The term “designer baby” refers to using technology to artificially select a child’s genetic makeup, using In Vitro Fertilization and Pre-Implantation Diagnosis, to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics (Future For All). Since this process first began in 1990, there has been much controversy all around the world. Many countries, such as Germany, Denmark and France, allow screening of the egg and embryo selection. Here in the United States, the use of this technology is completely legal as long as one is willing to pay.
This technology is known as Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in which the DNA is screened to check for the presence of illnesses. The most common diseases that have been prevented with this technology include: Down’s syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, Huntington’s chorea and Cooley’s anemia. Based on the mothers age and how many children she has previously had, the cost can range from $10,000 to $33,000. Although most parents use this technology to prevent a disease from being passed on to their children, in the future parents will be able to ‘enhance’ their future child by inducing changes in the embryonic stem cells. This could enhance a child’s mental and physical abilities with things such as height, build, hair color, personality, intelligence, and more.
The PGD technology, along with the future technology in creating a ‘perfect’ baby, brings up many opposing viewpoints. On one hand, many people believe this could lead to a Eugenic connection. The pursuit of improving genetics isn’t a new phenomena. In history, the practice of Eugenics was widely accepted as a way to preserve and further certain races. Although the idea of selective breeding is close to non-existent today, the pursuit of a disease free society with possible physical alterations is as alive as ever through designer babies.
Many of the skeptical individuals also believe that this technology could give rise to a wider gap between economic classes. Most families cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars on creating a specific child free of diseases. Within time, a healthy and wealthy class (genetically rich society) could emerge with superior children to those individuals in the lower class that cannot afford to go through this process. This means that the wealthy class could forever be more athletic, attractive, intelligent, and the list goes on.
Many people also wonder whether or not certain physical characteristics that a seen as ‘attractive’ will help a person in relationships and employment opportunities. There could be endless opportunities for those individuals deemed ‘perfect’ by our society. This is a very controversial issue with other questions on discriminating against individuals with a disability, gender imbalance, and many more.
On the other hand, many individuals believe that this process could help families to make sure their child does not have to deal with an illness that could impair that child from living a normal, healthy life. They believe this process could make sure each individual has the potential to achieve equal opportunities and success. This viewpoint may be more common among the scientists rather than the believers or those individuals who hold a strong religious faith.
I am unsure as to where I stand on this issue completely. I can understand certain viewpoints from both sides. I can understand why parents would want their children to have all of the same opportunities as other children. Parents do not want their child to have to sit on the side while all of the other kids are out running around on the playground. Preventing a life-threatening disease is when I believe this technology would be useful. I do not think it is natural to alter a child’s genes to have a certain physical appearance. Every child is unique in his or her own way and it just doesn’t seem right create a ‘perfect’ baby that is more attractive than other children. Of course it may be useful to have a child a brilliant as Einstein or as talented and
athletic and Aaron Rodgers, but are those the only factors that truly matter in life?
Being the scientist that I am I find this post as well as all of the technologies including "gene therapy" really interesting. Not only does the main ethical argument of who will have access to these treatments and will treatments create a wider gap as far as IQ's go extra between the upper and lower class but also what will these treatments treat. One big ethical question that I think can be explained through culture is the idea of what is a disorder or disease. Many people as you have said you are open to the idea of treating disease or disorders with gene therapy however that means there must be a way to decide what is "normal" and what is "abnormal". Obviously intelligible bodies would come into play here. Is being short a disorder? Is being brunette a disorder? Are brown eyes a disorder? Also if they are disorders and you treat them then will all of the people that are tall with brown hair and brown eyes be looked badly upon for being abnormal? Not only may they be looked down upon but because it would be a treatable condition they would possibly be further stigmatized. Obviously this example is an extreme one but it is ethical concerns like these that scare people away from gene therapy. Who decides what normal is? Do the rich decide it? Do the gene therapy companies decide? Someone would end up with this power.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with "designer babies" arises when people start choosing genes not for their baby's health, but for personal reasons. The most controversial idea is picking the gender. This could throw off the natural balance of males to females. Is it immoral because it wasn't the child's choice? Or does it even matter? Does the child ever need to know?
ReplyDelete