.jpg)
Science is knowledge! And as such, it must be taken very seriously.
After I read an article about down syndrome on Wikipedia I discovered that "Individuals with Down syndrome differ considerably in their language and communication skills. It is routine to screen for middle ear problems and hearing loss; low gain hearing aids or other amplification devices can be useful for language learning". 86] For partial glossectomy (tongue reduction), one researcher found that 1 out of 3 patients "achieved oral competence," with 2 out of 3 showing speech improvement.
Why don't we have all children with down syndrome exposed to partial tongue reduction? If it will better their quality of life. If it may even help with thyroids problem, which of, in consequence brings obesity and all sort of other problems.
On another related article, it stated that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.[73] Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register .
In the United States a number of studies have examined the abortion rate of fetuses with Down syndrome. Three studies estimated the termination rates at 95%, 98%, and 87% respectively.[73]
Medical ethicist Ronald Green argues that parents have an obligation to avoid 'genetic harm' to their offspring,[76] and Claire Rayner, then a patron of the Down's Syndrome Association, defended testing and abortion saying "The hard facts are that it is costly in terms of human effort, compassion, energy, and finite resources such as money, to care for individuals with handicaps... People who are not yet parents should ask themselves if they have the right to inflict such burdens on others, however willing they are themselves to take their share of the burden in the beginning."[77]
Peter Singer argued that "neither haemophilia nor Down's syndrome is so crippling as to make life not worth living from the inner perspective of the person with the condition. To abort a fetus with one of these disabilities, intending to have another child who will not be disabled, is to treat fetuses as interchangeable or replaceable. If the mother has previously decided to have a certain number of children, say two, then what she is doing, in effect, is rejecting one potential child in favour of another. She could, in defence of her actions, say: the loss of life of the aborted fetus is outweighed by the gain of a better life for the normal child who will be conceived only if the disabled one dies".
This is far too much to digest in a simple page. It seems that science, capable of detecting a fetus with "abnormalities", jumps the gun in selling the tool of "detection" and prevention, forgetting that it needs to fix the abnormality.
For now, science needs to create a device that reverses the entire process of development of the chromosome that carries the abnormality.
Down syndrome disorders are based on having too many copies of the genes located on chromosome 21. In general, this leads to an over expression of the genes. Understanding the genes involved may help to target medical treatment to individuals with Down syndrome. It is estimated that chromosome 21 contains 200 to 250 genes. Recent research has identified a region of the chromosome that contains the main genes responsible for the pathogenesis of Down syndrome, located proximal to 21q22.3. The search for major genes involved in Down syndrome characteristics is normally in the region 21q21–21q22.3
If abortion is ever to be considered legal, from a law point of view, it would bring a pandemonium into people's lives, that can not ever be fixed. To begin, science and abortion will work side by side, eliminating from the face of the earth every fetus that has this or that abnormality. Scientists would become greedy and forget their principal objective, which is prevention of abnormalities by scientific means of resetting the DNA configuration of that particular abnormality.
Science needs to change its gears from corrective maintenance to preventive maintenance. Science now is stagnated in finding how to correct this or that disease, caused by this or that abnormalities. Scientists are more concerned in creating pills. For now science is working side by side with free market or capitalism.
Science should only be used for the benefit of humans, and not for enrichment of enterprises.
It is fair to say that scientists are able to manipulate an allele, which is one of two or more forms of a gene or a genetic locus (generally a group of genes).[1][2] The form "allel" is also used, an abbreviation of allelomorph. Sometimes, different alleles can result in different observable phenotypic traits, such as different pigmentation. However, many variations at the genetic level result in little or no observable variation.
A number of genetic disorders are caused when an individual inherits two recessive alleles for a single-gene trait. Recessive genetic disorders include Albinism, Cystic Fibrosis, Galactosemia, Phenylketonuria (PKU), and Tay-Sachs Disease. Other disorders are also due to recessive alleles, but because the gene locus is located on the X chromosome, so that males have only one copy (that is, they are hemizygous), they are more frequent in males than in females. Examples include red-green color blindness and Fragile X syndrome.
Other disorders, such as Huntington disease, occur when an individual inherits only one dominant allele.
Science needs to put more effort into modifying the composition of a defected allel. Science needs to get its priority straight.
By now we all - I mean, every individual should have a DNA identification, which would refer to a central global communication for all means related with law enforcement, forensics, and medical. Along with our identification, a daily reading of our blood content would indicate which nutrients are necessary for that day. Science should be more advanced than what it is now. We need good scientists. We need to praise the good ones, who are studying prevention of abnormalities by manipulating genes, and not those more interested in creating a new pill to make this or that go away.
I am not against progress. I just do not appreciate when progress come in such a high cost for everyone.
By now we should have humans beings immune of any diseases, that can live at least 300 years with only one appearance, perfect weight, and controlled mood, etc. A perfect human being who was perfected to live in this environment by his fellow human, who used science to manipulate genes, creating pure-breads from within hybrids.
Can we get there, finally?
Milton
