wacki
03-25-2005, 04:51 PM
Once this line is crossed our world will be forever changed. For this decision will set in motion a wheel that can not be stopped. The fact that this specific committee is split on this subject is very telling of how close we are. This decision is much more important than it seems at first glance because we are talking about changing genetics for reasons other than disease. That is a very important distinction.
Designer Babies in England (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-03-24T102544Z_01_DEN437380_RTRUKOC_0_SCIENCE-BRITAIN-FERTILITY.xml)
LONDON (Reuters) - Plans to allow parents undergoing fertility treatment to choose the sex of their unborn baby have split an influential group of lawmakers and have reignited the debate over "designer babies".
Couples should be able to decide the gender of the embryo being implanted, parliament's cross-party Science and Technology Committee said in a report published Thursday.
But half of the committee's 11 members rejected the findings as "unbalanced and light on ethics".
Critics say sex selection would turn unborn babies into "consumer items" and could pave the way for parents choosing other characteristics such as hair or eye colour.
"The use and destruction of embryos does raise ethical issues and there are grounds for caution," the report concluded, but added: "On balance we find no adequate justification for prohibiting the use of sex selection for family balancing."
The onus should be on opponents of sex selection for social reasons to show harm from its use, the report said.
The committee said regulators should lose their powers because they could see "no role" for them in determining how an embryo is screened before being implanted into a woman's womb.
The report, which makes recommendations into the future of Britain's 15-year-old fertility laws, also said controversial research, such as implanting human cells into animals, should be considered subject to regulation.
Under current law, sex selection is allowed if there is a risk of gender-linked disease such as muscular dystrophy or haemophilia.
A number of recent cases have tested those legal boundaries and provoked a heated ethical debate on the merits and pitfalls of embryo selection.
Committee chairman Ian Gibson, from the Labour Party, denied the report backed the creation of "designer babies" or allowing parents to choose hair or eye colour.
"We are looking at the regulation of new technologies," he told Reuters. "We back proper investigation into the sex selection process."
But five parliamentarians on the committee distanced themselves from the report.
"We believe this report is unbalanced, light on ethics, goes too far in the direction of deregulation and is too dismissive of public opinion and much of the evidence," they said in a statement.
Opponents of gender selection say it will inevitably open a new era of parents choosing babies' other characteristics.
"Social sex selection should not be allowed, because it turns children into consumer items and allows gender stereotypes to determine who gets born," said Dr David King, director of campaign group Human Genetics Alert.
"It will throw the door to designer babies wide open."
Anti-cloning group Comment on Reproductive Ethics compared gender selection to the world of designer babies envisioned in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel "Brave New World".
Designer Babies in England (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-03-24T102544Z_01_DEN437380_RTRUKOC_0_SCIENCE-BRITAIN-FERTILITY.xml)
LONDON (Reuters) - Plans to allow parents undergoing fertility treatment to choose the sex of their unborn baby have split an influential group of lawmakers and have reignited the debate over "designer babies".
Couples should be able to decide the gender of the embryo being implanted, parliament's cross-party Science and Technology Committee said in a report published Thursday.
But half of the committee's 11 members rejected the findings as "unbalanced and light on ethics".
Critics say sex selection would turn unborn babies into "consumer items" and could pave the way for parents choosing other characteristics such as hair or eye colour.
"The use and destruction of embryos does raise ethical issues and there are grounds for caution," the report concluded, but added: "On balance we find no adequate justification for prohibiting the use of sex selection for family balancing."
The onus should be on opponents of sex selection for social reasons to show harm from its use, the report said.
The committee said regulators should lose their powers because they could see "no role" for them in determining how an embryo is screened before being implanted into a woman's womb.
The report, which makes recommendations into the future of Britain's 15-year-old fertility laws, also said controversial research, such as implanting human cells into animals, should be considered subject to regulation.
Under current law, sex selection is allowed if there is a risk of gender-linked disease such as muscular dystrophy or haemophilia.
A number of recent cases have tested those legal boundaries and provoked a heated ethical debate on the merits and pitfalls of embryo selection.
Committee chairman Ian Gibson, from the Labour Party, denied the report backed the creation of "designer babies" or allowing parents to choose hair or eye colour.
"We are looking at the regulation of new technologies," he told Reuters. "We back proper investigation into the sex selection process."
But five parliamentarians on the committee distanced themselves from the report.
"We believe this report is unbalanced, light on ethics, goes too far in the direction of deregulation and is too dismissive of public opinion and much of the evidence," they said in a statement.
Opponents of gender selection say it will inevitably open a new era of parents choosing babies' other characteristics.
"Social sex selection should not be allowed, because it turns children into consumer items and allows gender stereotypes to determine who gets born," said Dr David King, director of campaign group Human Genetics Alert.
"It will throw the door to designer babies wide open."
Anti-cloning group Comment on Reproductive Ethics compared gender selection to the world of designer babies envisioned in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel "Brave New World".