God (or evolution, actually) rolls the dice while playing a game of craps with human DNA. Every once in a while it comes out a snake eyes to the 10th degree; a child is born with primordial dwarfism. After watching a telecast of a show upon The Learning Channel [TLC], they mentioned that there is only one actual case in Canada.
According to genetic theory and evolution, the weak dies out while only the strong survives. Yet this dwarfism still occurs. It's hard-coded back to the very roots from whatever we were before (ape, CroMagnon, etc, etc). In every species, there is a chance of an offspring being a runt.... atypically smaller than the rest of the litter or prior born.
If Darwinism is really at work, then that shouldn't be happening to other species in the animal kingdom outside of Homo sapiens, should it? Or is the mutational complexities are enough that it always figures back into the blended equations to where the possible is more the probable? That if it occurred once before, then it can definitely mutate into that condition again?
Genetics may be a very exciting field for some, the idea of breeding fruit flies to study a few traits doesn't tickle the fancy enough to delve into lengthy, conditioned experiments within the lab to try to reproduce tangible results. And any work done within the lab itself isn't really representative of life out in the real world... with all the environmental (biological/chemical) factors added into the mix.
While we may never fully understand the innerworkings of the DNA sequencing, RNA folding and combinations or how to engineer a perfect baby, they will probably make some inroads to correct existing conditions of living beings. Some things might be better left without full understanding. It is comparative to nuclear fission/fusion in that when the secret is harnessed it can be for good purposes or ill. We'd like to be able to prevent our children from having pre-existing conditions of historical family maladies. Who is to say we wouldn't screw things up?
And if we looked at it in a religious context, couldn't we say we are being tested on how we treat our weak, sick, mental unstable and criminal folk? Isn't that a bar used to measure the "civilisation" of our Society?
P.S. If this doesn't make a lot of sense, keep it mind it is a few minutes after 2 A.M., so bear with me.
P.S.S. Any thoughts on how many adults would/should/could treat those suffering from this genetic disorder??
First of all, it is possible for a gene to mutate in many different ways to cause the same disorder. In the case of PD (as we'll abbreviate it from now on), the pericentrin gene is the mutant culprit. Any and all mutations to both copies of this gene that render it useless (and by that, I mean not creating the protein it should, pericentrin) will cause the same PD.
Secondly, it is a recessive trait. This means that one copy of the gene could be mutated and the other normal, and no effects would be seen. So a family could carry a mutant pericentrin gene for generations and it would have no effect. If two families do this, and members mate with each other, there's a 25% chance their child will have PD.
Not likely, but then, neither is PD.
*EDIT* As for the part about the future of genetics/genetic engineering, which I forgot to address when I first posted this (O_o):
Yes, we could screw things up. But then, we always screw things up. That never stopped us before. Even when we succeed we fail: look at how many side effects useful drugs have. I actually saw a commercial the other day that listed death as a side effect of some allergy medicine, and almost all antidepressants list increased suicidal thoughts as a side effect.
However, we can also make things better. The flu once killed millions. Now, it is considered harmless. Many bacterial infections that can ravage a body if left unchecked can be destroyed with a simple regimen of penicillin. And thank God for anti-viral drops; I'd have had pink-eye for MONTHS without them.
So what we need is a cost-benefit analysis: Is saving millions of lives in the future worth possibly hurting lives now? Of course, anything intrinsically lethal is illegal for testing on humans, so we're not talking about many deaths; just about lives with some quality flaws.
*EDIT2* And to your P.S.S. (should have been P.P.S) about the tratment of PD patients:
If you mean medical treatment, my idea is replacing pericentrin in the womb. After all, if lack of proper pericentrin causes the disease, shouldn't replacement of it be a good treatment? There's only one problem with this: PD is only diagnosable in the womb after it has done its work and caused stunted growth. So maybe it's too late.
The only other thing I can think of is genetic replacement. But since we can't target specific genes for replacement yet, and this would only really have an effect before the disease is noticed, it would do nothing. The best option is gene sorting with in-vitro fertilization, which already exists.
If you mean social treatment, I'd say treat them like anyone else. It's a universal truth: no one wants to be treated differently no matter what disease they may or may not have.
-IMP ;) :)
P.S. We're in the same time zone :D .
