UK extends gene screening of embryos

They say this like it is a bad thing.  I'm all for people having the choice to have their children not carry genetic risk factors.  The ethics of this do, however, start down a slippery slope that we will have to contend with.  I'm not one of those that hold the opinion that a fertilized egg is a human "entity".  It has the potential to become one, but it is not one at that stage.  There is a line that has to be drawn somewhere for when it is no longer "right" (or ethical, however you want to say it) for abortion to be an option, but 3 days is well on the other side of it than 6 months.  I think people should be able to choose to have as much knowledge as we can give them about what their children will be like, and make a decision on their own whether that is something they want.  I also think that people should be able to "design" traits into their children when that becomes an option in the not to distant future.
I think this may also be the only route for the human species to continue biological evolution, as we have such a large population that any good or bad traits get completely diluted by the huge population mixing, and the fact that we compensate for any negative defects that aren't fatal by correction/assistance with technology (i.e. glasses, hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc).  How long would someone with 20/80 vision (what I had before LASIK) have survived without assistance 5000 years ago (not that long in evolutionary time)?  Not long I would say.  Certainly not long enough to produce offspring, and even if by some chance they did, how many could they support, not being able to see to hunt or gather food?  Our current huge population and technological advancements are contributing to genetic stagnation of the species.  I think the next evolutionary steps will be guided by our own hand, either biologically or "artificially".

15:20 10 May 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Gaia Vince
The genetic screening of embryos for a wider range of diseases, including breast, ovarian and colon cancers, has been approved by the UK’s fertility authority.
Until recently, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) only permitted tests for diseases that cause severe disability or death in childhood and have a 100% certainty of being inherited, such as cystic fibrosis. A landmark ruling in November 2004 allowed embryos to be screened for an inherited gene that confers a high risk of bowel cancer in carriers during adulthood – in their 20s and 30s.
Now the HFEA has extended the licences it grants to 10 IVF clinics to allow them to screen a cell from a 3-day-old embryo for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which carry an 80% risk of developing breast cancer; and the HNPCC gene, which is associated with an 80% risk of colon cancer.
BRCA1 also confers a 40% risk of ovarian cancer. These diseases usually do not affect people until they are in their 30s or 40s.
“Eugenic concepts"
Couples who carry the “susceptibility” genes will be able to use the test results to decide whether they want the embryo to be implanted. The move has led to criticism from disability and pro-life groups who fear that embryos will increasingly be selected according to “eugenic concepts of perfection”. They point out that disabled people often enjoy full and rewarding lives.
However, the HFEA argues that embryo selection regulations in the UK are tight and would not allow selection based on social factors. It also argues that cancers are serious and debilitating diseases and parents should be allowed to select the best health for their children.
The rules for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of embryos vary around the world as each nation navigates its own path through the ethical debate.
In some countries, such as the US and India, embryos may be selected on the basis of gender, whereas other countries, such as Germany, have banned embryo screening for any purpose.