Welcome to the brave new world, where science now fully creates humans, and you choose your children from test tubes. This science fiction based future is closer to reality than one might think, the designer baby devolution is not a futuristic event. Instead, it could take place in the next few years.
But that’s not all that could take place in the next few years, in fact, scientists are currently working on processes that would allow for ‘baby farming’ as The Guardian calls it. The lab procedure, known as in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), is based on allowing fertility clinics to make sperm and eggs from people’s skin.
The process has only been tested in mice and has yet to be tested on humans, but the field is progressing so fast that the dramatic impact it could have on society must be planned now.
– Related Video –
[fvplayer src=”https://player.vimeo.com/external/192052581.sd.mp4?s=d7fb2f61a5ae1cec69e14becf088916b0fb7cc42&profile_id=165″ splash=”https://christianjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Scientists-Just-Officially-Created-Zombies-With-Lasers.jpg”]
“We try not to take a position on these issues except to point out that before too long we may well be facing them, and we might do well to start the conversation now,” said Eli Adashi, professor of medical science at Brown University in Rhode Island.
The creation of sperm and eggs from tissue has become possible because of recent advances in which scientists have learned first to reprogram adult cells into a younger, more versatile state, and then to grow them into functioning sex cells. Just recently in October scientists in Japan announced for the first time the birth of baby mice from eggs made with their parent’s skin.
The technology is still in its early stages, and testing on humans is still illegal in the UK and the US. However, given the reality that science is advancing so fast, there could be a rushed change in laws which would allow particular sciences to pass; which is why action must be taken now to curb the worst case scenario outcome.
The radical ideology behind this field of science is also fueling similar research projects such as bringing back to life the elephant-sized cow formally known as the auroch. Aurochs roamed Europe for thousands of years until the last of their kind died in the Jaktorow Forest in Poland in 1627. They were seven ft tall and weighed around 1,000kg.
Similar projects have included attempting to bring back the Neanderthals, professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA, all that is needed is an ‘adventurous woman’ (sound familiar?) claims the professor. The teacher said his analysis of Neanderthal genetic code using samples from bones is complete enough to reconstruct their DNA.
What is happening is science that can and will radically change our reality. The processes in question can and will bring back the Biblical Nephilim all while stripping mankind of the thing that matters most, the Hand of God. God’s hand is in creation, and each life form that is created is given the breath of life, but what happens when mankind takes over that process? What happens when God is removed?
The Bible speaks of the times at hand, and the Bible foretells of the things that will walk the Earth in those days according to Matthew 24:37.
The following is the transcript and excerpt from a report published on the Mother Jones website by Nina Liss-Schultz, who was interviewing a “skeptic” on the matter, Marcy Darnovsky, who’s is an executive director of the Berkeley-based Center for Genetics and Society; her research focuses on biotechnology and reproduction.
1. Gene editing with CRISPR is still not very safe. “It’s almost universally accepted that right now it would be crazy to proceed with the technology. Some of the problems that have come up, including in the Chinese experiment, is with what’s called off-target mutation. There’s this thing described as a molecular scissors that’s supposed to have a homing device that’ll take you to the exact spot on the DNA strand that you want to cut, but sometimes it’s not that precise—it’ll go somewhere else and sometimes the change that it makes isn’t what you intended. Other times the change is made accurately in some of the embryonic cells but not in all of them, which leads to a condition called mosaicism that can lead to problems later in development. Another problem is that the scissors component of the system can hang around in the cell and later on, when you think you’re done, it starts snipping away. The term ‘gene editing’ helps people understand how the technology works, but it also suggests a level of precision and safety that at least for now isn’t there.”
2. Genome modification isn’t the only available method of stopping the transmission of inherited diseases. “Some of the more cautious and shrewd people are saying, ‘We’ll only use this to prevent the transmission of diseases.’ That does sound like a worthy goal, but here’s the thing: You don’t need to be editing genes to accomplish this because we already have embryo screening techniques that at this point are pretty standard add-ons in in vitro fertilization clinics. They accomplish the very same thing with far less physical danger for the resulting child and without anything like the level of societal risk posed by germline modification.”
3. Once the door to editing our genome gets opened, there’s no going back. “Say there was a policy effort to use this gene editing technique to prevent Huntington’s disease. Well, it’s impossible to really draw a policy line. It’s like how the FDA doesn’t regulate off-label uses of drugs and devices: Once the FDA approves the drug for one thing, a doctor can use it and prescribe it for anything. No one is telling fertility clinics what they can and cannot do. And maybe that’s a good thing, but it also means we could not control fertility clinics that were trying to use CRISPR to push the envelope. So this mission creep would be very difficult—if not impossible—to control.
And there are Futurists, including a few scientists, who say we’re going to produce superior children and improve humanity. A prominent scientist has already spelled out a list with 10 conditions, things like stronger bones, slow- and fast-twitch muscles, so that the resulting child could be good at an endurance or sprinting sport, and sleep—there’s a gene that’s correlated with people needing less sleep. I think it’s very possible that once you unleash this technology onto the market and set it in motion, commercial and competitive dynamics would set in, and you’d see people that wanted to give their future children the best start in life. You can really see the ad copy writing itself.”
4. So-called “designer babies” would be available only to the rich. “IVF is already expensive. It’s not only rich people who use it—people take out second and third mortgages on their homes—but it is expensive. Gene editing would be more so. And so you’d have children born to the more wealthy class that either were genetically superior or even thought to be genetically superior. This would exacerbate trends toward great inequality and could introduce new forms of inequality.”
5. Harvesting eggs from women carries its own risks. “The Chinese experiment in April was using nonviable embryos that were created but not used in fertility treatments. In the process of fertility treatments, some of the embryos don’t turn out right, so they can’t be developed into a human child even if they were implanted.
But in the UK, they want to use viable human embryos because they want to investigate what goes wrong in early embryonic development. The retrieval of eggs from women is invasive, it carries risks that are understudied, and the women that are recruited to provide eggs often aren’t made fully aware of what the risks are.”
6. Skepticism of embryonic modification is different from anti-abortion groups’ belief that personhood begins at fertilization. “There are some anti-choice groups that have come to the same conclusions [the Center for Genetics and Society] has. I can’t say exactly what their logic is, but it has to do with attempts to elevate the status of the embryo. They’re concerned with the destruction of embryos. Back when there were headlines about human cloning, some bishops thought that once you produced cloned human embryos it might be better to implant them into a woman’s uterus than be destroyed.”
7. But even the skeptics are excited by the science. “It’s not exactly the technology itself that I’m worried about—it’s with the application of creating genetically modified human beings. The gene-editing technology itself is first of all scientifically exciting, and second of all it could be used to help people who are sick. That could be great.”
To conclude, the future we face with gene editing is rather gloomy, but the Bible tells us these things will come to pass, and we must remember not to be afraid, seek the truth and be set free. That Truth is Jesus Christ, and He knows about what is coming upon the Earth, and in these last days He has a plan and a purpose for all of us, which means regardless of what science, or culture, or what the government says – He is still in control, and He always will be.
Ian Sample. “ New fertility procedure may lead to 'embryo farming', warn researchers .” The Guardian. . (2017): . .
Nina Liss-Schultz. “.” Mother Jones. . (2016): . .
Lindsay Dodgson. “Scientists are attempting to bring back an ancient elephant-sized cow.” Tech Insider. . (2016): . .
Allan Hall and Fiona Macrae. “Wanted: 'Adventurous woman' to give birth to Neanderthal man - Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby.” The Daily Mail. . (2013): . .