Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome
Scope of the research
- Commenters clarify this work is an early, lab-stage method to identify and inactivate the extra chromosome 21, mainly relevant to IVF embryos, not existing people with Down syndrome.
- Likely future use (if ever clinical): “rescuing” trisomy-21 embryos for couples with very few viable embryos, especially older women or those with severe fertility issues.
- Other autosomal trisomies mostly miscarry; so generalization beyond chromosome 21 is seen as limited in practical value.
Relation to current screening and abortion
- Non‑invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) already detects trisomy 21 early; in many countries this has already sharply reduced births with Down syndrome via selective abortion.
- Several argue a corrective therapy could be more acceptable than termination for some parents; others note many would still opt for abortion.
- Some raise concerns about test false positives and stories of pressure toward termination even at low estimated risk.
Eugenics, embryo selection, and “Gattaca”
- Strong thread on “liberal eugenics”: embryo selection and polygenic scores for IQ and disease risk already exist commercially; some founders explicitly cite Gattaca as inspiration.
- Skeptics say the science of IQ polygenic scoring is weak and can inadvertently select for other traits (e.g., autism).
- Disagreement over whether preventing Down syndrome is “eugenics”: technically it doesn’t change the germline in most cases, but socially it clearly looks like selecting against a group.
Lived experience and quality of life
- Multiple commenters with personal experience (parents, relatives, neighbors) describe a wide spectrum: from relatively independent adults to severely disabled, nonverbal individuals needing 24/7 care.
- Some emphasize joy, social warmth, and positive impact on families; others stress high medical burden, shorter life expectancy, early dementia risk, and extreme strain on caregivers.
- Cited surveys (summarized in-thread) report many people with Down syndrome, their parents, and siblings rate their lives and relationships positively.
Ethics: “normal,” personhood, and choice
- Intense debate over “normal development”: some see preventing Down syndrome as clearly beneficent; others warn that framing as “abnormal” feeds stigma.
- Long subthread on when personhood begins (fertilization vs developmental continuum) and whether abortion decisions for disability are ethically distinct from other reasons.
- Disability advocates’ concern is noted: normalization of prevention sends a societal message that people like them “should not exist.”
Equity and social policy
- Worry that as such interventions become available, disability becomes a clearer marker of poverty and lack of access to medical technology.
- Disagreement over whether governments (especially the US) would fund costly interventions despite potential long‑term economic benefits.
- Several argue the real moral failure is inadequate lifelong support for disabled people and their families, irrespective of genetic technologies.