The ethics of designer babies

Babies — Or Lack Thereof Should we let nature take its course or should we reap the benefits of our genetic-modification capabilities?

Graphic: J. Baldyga

by: ADDISON SWANSON staff writer

Imagine—you and your partner sit down in a modernly-furnished office within a fertility clinic. You’re presented with a folder containing a menu. This menu, however, is not for deciding whether you want the vanilla macchiato or that tempting iced caramel latte. It’s for viewing human embryo descriptions and selecting traits for your soon-to-be child. This could very well be the reality in the near future. Wake up and smell the java—scientists now have the ability to cook up modified human embryos in tubes (pun intended). But does that mean they should? The original genetics of these embryos are changed in a way that allows for the integration of desired traits and the expulsion of unwanted traits. Needless to say, the controversy of this subject raises a myriad of questions. From an ethical standpoint, is it right to interfere with nature? Conversely, is it right to sit idly by and allow someone to be born with a life-diminishing genetic ailment when we have the technology to correct genetic abnormalities? To give this dilemma some perspective, imagine this scenario: you and your partner have just discovered that your offspring would have a 50–50 chance of inheriting the gene variant that causes Sickle Cell Disease, a genetic disorder where the red blood cells become misshapen and break down. If your child did inherit the “bad” genes, he or she would have a 25% chance of actually developing the condition. Those odds suddenly seem much more horrific. Would you be willing to take that gamble on your child’s health and the health of future generations linked to that child? It’s certainly one thing to utilize our advances in gene modification for the betterment and well-being of a child, but it’s an entirely different thing to exploit such a capability in order to build someone’s idea of a ‘perfect’ child with desired characteristics. Consider natural selection, a natural process through which individuals or groups best acclimatized to the environment are most successful. Traits rendering an organism ill-equipped and incapable of survival eventually vanish from the population altogether. Natural selection relates to genetic modification. It certainly seems that this new technology aims to snuff out malicious and or inefficacious genetics and minimize the likelihood of complications from those genetics. Some believe that genetic modification accelerates the process of what’s already happening through natural means. Others feel there is no way to accurately predict what will happen and thus, genetic modification becomes much more like “playing God,” which is something different altogether. Whether the process should remain natural and deliberate or be hastened through science and technology becomes the essential question. The future rapidly approaches—will our impatience exact a toll? Further complicating the moral aspects of this issue is the financial impediment that, for some, will deny access. We risk creating a society where certain socioeconomic classes (specifically the lower class) would bear a greater burden of genetic disease. In other words, the upper class would have unfathomable opportunities; choosing the eye color of and even boosting a child’s intelligence level (and SAT score) would all be within reach. Hence, those who had the means (wealth, power, influence) could contrive a superior race of human beings, not only influenced by the wealthy class but would also be the wealthy class. This could be Nietzsche’s vision of Übermensch (Super Humans) coming to fruition; in other words, a potentially “perfect” ruling class of designer babies wields power over a mass of inferiors. Where do we draw the line? Are human beings vending machines into which an elite few would simply insert a coin, press a few buttons and have a perfectly designed child pop out? The term “designer babies” has a negative connotation, suggesting something unethical or discretionary. While it could also be used in a sensible and sagacious manner to benefit humanity by eliminating malignant genetics, the potential for human abuse is pretty easy to envision. Our advances in genetic modification (if used responsibly) could help to mitigate human suffering and, simultaneously, could rival the discovery of fire in human evolution. As with so many human endeavors, “there’s the rub,” as Shakespeare’s Hamlet would say. This is human life, or more accurately, the human “condition” and ultimately the future of the human race that we’re dealing with here. Then again, in the face of catastrophic dilemmas like global warming, and potential pandemics like COVID-19, perhaps designer babies are “much ado about nothing.” //

The Ethics of Designer Babies — Or Lack Thereof