Designer Babies: Ethics of Genetic Modification

Introduction: From Science Fiction to Scientific Reality

The idea of the designer baby used to belong squarely in the realm of science fiction. Choosing the characteristics of offspring — from gender to appearance — was something out of Star Trek. It seems unnatural for parents to simply pick and choose traits they find desirable in their children, as if they were at a car dealership selecting a new sedan. Yet what was once considered a far-fetched proposition is now drawing steadily closer to reality.

Still in the relatively early stages of scientific experimentation, geneticists are only a few years away from perfecting the process of made-to-order children. Among the aspects that can be genetically modified are looks, personality, and even a child's IQ. This process, known formally as genetic modification, can alter almost anything about a person, including gender, the removal of potential genetic disease markers, and much more. The science of genetic modification is fascinating, but it does not automatically resolve the question of ethics. It is important to understand the history of the process and how it works before deciding whether creating children in this way is ethically justifiable.

A Brief History of Genetic Engineering in Human Reproduction

Since the first scientific experiments in genetic engineering and assisted reproduction, debate has raged over the morality of these "unnatural" interferences. Even early geneticists worried about the potential consequences of eugenics research (Carlson). The most common form of human genetic engineering used today is in vitro fertilization (IVF). This process takes a sperm and egg from a mother and father and fertilizes the egg outside the body, in a laboratory setting. The resulting embryo is then inserted into a womb — either that of the biological mother or a surrogate. The first child born through IVF was Louise Brown in 1978. Her birth made world news and ignited debate about whether Brown was a "natural" child. Because she was created with scientific assistance, some questioned whether she should even be counted a full human being.

Building on IVF, which allowed formerly infertile parents to have biological children, genetic engineers continued their research toward technologies that would create true "designer babies." For people who had attempted IVF without success, a new hope emerged through the work of embryologist Jacques Cohen (Brownlee 2002). The first child conceived through this process — known as cytoplasmic transfer — was born in 1997. Four years later, once it was confirmed that the child was developing normally, Cohen and his colleagues announced that several children born through cytoplasmic transfer actually had three genetic parents: a mother, a father, and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that had been infused into their embryonic forms. The scientists had, in fact, genetically enhanced the children through the addition of this third genetic factor. These children would, in turn, pass this addition of mitochondrial DNA on to their own offspring.

The Philosophical and Social Context of Human Creation

The question of human creation has been a subject of debate among philosophers, physicians, religious scholars, and scientists for far longer than recorded history. Today these debates continue without any settled conclusions. Pro-life and pro-choice advocates argue passionately over the question of life — specifically, at what point a cluster of cells becomes a true human being and, more importantly, when the rights and laws that apply to a full-term person begin to apply to those cells.

People also continue to argue over what defines the act of living in cases such as those of individuals on life-support machinery, the right to die, and who holds the authority to make such decisions when a person cannot speak for themselves. The question of human genetic engineering falls squarely within this broader cluster of ethical disputes — disputes that touch on the very definition of humanity.

Arguments in Favor of Genetic Modification

Those who support the process of genetic modification argue that its benefits far outweigh any negative possibilities. One prominent group of proponents identifies as Transhumanists (Bostrom 2007). They support genetic modification because of one of its potential long-term effects: engineering out genetic diseases and building in genetic markers to improve appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence will give engineered individuals a marked advantage over those who have not been genetically modified. The offspring of these individuals will inherit the same genetic benefits (Bostrom 2007). This could potentially drive an evolutionary shift in which genetic diseases are progressively eliminated and humanity as a whole becomes healthier over successive generations.

If morality is decided by majority opinion, then genetic engineering is not morally wrong. A recent U.S. survey suggests that most citizens approve of eugenics when it comes to improving the health of babies and children and eliminating or treating genetic diseases (Kauffman 2009). One compelling case of genetic modification used to cure illness is the conception and birth of Adam Nash. Adam was born to Lisa and Jack Nash in 2000. The Nashes had a six-year-old daughter, Molly, who had been born with a genetic bone marrow disease. Molly needed a bone marrow transplant from an exact genetic match if she had any hope of surviving.

In response to the crisis, the Nashes decided to have another child who could serve as a donor. To ensure the child would be healthy, the couple had their embryos subjected to genetic screening and selection to confirm that the new child would not carry the disease markers — a necessary step, since both parents were carriers and most of the embryos tested positive. They also ensured that the chosen embryo would be a direct genetic match for Molly. Using blood from the umbilical cord and the infant's bone marrow, doctors were able to save Molly's life (Brownlee 2002). The Nashes now have two healthy children instead of one little girl dying of a serious and often fatal disease.

Conclusion: An Unresolved Ethical Debate

Like any topic deserving serious debate, there is no clear answer about which side is right and which is in the moral wrong. Those who support genetic engineering and the creation of "designer babies" will continue to hold their beliefs regardless of opposing arguments. Supporters believe the process will help children by eradicating genetic diseases and enhancing attributes to give each child a better life. Those opposed hold that genetic modification is unnatural and poses dangers to the broader population.

Possession of the technology to genetically alter embryos does not, in itself, determine whether humans should use that technology. This is true of any scientific discovery, especially those that touch on the nature of humanity — a question that has resisted definitive answers despite millennia of debate and inquiry. As research into bioethics continues to evolve alongside the science, society will be compelled to revisit these questions with increasing urgency.

References

Agar, Nicholas (2006). "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations." American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Annas, G. (2002). "Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations." American Journal of Law and Medicine. 28:162.

Bostrom, Nick (2007). "In Defense of Posthuman Dignity." University of Oxford.

Brownlee, Shannon (2002). "Designer Babies." Washington Monthly.

Carlson, Elof. "Scientific Origins of Eugenics." Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research Program.

Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press.

Kauffman, Hattie (2009). "Designer Babies: Ethical?" Early Show. CBS: New York.

Lemonick, Michael D. (1999). "Designer Babies." Time Magazine.