Talk:Designer baby

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Editing for Educational Assignment 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: Potential Edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wiki Project - Bibliography 

message: can you elaborate on this edit summary? I don't understand how going against the recommendations at MOS:FIRST (namely that we . 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. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "Term used to describe"

message: 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)
thread_title: Genetic testing for partner selection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in describing Islamic view