Quote from
New Scientist 4 June 2005 p. 17 article "Barriers to embryo testing go down" by Michael Le Page
"James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix, who is president of the laboratory, told the conference that Wigler has recently identified numerous CNPs found only in people with autism. In five year's time the method could be used to screen embryos for autism and possibly also for schizophrenia, Watson predicted. "We should work as hard as possible to rid these diseases from families," he said. But extending PGD to autism and other mental conditions is likely to prove controversial because the gene variants that contribute to these disorders might also contribute to desirable traits such as creativity."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?i...625023.900
CNPs are copy number polymorphisms, and PGD is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.
@#$% you Mr Watson, @#$% you very much.
Our house would be empty but for spiders if all of the people who carry autism genes and display autistic traits in our family did not exist. Four generations would disappear.
The deplorable Mr Watson is I believe known for controversially arguing for negative eugenics. He is also an eminent scientist. Being politically incorrect, outspoken and scientifically-minded are some traits that seem to be associated with AS. Wouldn't it be an absolute hoot if it turned out that Mr Watson has some of these autism CNPs? I recommend that it should be law that any famous person advocating some genetic screening test should be forced to take the test themself and have the results published for all to see. Maybe someone could steal Mr Watson's toothbrush?
Great minds think alike. :smile:
Bonnie Ventura's comments gave me an idea. Maybe we could use the idea of "Prevent the next holocaust; stop prenatal screening for autism" as a slogan or a poster or an idea to present in written texts. Would it be in bad taste to use visual images or visual references to the nazi's holocaust to illustrate such a theme? Could be too extreme.
I've been meaning for quite some time to look into the history of the holocaust. I believe it was true that epileptics were targeted for eugenics on a small scale in nazi Germany, but I'm not sure if they were one of the unfavoured groups sent to the gas chambers. Why were epileptics so unpopular? Well I think a lot of them were aspies. Were aspies one of the groups in the original holocaust?
M wrote
James Watson = **** If his mother had aborted him, I'm sure Crick and whoever would have still discovered DNA.
Well, actually, Rosalind Franklin discovered DNA, but that's another story ....
Amy suggested using images of a foetus with the slogan of "Stop the next holocaust". I think that idea should be used with caution because it is reminiscent of the rather tasteless, misleading and emotive propaganda that the Right to Lifers have used.
With regard to the idea of whether this screening would only apply to IVF babies, in 5 years time when this testing might be available I am sure advances will have been made in methods to do prenatal testing. I think I read somewhere that it could be possible to filter out stray blood cells from the foetus in the maternal bloodstream. Can you get DNA from blood cells? Also, if parents already have one autistic child I can imagine some might go for IVF just to access the screening. I think this kind of thing might already be happening for the purposes of sex selection and disease/disability screening.
What about using the "Stop the next holocaust" theme as next years Autistic Pride Day theme?
Would this be a book about that genius sperm bank?
http://www.strandbooks.com/profile/?isbn=1400061245
I dimly recall seeing media reports a long time ago about the first child born from sperm of a donor selected for his "genuis", and the woman who had that kid (a boy with a strange first name) went on to have another child by the same means who has handicapped in some way. I wish I could verify that story and find out what the second child's condition was.
Maybe so but for now they what they are and I'd expect them to be respected for what they are. I mean would you like it if I did not offer that same treatment to you Amy? . That's what happens in some countries in this world (possibly in danger of happening in a certain country at this moment).
By the way at the moment I don't plan to have kids naturally but possibly if the time comes I hope to adopt or foster if I can, not because of shame about being an Aspie but because I feel strongly that there are children/teenagers already out on this planet who deserve a good home and I hope I'd be able to provide them with one.
I'd like to draw a distinction in this argument. I personally have no problem at all with parents being able to abort an embryo on the grounds that the embryo has a genotype that was not inherited from the parents, such as the generally sporadic and unpredictable mutations that cause embryos to have conditions like Down's syndrome or dwarfism. I believe dwarfism can be passed on but most cases are new mutations. I don't have a problem with this because the mutation is something that the parent had no choice or forewarning about.
But I do think it is contentious if parents desire to screen out genes for characteristics that they or their biological partner express, unless the characteristic in question is clearly a disability or serious and untreatable illness. We all get to choose what we mate with. It's one of the most important choices that anyone can make, and it's a completely free choice. We also have the choice to not have kids at all. If a prospective parent wants to do gene selection to screen out some personality trait or behaviour of their own or their partner's, then they either have a relationship problem or a self-image problem.
So what's your problem with my opinion, Brightman?
I don't see any point in going into the old debate about right to life versus right to choose, because it's an irreconcilable debate generally between religious people and non-religious people, and I honestly don't think opinions about religion are amenable to debate.
Referring to the discussion as to whether AFF support one side or another in the abortion debate. I see it that each member has their own opinion on the broader issue, but I would hope that most of us can see that a prenatal test for autism, followed by abortion for that reason, is wrong and something we want to prevent.
I do think that pre-natal screening is wrong in some cases and on pre natal screening for autism I have my own sort of opposition opinion on that one. However as I personally don't want to debate this topic any further because I might overreact nastily and seriously offend some "devout" people in this organisation I will stay out of this matter. I've said my piece and come what may, I will keep my own personal (maybe public counsel) on this matter.
I will finish off by saying this though. I think on the abortion issue that we should allowed to be cats who walk by ourselves and all places are alike to us. It's a cryptic message I know but I think if you read Rudyard Kipling you might find it's answer.
[quote="rocobley"]I agree that we can all have our differing views and be able to work together (I *think* that's what your Kipling quote was about, Asp). I will add my own quote from Trotsky: "Walk separately, strike together!"
[quote]
Good to see that even though we come from sort of different sides of the political spectrum[i] we can understand each other perfectly rocobley :smile: . Yes that's exactly what my kipling quote was about. your Trotsky quote is a much better way of saying what I tried to say though.
Mr Newport, that "S" word is not a word that I find at all acceptable. Please don't use it again.
Now you all know why I decline to get involved with this kind of debate. A Christian arguing with an atheist are both wasting their time.
I'd just like to make a few points. Firstly, am I correct in asserting that the word "holocaust" does not exclusively apply to the Nazi atrocities? I'm thinking of Cambodia, Rwanda and the Balkans, and the Congo under the Belgians etc etc. Is the word "genocide" a more suitable word to use to describe the possible resualts of prenatal testing?
Another point, let's not get too bogged down with considering the rights and wrongs of prenatal testing for conditions other than autism/AS. Downs syndrome and most of those other innumerable chromosomal and genetic syndromes involve different and arguably more serious issues than autism.
Let's not get bogged down in the abortion debate per se. There will always be polarised opinions on this subject, but I think most of us would be opposed to late term abortions.
Lastly but not leastly, should the AFF or some aspie write a letter inviting Mr Watson to get himself or other supposedly "normal" people tested for the autism genes, based upon the premise that one shouldn't advocate the elimination of a gene unless one is sure that it is a bad gene that has no possible positive effects? Should we advocate that any parents considering prenatal testing for autism should get all members of the family tested first ("normal" or autistic), so that they can get a complete idea of how the gene expresses itself in real, living people? Should the AFF advocate that large population studies of the phenotypical expression of the autism genes should be done before prenatal testing is allowed, so that the full range of effects of those genes can be properly researched?
M wrote
From what I can gather from other people, most women have abortions just because a pregancy would be an inconvenience for them at the present time. They will state that they don't feel they can financially support a baby, they are trying to finish their education, they are trying to start their career, or maybe they feel they have too many children. Many people do support this type of choice. So how can anyone convince them that a baby who is considered not healthy, not perfect, not "normal" is worth anymore than a baby that is "not wanted" or "not planned"?
You don't think lots of women make this decision because the father of the foetus is not a suitable person to be a father of that baby? I could imagine that many pregancies must be terminated because the "father" does not want to be a father, does not love the "mother", the "mother" does not love him, either partner just isn't cut out to be a parent due to abilities or personality or situation, or maybe one of the partners is already married to someone else, or the preganacy was the accidental result of an ill-considered or non-consensual act. Choosing the right father for her offspring is the most important decision that a woman can make for her children. It takes two to tango and it also takes a lot of people to raise a child. No one should feel obliged to live with a loser and/or have his child just because she is in the early stages of pregnancy.