Subscription Center
Aug 5, 2009 04:50 PM | 19
The Chongqing Children's Palace in China will mix leisure with science this summer as the staff runs DNA testing on children attending the five-day camp. The test, in combination with observations of how the children play, is designed to help parents identify and cater to their children's genetic gifts at an early age.
Approximately 30 children between the ages of three and 12 are in the program, which costs $880, according to CNN. The DNA samples are collected from mucosal membranes, like saliva from the cheek, and tests are run on 11 genes. From the data collected, the camp scientists think they can extract information regarding a child's IQ, memory, athletic ability and more.
China claims to be the first to use DNA testing as a means to determine genetic gifts as opposed to inheritance or susceptibility to disease.
Instead of identifying genetic gifts, researchers in the U.S. are focusing on giving children special talents. Jeffrey Steinberg, director at the U.S. center of The Fertility Institutes, told ABC in March, that within the next six months his clinic will allow parents the ability to select physical traits of their children, screening embryonic DNA to select which embryos to implant in wombs.
Currently there are no U.S. laws against using genetic information to build a "designer baby" or to customize children’s future hobbies and educational direction.
Chen Zhongyan, speaking about her four-year old daughter who is attending the Chongqing Children's Palace, told CNN, "It's better to develop her talents earlier rather than later."
Image by wsphotos via iStockphoto
Tags:
designer baby,
embryo,
genetic testing
More News Blog:
Next: Shipwreck damages pristine coral reef via destructive organism
Previous: HIV genome structure decoded
See what we're tweeting about
notscientific @kahoakes @AkshatRathi @aidanhorner Let's hope he doesn't!! :P
kahoakes @notscientific @AkshatRathi @aidanhorner If Tim Berners-Lee said we had to call the WWW "W3" would you? notscientific @kahoakes @_byronmiller @AkshatRathi @aidanhorner *Raises arm high up in the air*
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
19 Comments
Add CommentIt is great to see the usefulness of the "human product" being increased
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one should take issue with "designer babies"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's natural selection at it's finest: if they select wrong then they've canceled their line.
It's not really any different than going to a PTA meeting, and hearing what your childs strengths & weaknesses may be, & encouraging them along those lines. If it means even a couple children who are creative little daffodils won't be browbeaten and berated into unimaginitive alpha-type business majors & bean-counter dullards, than some good will have come of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously the three of you have not seen the movie referenced in the title...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat makes you so self-assured?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrucialitis is right. It IS natural selection at its finest. Every generation has its sense of normalcy, at one point it was normal that adult men married child girls. At another point it was normal that women raised their daughters not to be women of industry, but to be good wives and mothers. And "designer babies" is going to be what is "normal" for future generations. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I see it, it is man's next phase of evolution. This beckons back to my personal theory of evolution: it only occurs in small groups usually isolated from the general population by circumstance and the most successful members of the group will spread their genes more efficiently while the small size of that group magnifies those new dominating traits until a new species emerges.
Mankind rarely exists in small isolated groups anymore. We are a transient species and "success" is no longer determined by physical strength as a result of being more equipped at hunting or gathering food. We blend too much to allow a specific set of genes to dominate and produce a new species, and aren't very selective with regards to whom we produce children with, usually making that determination on physical attraction and/or mental faculty. But the perception of "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder and is not uniform across the species, nor is intelligence, which is why we haven't changed much over these few million years man has walked the planet.
If we can begin to propagate specific genes at a higher frequency, it is very plausible that a "new" human will emerge. Though not a totally different species, far enough away to be distinct. Like a horse and a donkey, except we, will be the donkeys!
*I say horses and donkeys are close enough because they can mate and produce a mule. Unlike man and ape, which are close, but so far apart we could not successfully mate (not that we'd want to).
Yup, nothing wrong with this at all. After all, it'll be the rich who can afford to have it done. The rich can already provide their children with access to better to schools and resources to take advantage of these newly acquired gifts, this is just a compliment to that. Over time, this new race will be better able to ensure their own future, and if the "race" of the poor can't keep up...well, that's natural selection. The fact that it was artificially induced has nothing to do with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn an unrelated topic, anyone read Wells' "The Time Machine"? Fantastic how accurate he was, isn't it?
Think about how fruit flies selected for albinism form chains and play mindless follow the leader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople may prefer something externally, but not take into account what it does to the physiology. Like red-headed resistance to painkillers.
Then, when a plague comes that only attacks people with a pair of adenosines at a specific locus ironically it'd be the ones with something like that double-muscle mutation, originally selected for fitness, that are now selected against.
There is a reason why our gametocytes must compete to conceive.
I am curious about this site - very interesting, I think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If we can begin to propagate specific genes at a higher frequency, it is very plausible that a "new" human will emerge"...yes,and with a whole new range of genetic defects I expect...ie repeated selection of "desirable" genes may bring out weaknesses usually never seen because of the randomness of natural selection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs there is with all new 'products', there will be a few 'bugs' to iron out.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHitler would have loved this! Now blond haired, blue eyed, supermen can be produced. As was mentioned, only the rich will be able to afford it, which will just give us an even more divided class system- the Ordinaries, with only what nature gives them, will definitely not be able to compete with the children of the rich who will be made with high I.Q.s, and extremely attractive features and great physical prowess. They will be a new ruling class, standing far above the peons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClassic science fiction comes true all too often and I'm afraid this is a common theme that is going to also come true.
However it is immoral, we should against these action like this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with ilvhang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow most of you are so blas� about this. I think its scary. I know that societies always have elites but the thought of a government having this kind of information about our kids is frightening. How can you overlook the human cost of this kind of genetic testing? What happens to the kids who dont test well? Will they get the same types of opportunities as the ones who have smart DNA?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesting for diseases has a real social benefit, but testing pre-schoolers to find out if they have the right stuff is offensive. They are kids, not products that need to be quality controlled.
Wow – most of you are so blasé about this. I think it’s scary. I know that societies always have elites but the thought of a government having this kind of information about our kids is frightening. How can you overlook the human cost of this kind of genetic testing? What happens to the kids who don’t test well? Will they get the same types of opportunities as the ones who have ‘smart’ DNA?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesting for diseases has a real social benefit, but testing pre-schoolers to find out if they have the ‘right stuff’ is offensive. They are kids, not products that need to be quality controlled.
Wow – most of you are so blasé about this. I think it’s scary. I know that societies always have elites but the thought of a government having this kind of information about our kids is frightening. How can you overlook the human cost of this kind of genetic testing? What happens to the kids who don’t test well? Will they get the same types of opportunities as the ones who have ‘smart’ DNA?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesting for diseases has a real social benefit, but testing pre-schoolers to find out if they have the ‘right stuff’ is offensive. They are kids, not products that need to be quality controlled.
Wow – most of you are so blasé about this. I think it’s scary. I know that societies always have elites but the thought of a government having this kind of information about our kids is frightening. How can you overlook the human cost of this kind of genetic testing? What happens to the kids who don’t test well? Will they get the same types of opportunities as the ones who have ‘smart’ DNA?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesting for diseases has a real social benefit, but testing pre-schoolers to find out if they have the ‘right stuff’ is offensive. They are kids, not products that need to be quality controlled.
Wow - most of you are so blase about this. I think it's scary. The thought of any government having that kind of information about our kids is frightening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you overlook the human cost of this kind of genetic testing? What happens to the kids who don't test well? Do they get the same types of opportunities as the ones who have 'smart' DNA?
Testing for diseases has a real social and medical benefit, but testing pre-schoolers to find out if they have the 'right stuff' is offensive. They are kids, not products that need to be quality controlled.