From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sat Aug 02 2003 - 16:35:45 MDT
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/08/01/nutrients.reut/index.html
In a study that shows more than ever you are what you eat, scientists
said on Friday they had changed the coat colors of baby mice simply by
altering their mothers' diets.
Basically what they show is that by giving vitamins the expression of
the agouit gene is turned down. Maternal diet also affects other gene
expression, which is interesting. I may have mentioned earlier that
maternal choline appears to improve spatial memory in mice.
This opens up an interesting issue (and a rhetorical "trick"): is it
acceptable for mothers to tailor their diets to help or affect their
child? Many of the standard anti-genetic arguments seem to say no, which
would imply that mothers should not be allowed to deliberately eat food
rich in (say) choline, which makes for a good rhetorical reductio ad
absurdum. But if we accept that mothers may eat chocolate (rich in
lecithine, which turns into choline) to improve their children but not
any genetic interventions, what is the fundamental difference? Is it
just gene expression changes that are OK? Again, it seems nature is not
obliging us with any other answer than that a lot of effects during
early development can affect the child profoundly; what we do with them
and how we handle them ethically is up to us. There are no ready-made
boundaries.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 02 2003 - 16:41:12 MDT