Medical study: aspiring parents, genotypes and phenotypes: the unexamined myth of the perfect baby.

Albany law review Pub Date : 2005-01-01
Andrea Gurmankin, Peter Ubel, Elizabeth Banger, Glenn McGee
{"title":"Medical study: aspiring parents, genotypes and phenotypes: the unexamined myth of the perfect baby.","authors":"Andrea Gurmankin,&nbsp;Peter Ubel,&nbsp;Elizabeth Banger,&nbsp;Glenn McGee","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although many have argued that assisted reproductive technologies (\"ARTs\") attract those with a desire to genetically engineer their offspring, this claim has yet to be verified. To address this question, we surveyed three groups: the general public, people enrolling in an in vitro fertilization (\"IVF\") program, and pregnant couples. We asked subject which traits they would select in their children if it were possible to use a magic wand to do so and to value genetic relatedness. In our sample, the potential parents who were using ARTs were less likely to express a desire to select traits in their offspring than were the general public, and just as likely as the pregnant couples, Those using ARTs , however, place greater importance on having genetically related children than the others. Thus, the widely held view that reproductive technology is utilized by those most likely to favor genetic engineering is falsified by out findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":79773,"journal":{"name":"Albany law review","volume":"68 4","pages":"1097-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Albany law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although many have argued that assisted reproductive technologies ("ARTs") attract those with a desire to genetically engineer their offspring, this claim has yet to be verified. To address this question, we surveyed three groups: the general public, people enrolling in an in vitro fertilization ("IVF") program, and pregnant couples. We asked subject which traits they would select in their children if it were possible to use a magic wand to do so and to value genetic relatedness. In our sample, the potential parents who were using ARTs were less likely to express a desire to select traits in their offspring than were the general public, and just as likely as the pregnant couples, Those using ARTs , however, place greater importance on having genetically related children than the others. Thus, the widely held view that reproductive technology is utilized by those most likely to favor genetic engineering is falsified by out findings.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学研究:有抱负的父母,基因型和表现型:完美婴儿未经检验的神话。
尽管许多人认为辅助生殖技术(“ARTs”)吸引了那些希望对后代进行基因改造的人,但这种说法尚未得到证实。为了解决这个问题,我们调查了三个群体:普通公众,参加体外受精(IVF)计划的人,以及怀孕的夫妇。我们问被试者,如果可以用魔法棒来选择,他们会在他们的孩子身上选择哪些特征,并重视遗传相关性。在我们的样本中,与普通大众相比,使用抗逆转录病毒技术的潜在父母不太可能表达出选择后代特征的愿望,就像怀孕的夫妇一样。然而,那些使用抗逆转录病毒技术的人比其他人更重视拥有与基因相关的孩子。因此,人们普遍认为生殖技术被那些最有可能支持基因工程的人所利用的观点被我们的发现所证伪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Single-Subject Rule: A State Constitutional Dilemma Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level. Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level. Don't Be Distracted by the Peacock Trying to Board an Airplane: Why Emotional Support Animals Are Service Animals and Should Be Regulated in the Same Manner. The Immigrant Paradox: Protecting Immigrants Through Better Mental Health Care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1