Human Genetics and Disorders

In gene therapy

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Huntington's disease

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

A new disease gene is discovered once in a

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

In the near future, drugs might be developed to cure which of the following diseases?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Gene therapy might cure all the following, except

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

The occurrence of cystic fibrosis is

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

People opposed to steps being taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children cite all the following reasons, except

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

In the past, we got to know bad genes by

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Choose the word(s) most similar in meaning to the word ‘prying’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Genes are

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Choose the word(s) most similar in meaning to the word ‘Banishing’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

A suitable title for the passage

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.