Selecting Babies

So, a 26 year old mother was worried that her unborn daughter could carry a gene which would have made the child more susceptible to the onset of breast cancer. See the Guardian's report here. The gene in question is known as BRCA1 and apparently a female carrying this gene has a 50% to 85% chance of developing breast cancer. According to the father the family will not now have that "Sword of Damocles" hanging over their heads. He also said, complimenting the mother: "A massive amount of credit has to go to my wife for undergoing what was effectively an invasive procedure of IVF...."

On the surface this seems all very creditable and a brave thing to do. On closer analysis however it seems less so. Apart from genetic factors, others such as hormones, diet, exercise (lack of in early life), environment and age are among the long list of factors which can stimulate the development of breast cancer. Tellingly according to statistics "The risk of having hereditary breast cancer is low. In fact it is believed that only around 5% of all breast cancers are due to inherited faults in breast cancer genes.."

So even if the child does not develop breast cancer due to genetic factors it is quite likely that she may still develop one of the other 95% caused by other factors. A major factor is thought to be early onset of menstruation due to improved diets over the last century (in UK, average for menarche in Victorian times was 17 yrs, now 12 yrs). This fact raises an interesting ethical argument. In order to delay the menarche, should the parents feed the child on an impoverished diet in order to delay it and reduce the risks further?

Age is a seriously major factor ".....breast cancer is rare in women under the age of 40." (See the facts here.) Not much, short of euthanasia, we can do about that. But hang on, why not euthanasia? If one can destroy embryos before they have a chance of life, why not end a life before it develops the cancer - at least part of a life has been lived, but of course no-one would use that argument, would they? Well these parents have apparently done so before the embryos have had chance to develop. So the discarded embryos will not develop breast cancer, but neither will they have had the chance of life anyway. Quite a stark choice really, 'if you live you may possibly develop cancer, so we will deny you life'. That seems to raise all sorts of ethical problems.

This brings up another problem with the selection procedure though. The embryo chosen will probably develop and live a full life, free of the fear of hereditary breast cancer (but not the other 95% of breast cancers) but how about the dozens and dozens of other cancers and diseases which she may catch, not to mention accidental or other causes of death. If we are to worry about one should we not worry about all of the others which are more likely to cause premature death. A life lived full of these concerns would be troubled indeed. This sort of existence is painful in the least to witness. I had a mother who spent her whole life worrying about all sorts of risks, from fire in the home to travelling. She led a terribly tortured life due to this, but lived until she was 80 when she died with lung cancer due to a life time of smoking ("to settle her nerves").

The survival rates for breast cancer are also improving all the time. Statistics are very difficult to determine for all sorts of reasons but as far as I can make out approximately 80% of sufferers survive for at least 5 years after treatment and 64% survive for at least 10 years. but patients are only monitored for 10 years so it is probable that most live much longer, further it seems that if the cancer is to return it will probably do so within 2 years of treatment. Also it seems that for women who undertake screening the rates are much better, around 88% who are screened survive for at least 10 years. Surely if a child had been born with a genetic predisposition for this cancer she would have undergone regular screening from an early age and the likelihood is that any problem would be found and dealt with quickly and successfully. Whereas a person without the gene is likely to think themselves safe and possibly miss early diagnosis. So the presence of the gene may have proved an asset!

Of course these figures are of necessity at least 10 years out of date and as survival rates are improving all the time it is likely that they are much better now and will be even more so when this child gets to the age when she is likely to develop it some 40 years from now. The statistical projection are for much better survival rates in future.

So what do we have. A child who does not carry the BRCA1 gene which possibly may have led to breast cancer later in life, but she still has a good chance of developing it in future from other factors. Plus we have a number of other potential rejected embryos whose lives who will not now exist because they had a statistically greater chance of possibly (50% - 85%) developing a very treatable cancer.

All of this is possible because of the discovery of the Structure of DNA and the subsequent unraveling of it. Most have heard of the work of Watson and Crick who discovered the structure, but their work was empirical. It is believed that Watson had his Eureka moment when he was shown a photograph of the structure which had been made by a researcher Dr Rosalind Franklin which led him to make the link to his own work. So it is possible that Ms Franklin's work hastened the development of the understanding of DNA.

Quote:-

"Between 1951 and 1953 Rosalind Franklin came very close to solving the DNA structure. She was beaten to publication by Crick and Watson in part because of the friction between Wilkins and herself. At one point, Wilkins showed Watson one of Franklin's crystallographic portraits of DNA. When he saw the picture, the solution became apparent to him, and the results went into an article in Nature almost immediately."

Dr Franklin did other important work as well. Possibly her most important apart from her work on DNA, was her work on carbon structures, possibly leading to the development of the modern material 'carbon fibre' -

"Because of her desire to contribute to the World War II effort, she worked at the British Coal Utilisation Research Association in Kingston-upon-Thames from August 1942, studying the porosity of coal. Her work helped spark the idea of high-strength carbon fibres"

Dr Franklin died about 5 years after her work on the structure of DNA from ovarian cancer. She was 37 years old. So she was 33 when she produced her brilliant work on DNA and around 25 when working on the coal research. It was perhaps a good job that there were no DNA tests for ovarian cancer before she was born otherwise her parents may have decided not to have the "Sword of Damocles" hanging over their heads. history could have been so different. Could any of the rejected embryos could have produced a latter day Dr Franklin? We will never know.

Lobster mush

So, according to the BBC website a giant lobster thought to be up to 140 years old is to be returned to the sea by it's restaurant owners. The story is here:

But of course the animal rights people had started their anthropomorphic emotionally charged rants and demanded the creatures release. Quote:

"But animal rights group Peta sought the lobster's release, and will now put it back into the waters off Maine. Ingrid Newkirk, of Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) praised the decision"

Dear Ingrid then went on to say:

"We applaud the folks at City Crab and Seafood for their compassionate decision to allow this noble old-timer to live out his days in freedom and peace.

We hope that their kind gesture serves as an example that these intriguing animals don't deserve to be confined to tiny tanks or boiled alive."

Talk about emotional claptrap. I don't like or support cruelty of any kind but ' noble old timer' really! To talk in these anthropomorphic terms makes it sound as if the ocean floor is a kind of retirement home with all the comforts reserved for those who have made a fulfilling and generous contribution to the world by gently raising a family and selflessly looking after grandchildren before quietly having a much deserved rest. For a start the ocean floor is full of predators who just love a dinner of lobster and the animal will spend most of it's time avoiding being eaten. And then it will of course need to eat, how's this for a kindly retirement snack of clams:

"A lobster locates its prey, a clam for instance, with its excellent sense of smell. Then it breaks open the shell with its large claws. It uses its mouth parts and first two sets of walking legs to manipulate the food into its mouth. A lobster is a messy eater. It creates a cloud of debris as it tries to coordinate all these claws to move food into its mouth.

As a clam slides down the lobster's gullet, three stomachs begin the work of digestion. The first stomach contains a gastric mill, a set of grinding teeth, that pulverize the clam. Then the clam, now mush, passes into the digestive gland (which contains that yummy green stuff, tomalley). Here in the digestive gland the food is absorbed into the body. Finally, wastes pass through the intestine and out the anus at the tip of the lobster's tail."

Here's another nice bit about it's new lifestyle:

"The first thing you notice about Homarus americanus, the "Maine" or "American" lobster, is its two strong claws: a big-toothed crusher claw for pulverizing shells and a finer-edged ripper claw resembling a steak knife, for tearing soft flesh. The lobster uses these claws, as well as smaller appendages around its mouth (mandibles and maxillipeds), for gripping and shredding its food."

or

"A lobster has been observed catching a crab, dragging it back to its home, and burying it like a dog buries a bone. For the next few nights the lobster snacks on the crab instead of going hunting."

There's nice for the "... noble old-timer..." but not so nice for the clam or crab, or aren't clams or crabs deserving of the a chance to "... live out his days in freedom and peace"?

And how about the lobster's "... Freedom and peace.." Here's an example of the life it can now enjoy:

"Aside from the fact that a lobster will eat almost any of its neighbors given the opportunity, an American lobster is not by nature a convivial beast. It is aggressive, territorial, and secretive. It hides in a burrow by day and prowls the ocean floor by night. It may cover a mile or more each night foraging for up to 100 different kinds of animals (and some plants). It may sneak into its neighbor's burrow when it's not around, and sometimes even if it is!"

So much for the retirement picture conjured up by dear Ingrid of PETA of a kindly old lobster pottering in his lobster garden enjoying his "peace and freedom" perhaps leaning on his lobster fence chatting to his lobster neighbours and passing on his lobster wisdom to his lobster grandchildren when not sitting on his porch in his old rocking chair watching the world go by. No sorry, if he's not ripped apart by a hungry predator, he's much more likely to eat both his neighbours and his grandchildren alive. At least we would kill it humanely before eating.

Get real PETA!