization, but it does not describe what is done to the embryos. Also, there are major pieces missing about the process of artificial reproduction technology (ART), like in-vitro fertilization. The article explains that a baby could be created to avoid diseases and select for desired traits, but did not explain the medical process behind it very well. Lefereol (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The claims in this article, although they have a reference, are based on opinion and not fact, and lack a neutral point of view. I suggest these parts be re-edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view JonatasM (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside that an encyclopedic article can contain opinions as long as they come from reliable sources, I hadn't noticed that the article has been re-written so much that its sounds like a bioconversative leaftet. It should defenitely be re-written. --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone makes the article long enough, maybe vandels would not understand it and quit vandalizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.148.156 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The following statements are misleading: 1)"Genetic modification can be used to alter anything from gender to disease, and eventually appearance, personality, and even IQ."

It is not currently possible to modify the human genetic code to alter gender, appearance, personality or IQ. Not one single case of this has ever been reported.

2) "Altering embryos is fairly recent technology and as it develops is a very costly procedure."

The term "altering" is misleading. An embryo can be tested for presence of a genetic trait (disease) and then a decision can be made to NOT use or implant that embryo. If the genetic trait or mutation is present, you cannot alter, change, or modify it in the embryo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.199.253 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The style of the Biological Risks section is inappropriate for Wikipedia - using "we" invites chumminess and is not the right style, isn't it? Disregard if I'm wrong, mm. I'm afraid I don't have time to do a rewrite right now. ashdenej 10:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrible article

As far as I know, no regulatory agency on the planet allows genetic manipulation of human gametes, zygotes, or embryos. And as far as I know, no one has even applied for such a regulatory approval. But this article written as though "designer babies" - in the sense of genetically manipulated human gametes, zygotes, or embryos - are real. Insane. And to the extent it says things like " as far as the public record is concerned" it borders on conspiracy theory, which has no place on Wikipedia unless it is described as such. I will come back and edit this article to make it sane, or recommend it for deletion. Thinking.... Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This hasn't been true for some time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28942539 StN (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

I have created a list of journals and a book with information pertaining to this article. These resources could greatly contribute to the content to this article.

Stankovic, B. (2011, February 8). “It’s a designer baby!” - opinions on regulation of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis by Bratislav Stankovic: SSRN. Retrieved October 9, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1756573

Iredale, R., Longley, M., Thomas, C., & Shaw, A. (2006). What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A citizens’ jury of young people in south wales.Health Expectations, 9(3), 207–217. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00387.x

Dobson, R. (2000). “Designer baby” cures sister. ,321(7268), . Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173444/

Franklin, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Born and made: An ethnography of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_krN8uUKGbYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=designer+baby&ots=rCCiWXNDA1&sig=Ozj2PXnC7yjlHUREnXHI6KnP9nw#v=onepage&q=designer%20baby&f=falseIn-line Citation:(Franklin & Roberts, 2006)

Lefereol (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Designer baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iteea.org/Publications/TTT/apr07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Project - Bibliography

Brownlee, Shannon. "Designer Babies." Washington Monthly 2002Googlescholar. , cosmicawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/washingtonmonthly_designer_babies.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct. 2016.

Conger, Krista. "Parents Should Be Free to Use 'Designer Baby' Technologies." Reproductive Technologies. Ed. Clay Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "As Good As It Gets?" Stanford Medicine Magazine (Summer 2006). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 24 Oct. 2016. Dobson, R. (2000). “Designer baby” cures sister. ,321(7268), . Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173444/

Franklin, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Born and made: An ethnography of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_krN8uUKGbYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=designer+baby&ots=rCCiWXNDA1&sig=Ozj2PXnC7yjlHUREnXHI6KnP9nw#v=onepage&q=designer%20baby&f=falseIn-line Citation:(Franklin & Roberts, 2006)

Gordijn, B., & Chadwick, R. F. (2009). Germline genetic modification. In Medical enhancement and posthumanity (pp. 191-205). doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8852-0_12

Hsu, P., Lander, E., & Zhang, F. (2014). Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineering. Cell, 157(6), 1262-1278. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010

Iredale, R., Longley, M., Thomas, C., & Shaw, A. (2006). What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A citizens’ jury of young people in south wales.Health Expectations, 9(3), 207–217. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00387.x

King, Samantha. "Designer Babies, Stem Cells, and the Market for Genetics: The Limits of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act." Canadian Journal of Communication 32.3 (2007): 613-20. ProQuest. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.

Mahoney, J. (2010). Genome Mapping and Designer Babies: Comparative Perspective. UMKC Law Review 79(2), 309-314.

Stankovic, B. (2011, February 8). “It’s a designer baby!” - opinions on regulation of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis by Bratislav Stankovic: SSRN. Retrieved October 9, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1756573

Thornhill, A. (2004). ESHRE PGD Consortium 'Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)' Human Reproduction, 20(1), 35-48. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh579

Walker, M. (2008). "Designer Babies" and Harm to Supernumerary Embryos. American Philosophical Quarterly,45(4), 349-364. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20464426

Wolf, D. P., Mitalipov, N., & Mitalipov, S. (2015). Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy in Reproductive Medicine. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 21(2), 68–76. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2014.12.001

Lewisb29 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Leerich3 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This article has a large amount of information in the mid sections, specifically about gene modification and how the process works in practicality I think the into and the first explanation of the Designer Baby article is somewhat short and brief. Most Wikipedia articles have a larger intro section and I think this one could use the same. I felt though that some of the sections such as some of the gene ones were quite wordy and sort of lost my interest. Perhaps it is just a personal thing but some people could find it distracting. Other minor additions: “When used to screen for a specific genetic disease or for risk of getting a disease, its main advantage is that it avoids selective abortion as the method makes it highly likely that the baby will be free of the disease under consideration” This is a small point, but I’ll include it because it’s one of the first things written in the article. The above statement, which is under the “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis” section about seven lines down, was a bit confusing to interpret. I would break it up in order to avoid run-on sentences. I’m not sure if this was the intention, but perhaps the OP meant to put a comma after the word ‘abortion’. ie) “….avoids selective abortion; PGD makes it highly likely that the baby……” The in vitro fertilization procedure is carried out by removing one or two cells with a needle when the embryo is at the six to ten cell stage phase. This also confused me a little bit, and some further clarification could be of use. The above explanation of in vitro fertilization just doesn’t quite seem right. First off, this statement implies that PGD involves cells from an embryo. Isn’t an embryo already fertilized? Did the OP of this statement mean to indicate that PGD involves working with an embryo that had been fertilized using in vitro methods? There is already a "microchip that can test a remarkable 1,500 genetic traits at once, including heart disease, seasonal affective disorder, obesity, athletic ability, hair and eye colour, height, susceptibility to alcohol and nicotine addictions, lactose intolerance and one of several genes linked to intelligence. It is still difficult to get enough DNA for such extensive testing but the chip designer thinks this technical problem will be solved soon.[5] This little bit of information is fascinating! I think readers would be compelled to pursue more information of these microchips: how they’re used, any possible updates on further development (if you can find it), or even a closer look at the genes involved with the traits listed above.

Improvements 1) Make sure the “Techniques in Gene Therapy” section is properly cited and is free of grammatical errors. Improvements 2) Make sure the section mentioned above does not present any sort of biased opinion. The beginning of one sentence starts off with, “But the most beneficial ones are..” Be careful that there are no personal opinions in here. Improvements 3) I would try to keep a consistent time frame throughout individual section (there are a few instances where the text goes from past to present). Also, perhaps the vocabulary can be modified so that it has more of research-like feel to it. ie) offspring, as opposed to baby; using words like overwhelming, under section Regulation of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis might diminish the neutral tone of the article.

"Term used to describe"

@Bananapancake212: can you elaborate on this edit summary? I don't understand how going against the recommendations at MOS:FIRST (namely that we Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject. If you're trying to avoid some sort of controversial phrasing, muddling the first sentence up and implying that the subject matter of the article is the term, rather than the concept doesn't seem to be the best way to do it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi aeusoes1, thanks for the message. I understand your concerns and am happy for you to change the wording if you think it would be more in keeping with the Wiki guidelines. However, in response to your question - the reason I wanted to change the opening line to include 'refers to' is because I felt that saying 'a designer baby is a baby whose...' suggests that a 'designer baby' is a tangible thing rather than a concept, which might contribute towards the idea that 'designer baby' carries stigma, or suggests that any baby whose genome is modified should be referred to as a 'designer baby'. I understand that this distinction is probably negligible, and realise that the guidelines state that the opening section should avoid words like "refers to..." etc., hence my saying that you are welcome to change the phrasing back should you wish (I have only been editing for a short while so am definitely far less experienced than you). I hope, however, that my reasoning is at least a little clearer here. Thanks again for the message, and let me know if you would like me to clarify any further. Bananapancake212 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not very familiar with the semantic boundaries of this topic. If the term designer baby doesn't apply to every instance of a baby whose genome has been modified, we may need to tweak the definition we supply in the lede, rather than use "refers to" as a way to hedge the concept. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Genetic testing for partner selection

Can it be described that genetic testing could be used for partner selection purposes (New eugenics) ? The idea here is that online dating services could be used to share genetic testing results (whole genome or whole exome sequence) which can then be used to see whether both partners are compatible (ensuring that genetic diseases have a very small chance of occurring on children of that couple, if they were to form a couple at all). This can be determined through the principles established by Mendel (see Mendelian inheritance). So basically, a sort of IVF/PGD approach, but then focusing on the genetic makeup of the partners, rather then examining the genetics of the embryo, ... Perhaps it can be further looked into and dscribed at the page. --Genetics4good (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Error in describing Islamic view

Muslims do not believe ensoulment happens at conception, this sounds like it's confusing Muslims with Christians? Ensoulment occurs after the first trimester! The error might be from the linked source, but this is not mainstream Islamic belief based on hadeeth (second in importance to the Quran itself--it often provides extra detail and explanation of what the Quran only speaks of in passing. For example, the detailed steps of how to pray is taken from hadeeth.)

'‘Abdallah ibn Mas’ud narrated that the Messenger of God ﷺ said: “Each one of you is constituted in the womb of the mother for forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then God sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his deeds, his livelihood, the date of his death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched. Then the soul is breathed into him…” (Sahih al-Bukhari: 3036).

Based on the above Qur’anic verses and Hadith, the jurists inferred that the soul enters the fetus at around 4 months, or 120 days, after conception. Thus, when the fetus reaches the age of 120 days (approximately the middle of the second trimester)...' 51.39.19.246 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge into "New eugenics" article?

Considering that on the article's talk page, there have apparently been multiple discussions eventually overriding the proposed name "Liberal eugenics" - indeed used in many scholarly sources - for being too POV, I wondered if the expressly negative name "Designer baby" might also be worth re-evaluating in this sense? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)