So far as I am aware...
...it hasn't been proved that there is a genetic trigger for diabetes. There may be a whole swathe of factors involved a la Chronn's disease. We simply don't know for sure.

I'll put my pedant hat away for a while now.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:25, 1 reply)

Fair point,
and I'll certainly concede that "the gene for diabetes/ asthma/ whatever" is frequently nothing more than a convenient, simplifying shorthand. And, of course, a gene is not a determinant.

Having said that, susceptibility does - at least sometimes - have a familial dimension, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that there's a genetic or epigenetic factor that could be neutralised.

Crohn's is a good example: we don't yet know what - if anything - is going on genetically; but we do know that it has patterns that run through families. Members of my close family have it; but it's not inconceivable that you need environmental triggers to make the gene do its thing. Still, it would be good if we could home in on the disposition, and get rid of that.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:37, closed)

You do have a perfectly valid point
Eugenics isn't clear cut, a lot of people who would scream a resounding "No!" at the concept would also struggle to deny that they would endorse the eradication of the genes responsible for Huntingdon's or Cystic Fibrosis. I lost a friend from the latter and I certainly wouldn't argue against the application of genetic engineering to consign it to history.

I'll leave the ethical untangling of this to someone far more qualified than me I think.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 28 Sep 2011, 12:11, closed)

Is it not concievable that many
"negative" genes can also have unforseen positive effects, though?

Does every species not need to throw out a reasonable variation - positive and negative - in order to evolve and survive?
( monkeon schmonkeon, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 16:29, closed)