“My Son, Designed to be an Athlete”
It’s clear that improvements from the HGP will lead to more discussion about “fixing” problems within the genome. There are benefits that come from knowing the genome. For example, tailoring correct medicine to individuals that will see results. However, there are also risks. Should one be able to decide what genes to include in their offspring? Is granting scientists, as well as individuals, power over deciding what genes are “better” than others in babies going too far? What if disease could be prevented, but that means “designing” the sex of your child? How far is too far? And, Where do you think the line should lie? The last link lists what other countries laws on the subject are as of 2002.
Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering:
Design your own baby here!:
More info on what other countries have to say:
(If you’re interested… However, please note that this information is a little outdated)
I believe that testing for incurable disease can affect the individual either positively or negatively depending on their outlook on life. Some people can take the bad news and constantly stress about their health and how much time they may have left to live. Some people are unable to handle bad news very well so for them, it might be better to not know so that they don’t add too much stress onto their lives. On the other hand, there are some people who are able to take bad news and make something positive out of it. Some may use the time that they have with family and those closest to them. Others may take the opportunity to focus and complete all their goals to ensure that they are able to have a full life.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to creating a designer baby, I think that selecting certain genes to decrease the risk of the child developing a life threatening disease is okay when the risk is significantly high. But when it comes to selecting certain genes for every single detail of your baby, I think that’s going too far. Sometimes we have to just let nature do its job. We are all unique in our own way thanks to the different genetic combinations made in nature.
I agree with Liz. Sure it is ideal to believe that we can alter a baby's genes before they are born to assure that they are free of any genetic disorders that may negatively impact his or her quality of life. I think that it would be easy to say that no one would want to be born with a genetic disorder if given the opportunity, but unless we have a disorder we can't really say if quality of life is diminished because of a persons genetic makeup. I think that this is the same for parents, on one hand as a parent you want your child to be healthy and I'm sure any parent would do whatever they can to make sure that their child is born healthy. On the other hand there are many people who want their child in whatever natural form they are born and will do anything they can to give them the best quality of life possible given their genetic disorder.
DeleteIt is a very controversial issue and I don't think that there will ever be a right way to approach the topic of designer babies. However, I don't think that it will ever be ethical to choose a child's gender, hair color, eye color, etc solely based on personal preference. I fear that if choosing a baby's genes to prevent genetic disorders were to become readily available that this procedure would gradually lead to the use of these procedures for non medical reasons. I'm not sure whether it is better to not introduce this technology at all or to deal with the medical ethics that lie behind each procedure as they come.
I think that as long as the designing of children stays within the gene options of the parents, we could retain much the diversity we feel we would lose. We would basically be selecting for what our parents, with the counseling of genetic engineers, have found as desirable traits. We do this already with embryonic screening for different conditions. This would, of course, require strict regulation throughout the family history to ensure that the inhibition or activation of one gene does not cause a dangerous recessive condition to appear in later generations.
ReplyDeleteScientists may never know which genes are best to alter, and genetic engineering may always be just work in progress where we never know everything that could occur. However, if we are able to start designing children, it may be possible to scientists to make reasonable assumptions about a child's future based on what the altered genes do and statistical data of how other children with the same altered genes have done. This would be a valuable tool for parents wishing for the best possible life for a child, which in some cases might mean that they would have to sacrifice altering a gene they found desirable.
With preimplantation genetic diagnosis, testing or genetic modification depends on the parents' decisions, and this leads to two important ethical concerns. First, whether or not the consent of the child should be considered is an important ethical dilemma. Perhaps an individual with a family history of Huntington's disease would want to receive testing to know whether or not they need to plan their life accordingly, but others may feel as though testing would be a burden. The same idea can apply to genetic modification, where an individual may not want to be deprived of its "natural" life or may resent parents who tried to force an idea of their child on their child. Many people do not follow the career their parents may want, doesn't genetic modification risk applying the same problem in a more permanent way? Second, is genetic modification good for society? For a time, parts of the United States had a eugenics program which, in theory, could be considered understandable at best and abominable at worst. The programs were, in reality, terrible. They target minorities and those deemed "unworthy" of reproduction in the attempt to create a more perfect society. Though Andrew did raise a good point about designer babies, I think it will impossible to limit genetic modification once it becomes legal to create designer babies. The temptation to create a "perfect" baby or a "perfect" world is one that societies have striven towards for hundreds of years, often with dangerous results, especially for those considered to be "different." Also, genomics is very complex. Genetics alone is a mind-numbingly complex interaction of thousands of genes and DNA sequences. Add to this epigenetic modification and environmental effects and the complexity is almost endless. Though technology is rapidly advancing, it never advances as rapidly as the human ego. Risking the integrity of the vast and complex gene-environment system to create a baby with a certain color hair or athletic ability seems unwise at best.
ReplyDeleteAll this being said, I fully agree with Elizabeth about the limits to testing and "designing" babies. Many European countries have decided that testing, and sometimes even genetic modification, is acceptable to prevent serious disease. As described by Elizabeth and the Genetic Inequality article, testing for serious diseases like Huntington's disease can be beneficial for people even if there is no available treatment. Serious and debilitating diseases, especially degenerative diseases are very painful for the child and the parents, and very costly to the health care system. Careful and limited genetic modification may be helpful in these extreme circumstances, but certainly nothing more.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's really difficult to make a valid argument without resorting to value judgements and appealing to some moral or intrinsic authority. I don't think scientists should use gene doping (non-therapeutic use) on their subjects and I don't believe it's right for a parent to request that it be done on their child.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if biologically, humans will ultimately be the ones to wipe out our own race. Each species that walks the earth today is here at this point in time as a result of natural selection and evolution. Essentially, you're erasing this biological phenomenon that's been around for millions of years and replacing it with a human-controlled, intentional form of evolution. So instead of genocide, you're performing the inverse function. You're breeding and selecting for new generations with "desirable and attractive" characteristics. But these traits aren't going to be a biological asset in terms of survival, and we can't say for certain that these traits won't be harmful in the future (e.g. increasing muscle mass in athletes alters biomolecular structures and consequently, their physiological functions).
However, from a societal standpoint, parents do have a high degree of freedom when it comes to raising their kids. They control the environment their child develops in, so why shouldn't they have the freedom to control the genetic outcome of their child too? All I have to say is, I'm excited to read everyone's opinions.
I like the way Suzann looked at the issue of designer babies from two different points of view. I thought it was very interesting that she brought up the concept of "survival of the fittest." It is true that, by selecting for specific traits, you are wiping out all those with unfavorable traits. But I think the real question is: What is a favorable trait?
DeleteI think that depends on the individual, and that's why breeding for certain traits is unethical. If everyone could have a choice of what they wanted their child to be like, there would be such a great expectation for that child to show that trait to its fullest potential. For example, if a parent decided that they wanted their child to be an excellent athlete, that child would be looked poorly upon if they decided that they did not want to play sports and wanted to be something else such as an actor or writer.
Also, as the first article said, this gene selection would only be for the rich. Inequalities between SES would become more prominent. The people who have genes selected for them will be the best at what they do in a so-called unnatural way. They may not be rewarded for their talents because their parents will know that the gene selection is what makes them this way.
As for preventing disease, I agree with Elizabeth. I believe that it is only completely necessary if there is a substantial chance of a better and longer life if the sex is selected for. However, I think once you start selecting for anything, it opens up new doors for all sorts of selection. I am torn by this, especially since some countries believe that is appropriate in some cases whereas others do not. My final thought is that no one should be able to play god, even if it means making a person more favorable in the society that they live in.
These are some really great points. I think 2 of the social issues that Dana brings up are really important and perhaps even often overlooked in discussions about "designer babies." First, if we are designing children to look a certain way or to be genetically compatible with a certain type of lifestyle, what happens if the children reject this look or this lifestyle? As in Dana's example, a child that is genetically engineered to be an athlete may ultimately decide they don't want to play sports at all. Or a child that is genetically designed to have blonde hair may dye his or her hair purple. It seems that there are a lot of troubling social expectations and value judgments that are attached to this type of genetic engineering, and I imagine there could also be significant social consequences attached to these expectations if children do not live up to them. What does that say about parents or about society as a whole if we are linking the value of our children to their ability to play sports or to their asthetic appearance in such a deep way that we are engraining these social values into their genes?! Of course I understand that parents usually want the best for their children and that using genetic technologies to equip them with tools and skills is a way parents can try to give their children the best chance to succeed. But I also think there is a fine line between equipping our children to succeed and giving them the genes they need to live the life WE want them to live. It seems like a rather large burden for a child to carry to know that their parents genetically engineered them to be an athlete, and in this way, I imagine there would be a lot of pressure to live up to that expectation.
DeleteSecondly, Dana also brings up a good point about the implications that genetic engineering would have on socioeconomic status and social disparities. If individuals from affluent backgrounds can give their children unnatural benefits that would enhance their physical, social or mental capabilities and intelligence, that doesn't seem to be very fair to those who are from more disenfranchised backgrounds. Certainly life is not fair in a lot of ways, and the capitalistic nature of American society usually does not cater to such considerations about social justice, but I definitely think it is worthwhile to think about the impact that genetically engineering children could have on the structure of society. Eventually, if genetic engineering becomes the norm in society, this development could even mean that those who are born into poverty and cannot access genetic enhancements will never be able to work themselves out of poverty. If impoverished individuals can't access these enhancements, perhaps they will not be able to compete with those who have been unnaturally enhanced to be smarter, faster and stronger. This is really troubling. And in effect, this could mean the destruction of the American dream that encourages working hard to make a living and creating opportunities for yourself and your family to have a better life. That is obviously a far-off assertion that is not even close to being a reality at the present moment, but I think the point is that there would be significant social consequences and a widening social disparity gap between the rich and the poor as a result of genetic engineering becoming a norm within the upper/middle class.
As the two previous commentators above me have discussed, the social pressures on children who have been genetically designed to embody a particular "talent" or skill like athletic ability would undoubtedly be detrimental to the child and to the parent-child relationship. Modifying your child to embody a certain likeness or talent creates an expectation of extraordinary success, like winning a gold medal in the Olympics or playing piano like a virtuoso. Parents would likely start pushing their children harder than "natural" babies because they know the child is genetically programmed to excel. By the same token, success may not be greeted with the same parental pride and approval that our own parents feel when we achieve - after all, the child would just be fulfilling expectations, not exceeding them. Children could also have a different perception of their parents and find it difficult to explore their own interests without disappointing the families that have high hopes for their progeny.
DeleteI think the concerns about social pressures on children is interesting to note but after participating in "designing my own baby," I found the final information provided under the "find out more" button intriguing. It said- "It is nowhere near possible today but in the future, inherited characteristics ... could be selected or inserted... Other characteristics, however, such as intelligence, athleticism and beauty are so greatly influenced by environmental factors (such as parenting and nutrition) that genetic manipulation is never likely to have more than a slight effect." With that said, I don't think we have to raise as high concerns about society potentially crossing a line where we can't distinguish between when we have taken it too far or not. In a sense, we can technically manipulate our own inherited genes such as eye color, hair color, or other physical characteristics with or without genetic manipulation by specifically choosing whom we mate with.
DeleteAnd as it was noted, I don't think desirable "talents or skills" can be genetically manipulated because those are just unique characteristics that are inherent on some individuals and not others, and I don't think there are specific genes that grants someone the skill to be able to sing well, play an instrument, and/or excel at a sport.
Nonetheless, I do understand how it this could take a toll on the child's or parent(s) own emotions if genetic manipulation were to ever be able to design a baby to that extent.
The concept of a "designer" baby is unnerving to me not just because it seems "unnatural" , but because the consequences of such technology are still unknown. I think it is fair to say that given the opportunity, many parents would choose to use genetic modification to get the baby outcomes they desire. While I can understand modifying for medical reasons, such a disease, I do not agree with modifying for social reasons or personal preferences. You take a big risk when you modify genes because you don't know what effect the changes could have on other genes and the risk does not seem worth it just to have a certain eye color, for example.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think that if we start modifying for personal reasons, a stigma could form against people who choose not to genetically modify or can't afford to. As the article stated, there is already building concern that " designer" babies will lead to old eugenics where those who don't have the desired inherited traits are slowly weeded out of society. This fear may be a little premature because the majority of people do not yet genetically modify their children but it is a rising worry as creating designer babies becomes more of a common practice.
With that said, I think it will be interesting to watch how the medical field and professions change as this technology becomes more available. How would health care change in a world without the high levels of serious diseases or chronic conditions that we currently have? How would health insurance practices and policies change?
I agree with Laura. I think that a huge issue is that if this is allowed, either for medical purposes or for creating a "designer" baby, that some (actually most) people will not be able to afford it. Is it unfair that the wealthier people will be able to use this to prevent disease and promote health, but those of lower socioeconomic status will not be able to afford this type of medicine. This will continue to broaden the gap if the rich are able to create healthy, advantageous children as opposed to the lower and middle class whose children are whatever they happen to get.
DeleteI agree with many of the points made above. I agree with Suzann, that even putting all science aside there will be differences in opinions based on personal values. I also agree with the ideas regarding genetic alterations and socioeconomic status. I do think that if "designer babies" become a la mode, social inequalities will not only widen, but potentially become visible through phenotypes. I then worry about future discrimination that could occur even with GINA.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that Andrew pointed out what would happen if people were locked into choosing from the genes of the parents only. I think this is more likely to occur in our lifetime than the alternative. It seems more natural and far less controversial. I personally hope to only live to see genetic modifications for medical purposes. I do not agree with modifications for social reasons, and the difference in medical vs. social engineering will make the line very tough to draw. I'm sure some genetic social aspects could be argued from a mental health standpoint, but I currently only agree with designing babies to avoid diseases and medical conditions.
I think it is good to use this process when working to prevent any genetic disorders and diseases, but we have to be cautious of knowing where to draw the line. I agree with the 'survival of the fittest' concern- that if we are able to choose what genes are more favorable, then the population of those who do not have those genes, possibly because they cannot afford the procedure, will be discriminated against. I think it goes too far to be able to pick and choose ones' eye color, hair color, height, because parents can ultimately try to predetermine what they want their child to be like. For example, if they desire for their child to become a professional football player, they will be able to choose the genes that will make that possible (strong build, height). It seems to diminish the autonomy of the child, because he/she might be pressured into having to live the life that his/her parents 'designed' them to live. The child will not have as much freedom in pursuing after what he/she wants to do. I think we have to try hard to control the situation of designer babies and be cautious in knowing how to use all the technology and procedures that we already know and are capable of doing.
ReplyDeleteI think people have the right to select the child that will have the best opportunity in life among the children they could possible produce, using all available natural and technological methods available to them. However, I feel this gene selection is unethical that it might violate the Principle of Nonmaleficence. For example, if people are given full choice over gene selection they might, as happens in China under the one-child policy, be incredibly sex-selective and choose to abort female fetuses in order to birth only boys (or vice versa), or select only the most desired traits. This could lead to social disturbances in gender imbalances and reduction in gene pool diversity. Also, I believe the value of parental love will be destroyed since people will no longer accept the flaws of their original children and truly love them for who they really are. The act of reproduction would become a business and lab experiment, as people would be able to, as it were, create custom, designer babies.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you, Lilun. I think parents would loose a lot of appreciation for their children's ability to grow and thrive in the world with specific disabilities or set backs because these "problems" would be taken care of during the gene selecting process. I think that's actually really sad.
DeleteI feel that being able to chose what genes are included in offspring and basically being able to design your own baby is taking it too far. It is amazing that we have all of this information on the genome and mutations, and I find that using this information and technology to help detect disease or mutations that could cause disease is a great advancement that can help a lot of people. But I also feel that we do not know the full consequences of doing this and I feel that if we start to design our offspring it is one step too far.
ReplyDeleteIt also may cause issues in society, this process of designing offspring is obviously unnatural and it has parents picking what genes are "better" then others, but what does "better" mean? Is tall better than short? Brown hair better then blonde? When I was looking at the link listed and I got to the design your own baby link I was shocked. While I feel that knowing a child will have a medically disabling disease could be beneficial and important when planning a family, I do not feel it is necessary or natural to be able to pick the color of your child's hair.
I agree Natalie. I don't think it is necessary or natural to allow parents to select certain characteristics of their children that do not pertain directly to health or disease status, especially when many of these characteristics are very subjective value judgements. However, in taking this a step further, I think in discovering and utilizing our capabilities to manipulate genes to prevent disease and fix mutations, we have really opened pandora's box. We now know that we can do these things, and however troubling that may be to some people, there are scientific researchers who will develop these services, biotech companies who will market them to make money, and people who will purchase them. I really don't think we will be able to put the cat back in the bag on this one given the immense implications and scientific promise tied to genetic engineering. For better or for worse, I think we are in it for the long haul and will have to address the implications and consequences of developing a technology that may exceed our ability to uphold a level of societal morality that we all find tasteful.
DeleteThe trouble with “designer babies” lies in the social implications rather than the health of the offspring. While geneticists argue over the use of the term ‘eugenics’ that is what widespread use of this technology would become. Sex selection, which is widely accepted in the cases of sex-linked hereditary disease, is one step into a dangerous spiral that has the ability to culminate in designer children that dictate which genes are “good” or “bad”. This will only further divide socio-economic classes and continue to affect future generations.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may be a right to be able to determine the sex of your own child, the issue with “designer babies” comes from the ability to choose genes that neither parent possesses in order to have more favorable characteristics. The price of these procedures will prevent many from being able to participate. The inevitable social divide it will cause outweighs potential benefits. The legality and ethics of the argument may land on opposite sides but both strive for the same result of equality and longevity. Restricting reproductive rights seems like infringement of personal rights but still takes into account most major criticisms, like allowing sex selection in the case of genetic disease. Allowing the process of “designing” children to continue, especially without educating parents, has social implications way larger than the benefits.
I agree with a lot of these people. The idea of "creating" a perfect child seems upsetting to me. I think it would cause the chil much grief once they were old enough to realize that they were created to be a specific way. They would wonder why their parents felt the need to design them and if they would have loved them had they not been perfectly engineered. It also puts a lot of stress on the child to be and act in the way their parents have chosen for them. Like the article said, if the parents choose to enhance specific genes so that the child has outstanding musicality, this could cause many problems in the future. What if the child falls in love with the sport of swimming and doesn't want to play the trumpet? The child would feel terrible having to go against it's parents wishes and many possible mental disorders could develop (like depression or anxiety). I think it is very difficult to decide where to draw the line. I do think that parents should be allowed to prevent delibitating diseases and/or disorders, but defining "debilitating" is extremely difficult. Some parents might see Down Syndrome as a horrible birth defect and would want to get rid of it if their child possesed the extra trisomy 21 gene. However, some parents may see this disability as a hurdle that their child can overcome and will become a stronger human being for having pushed through a challenging disability. I'm very curious to see what the future holds in terms of "designer babies" but I'm sure it will entail much debate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the "create your own baby" site is really fun to play around with. You should give it a try if you haven't yet. It is very strange to imagine actually being able to maybe do this one day...
- Caroline Booth
Caroline,
DeleteIt is ironic, yet true in many ways, what you said in your comment when you wrote:
"However, some parents may see this disability as a hurdle that their child can overcome and will become a stronger human being for having pushed through a challenging disability."
My parents say something very similar all the time to me. Although I would not classify my autoimmune diseases as a disability at all, I wish many times when I am really sick that my parents were able to design me as a healthy individual, since I am not in so many ways genetically. But interestingly, my parents tell me that they have seen me grow stronger and stronger over the years, which I hope is a good thing and something I can continue in my future.
I also think “fixing” is the wrong word when it comes to genetics. It continues the idea that there is a perfect a gene or that the differences in genes is a bad thing. Using “fixing” will encourage people to do the same and to want them to make designer babies. I agree that there are benefits from knowing the genome but there are definite risks. But although my benefits may be risk another person’s eyes and vice versa.
ReplyDeletePeople should not be able to completely decide what genes to include in their offspring. And we should definitely not grant scientists, as well as individuals, the power to decide what genes are “better” than others in babies.
However I feel like in the eyes of a parent, is no such thing as a “line”. There is no “too far”. Especially if a disease could be prevented, but it meant that I’d have to “design” the sex of my baby I would do it. If I knew I could protect my child before s/he came into the world I would do anything in my power to do so.
But there is the point where the line is blurred or the idea of the parent protecting their child gets exaggerated. I understand the reasons for wanting to “design” a baby if you know you have a genetic disease or something but when you want a designer baby because you want a musical genius child…that’s too much. Like Elizabeth said selecting certain genes to decrease the risk of the child developing a life threatening disease is acceptable, but beyond that its unfair and immoral. Not everyone would have the opportunity or the resources to design their own baby. What if the doctor and the parent disagree? What if the child doesn’t turn out the way the parents had hoped or planned and they sue the hospital or the doctor? What if there are risks to the child? What if the child that’s destined to be a musical genius doesn’t want to be a musical genius or chooses not to work on his/her potential? This leads to the point Sami made about the morality of designers babies. What about the consent of the child?
I also think Suzann said something really interesting: “I wonder if biologically, humans will ultimately be the ones to wipe out our own race.” I feel like by giving this power to doctors and individuals it would lead to eugenics and this genetic cleansing could lead to deleterious circumstances. It’s unnatural and it could lead to the end of something. I’m not sure if that would be our race but I know it would be something substantial. And as Dana said by doing any of this we are going against natural selection. But is that a bad thing? Like I mentioned in my post from last week…we have unnaturally been doing things for a while…taking medication and certain drugs for things as simple as a headache is unnatural. But we do it anyway…but is that necessarily a bad thing?
But I think Elizabeth put it really well: “We are all unique in our own way thanks to the different genetic combinations made in nature”. We are the way we are because of genetics. Who are we to decide if we should alter what? We aren’t God and it almost seems as if we are taking the role of God (or some higher power) or nature. And I personally would not want to take responsibility .
I agree with many people's previous comments about designer babies. In some ways designer babies is a slippery slope. The original intent might be to prevent various hereditary diseases but this intent could easily evolve into parents choosing exactly what they want their children to look like and what activities they want their children to excel in (similar to what Caroline was saying). The idea of parents being able to choose the traits of their children is very scary. It reminds of the movie, Stepford Wives, where husbands were able to alter their wives to be the "ideal" wife for them. To me, this movie is completely unrealistic but the idea of designer babies is a very similar concept. It definitely will be interesting to see what the future holds for designer babies.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the class is in agreement on social and ethical concerns regarding designer babies and genetic enhancement that is unrelated to preventing serious illness. I agree with the ideas brought up in the posts above and the negative social implications and resultant inequality. I thought it might be interesting to see the other side of the debate and how proponents of designer babies defend the idea. Here is an interview with James Hughes, who supports using this technology for cosmetic purposes: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify - I do not agree with James Hughes - but it's interesting to read another opinion.
Allison Manfreda
ReplyDeleteI think the question of whether or not people should be able to decide what genes to include in their offspring is a very loaded and controversial question because there are both positive and negative consequences to this possibility being granted. Some of the positive consequences are using the genome to tailor correct medicine to individuals (as stated above) or discovering how nutrition and genes interact to discover particular foods that may benefit an individual instead of medicine, among others. Negative consequences are also mentioned in the question, such as “designing” the offspring, which may have psychological impacts on both the parent and child if they design the child to be “something” and the child wants something different in life (i.e. athlete, artist, etc).
I believe people whose offspring will be at a significant to high risk of a disease should be able to decide what genes to include or avoid/what sex the offspring will be, for the purpose of lowering or eliminating the risk of disease or morbidity. I do not necessarily believe that trying to decrease the risk of the offspring developing a disease should be considered “designing.” I think there is a significant difference between trying to avoid morbidity and potential suffering for the offspring and making sure that the baby has “blonde hair and blue eyes” because you like them (for example).
It is difficult to draw a “line” in regards to what is too far. Many different disciplines are involved in these types of questions and may have impacts of individuals in ways that are not always clear, i.e. psychological, etc. I think that the line should be drawn between making genetic changes for the purpose of decreasing the risk of the offspring developing disease or morbidity, and designing the offspring to merely fit the likes of the parent. I think that one has a medical purpose while one is aesthetic, and may not be necessary.
In addition, I found the “create your baby” online game to be slightly disturbing. It makes the process seem so simple, however it is not simple at all! It is an ethically and scientifically loaded and controversial issue and is “dumbed down” to “pick out colors and shapes,” literally as if the offspring is coming from a designer factory.
Although the information on the last link may be outdated, I found it really interesting that none of the countries fully allowed open reign to individuals to “design” their offspring, but either prohibited it or stipulated that it may only be allowed in cases where a significant or high risk of disease exists. This is similar to what I stated before and I believe that these types of distinctions help draw the line between what is abuse and what is medical intervention.
I would have liked to reply to Suzann Duan's post but my computer is currently not letting me reply specifically to her post so I shall just cite it instead. It's interesting how Suzann brings up the concept of human-manipulated evolution (due to "designing" our offspring) that could potentially have harmful effects on the longevity of the human race. In my Health and Human Rights class, one of my professors brought up the debate on human genetic manipulation and designer babies. All these points mentioned above in previous posts were discussed thoroughly but it was hard to come to any sort of conclusion. I thought it would add to the discussion if I were to post a link to a debate that my professor participated in. It's rather long but if you skip through, you can get an idea of some of the major ideas being thrown around:
ReplyDeletehttp://uctv.ucsd.edu/search-details.aspx?showID=7726
He also wrote a convention on the preservation of the human species and it serves as a sort of template for a future International Treaty to ban inheritable alterations of our offspring. It's really interesting to see how genetics is addressed/discussed today. This is a real life example of how genetic engineering is a controversial and much debated topic. Check it out and see what you think:
http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/downloads/2002_ajlm_annasetal.pdf
We may read articles as these and think that it won't affect our lives-- that it's so far in the future, we don't have to worry about it. But the truth is that the topics of genetic engineering and designer babies are relevant and apply to our lives now. The links I've posted and the articles assigned to be read are proof.
As many people have already mentioned, selecting desired genes for your offspring, whether it be for legitimate medical purposes or alternate purposes, raises a lot of controversy. Most would agree that using gene selection for the betterment of your baby's health is ethical. However, allowing gene manipulation for medical purposes opens the door for individuals to use gene selection for other purposes we would deem unnecessary and unethical. For instance,personally, I find parents selecting genes so that their child has a certain hair/eye color or certain talents unethical. If individuals were granted these powers of gene manipulation, I fear what the future of the human race would be like. The gap of inequality would likely widen greatly, and there is no telling what psychological effects this process could have on the manipulated offspring. To conclude, while I think gene selection has useful and ethical purposes, I think it raises too many potentially harmful and unethical risks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the responses here - that there could be substantial benefits to determining whether or not your future offspring were at high risk for certain diseases, but desining your own children is something entirely different. Everyone seems to agree that these are both ethically controversial issues. I think that choosing non-disease traits for your children is ultimately non-beneficial for the family and the child in question. Though the parents have a right to raise their child however they see fit, I personally don't think that they have a right to have their children genetically predisposed to certain things or have "desireable traits". Even if they think that they are acting in the best interest for their unborn child, there is really no way of knowing that with certainty - their child will have to ultimately make decisions for itself and shouldn't feel as though it has to live up to an expectation because of its altered genes. I like that people have been bringing up the issue of variability and how genetically changing humans to have desireable traits would take this natural diversity out of the population. With regards to preimplantation diagnosis and disease-related genetic testing, I think that has to be up to the parents and whether or not they want to know if their child carries the gene for a disease or will develop a disease later in life. A benefit of knowing something like this would be that the parents would have time to prepare mentally and physically for caring for their child, even if it is educating the child to seek care later in life. However, the article points out, there are possibly negative effects of knowing such information, like stress and preoccupation of the parents.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many arguments against human genetic engineering, and I have to admit, I understand many of them despite the fact that I strongly believe that preventing disease is an amazing reason to use genetic engineering. Arguments against include safety issues, the loss of one's identity and individuality, and the loss of human diversity. To many people, the scariest thought of all is that our human race will simply become another 'man-made thing' that is controlled by machines, technology and/or people. But will a genetically engineered child really be dehumanized if that child is born through modification, yes, but without a life long illness or disease that will affect him or her throughout an entire life?
ReplyDeleteBeing born with 2 autoimmune diseases, I feel as though I really relate to these articles when I put myself in the shoes of the genetically engineered individual they are talking about. Something that struck me in particular about the first article is embryos that are created in vitro. The article explained that, "then, only those embryos that are not affected by a specific genetic illness can be selected and implanted in a woman's uterus." The two genetic diseases I was born with are both present in my family on my dad's side. Honestly, if my parents knew this before I was born, and wanted to prevent me from having to deal with a lot of discomfort and pain that I have gone through, I would have been all for it. I would be really curious what other people in situations similar to mine would think. Perhaps they would say they are who they are, they would never have wanted to be any different, and the experiences and hardships they faced all shaped them into the person they are today. Although I can say that, I would be more in favor of helping and supporting the fact that individuals can be born without diseases that are lifelong and very difficult to deal with at times. What do you think?
It seems the class is in agreement that being able to decide the genes of your new born is a bad idea. This relates back to the slippery slope argument that allowing one case would lead to further more radical cases when gene alternating is taken to another level. Creating these “designer babies” is allowing scientist to play God and I feel that is going too far. Yes genetic disease and variations are unfortunate, however no one will know how significant or severe condition will be until the baby is raised. Also the baby’s genome is only part of the child’s quality of life. The environment and social factors also play a huge role in the child’s development. Falling on eugenics to create “designer babies” will lead down a slipper slope where gene therapy will not be used to treat, but to enhance. Personal identities will be lost if children are designed instead of mixed of their parents. Allowing this type of treatment would also lead to abuse through enhancement of children. Especially in the world of sports, where athletes want every edge they can get on their opponent. Their parents are likely to predispose them to having larger muscle development and athletic ability. Allowing this gene therapy would create social stigma of being a designer child. Leading to elitist attitudes and the opposite happening those who were not designer babies.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprise to see that the class is in agreement that being able to genetically manipulate our babies is an unethical notion. And I believe, at this point in our society, this opinion resonate with the majority of the general public. This is because in our moral standards we know that we are we playing God. However, I feel like our moral standards are giving in little by little as our societal view changes. This reminds me of plastic surgery. The original intention of plastic surgery is to help those who suffered from health conditions to restore/reconstruct their facial feature which would allow them to have better quality of life. Similar to genetic testing and genetic engineering, the hope of plastic surgery is to help people w/ health problems. But we now see that more and more people without a health problem are going for plastic with a different intention. And it seems that getting my nose done or my breast done just because I want to be “prettier” has become acceptable to the public. The current phenomenon of why people going to plastic surgery is rather complex and I am not an expert in it, but I feel like both of them are similar in a way that they could go through a slippery slope in our moral standards. There's no limit to aesthetics, neither to human’s desire. I believe that before genetic engineering has gone advancing too far, a fine line must be draw to prevent it going into the slippery slope which is driven by human desire.
ReplyDeleteI think its inevitable for a society like ours which so highly stresses the exclusion of God in formal science to push the limits of manipulation as it is doing in the field of genetics. This forces the general public (most of whom believe some sort of supernatural power beyond human control) to rethink the role of science in structuring social norms. To judge the rightness or wrongness of something necessarily means you're making a judgement based on some kind of moral guideline. Because humans cannot objectively create morality, I think our agreement with, disagreement with, and boundaries surrounding the ethics of genetic enhancements/"artistry", if you will, depends on how much we are willing to acknowledge God's power over us.
ReplyDeleteIn the world of modern science this sounds overly philosophical and most importantly untangible, so how will it hold value in a debate over genetic interventions in human life? I don't know. Many argue that limitations prescribed by religion are precisely what inhibits scientific development. It may be so, but I believe it's more important to evaluate the intentions behind pursuing certain projects and procedures against some kind of moral framework so social order and structure are maintained somehow. This is inherently what religion exists to do!
First I think that negative body image is such problem in society today especially with media today. Now if there are these "designer babies" what will happen eventually? Will peoples self esteem go down even lower then today since they can not achieve this "ideal" that is genetically altered. Being able to genetically help in certain disease is one thing but to mess with a humans genome to the point that they are just some perfect doll is not right (as already much of the class has agreed on. As I was looking at the genetically engineered cow with the 20% more muscle mass I couldn't help but wonder , how does the cows bones and organs handle the extra strain of the the weight of the muscle. When altering genes in humans could the same happen, where a change in a aspect of the genetics will work but other changes would have been needed to maintain the rest of the body.
ReplyDeleteWhat will happen to those babies that are genetically altered, will their children have any consequences or will they be the "perfect human". And will this be a way to speed up evolution in humans.
Human genetic engineering can be argumentative as positive or negative. The understanding that the negative aspect could be said that it is unethical or is not equal. In athletes, gene coding could easily be said that it is not fair because it takes away from other athletes who train to be the best. Controversially, if genetic engineering can help fight disease and not pass on high risk genes, then why isn't it done more often? The fact that cancer genes could be stopped, for example the BRCA gene , then it would pose a happier life for individuals that won't be at risk for it. The understanding that genetics could be made and designed into something better really is an innovate idea that should be looked at more positively. However, I still hold my argument that the coding a gene to make a very athletic gene is certainly an advantage for that person as they grow.
ReplyDeleteThere are many good and bad potential outcomes from human genetic engineering. Knowing that a future child may have an incurable disease that shortens his/her life can be very difficult to process, and trying to decide whether to have the child or not would be even worse. People are not good at predicting how they will feel in the future, and may overlook repercussions.
ReplyDeleteWhile many terrible congenital diseases could be eliminated with the help of human genetic engineering, it raises the issue of discrimination. While GINA protects people from discrimination based on their genes, if human genetic engineering became widespread, would it be more difficult to enforce GINA?
Human genetic engineering forces us to question who should decide how bearable it is to live with a gene or a disease. Who has the right to tell anyone that their quality of life is lower and that their genes make them less important to society?
As Michelle mentioned above, there are both potential positive and negative effects of human genetic engineering. Genetic screening to help treat certain diseases or conditions early on can be beneficial to both the child and the family. Screening for incurable diseases is a bit more complicated but if it is done early on during pregnancy the parents do have the right to make certain decisions. It also makes sense to undergo “genetic engineering” to block certain genetic disorders.
ReplyDeleteGenetic doping, as it was called in the article, is very different than other types of genetic screening or engineering. The whole idea of genetic doping makes me extremely nervous for the future. Not only does this pose a problem psychologically for the child as well as put a strain on the child/parent relationship, it will dramatically further the problem of health disparities in our country. Socioeconomic status of a child is already the largest predictor for education, health, and future income. So what happens when wealthier parents can design their babies to be more successful in athletics, music, art, academics, and looks? Genetic doping companies would monopolize on the fact that wealthier families would be willing to pay whatever it takes to see their child lead a successful life, so where does that lead those parents who are not wealthy, and more importantly the children of those parents? Genetic doping and designer babies is a frightening concept which should be addressed before it even happens.
The most obvious pro of human genomic engineering is the ability to make disease a thing of the past. Most people on the planet die of disease or have family members that do. Our genomes are not as robust as we would like them to be and genetic mutations either directly cause a disease such as cystic fibrosis, or they contribute to it greatly like Alzheimer's. Or in the case of some conditions such as the heart disease, genetic mutations can make our bodies more susceptible to attack from viruses or our own immune system. If the full benefits of gene therapy are ever realized we can replace bad genes with correctly functioning copies.
ReplyDeleteMost of us want to cling on to life for as long as possible. The genetic engineering of humans has the potential to greatly increase our life spans. Some estimates say that 100-150 years could be the norm. Of course gene therapy for a fatal condition will increase the lifespan of the patient but we're also talking about genetic modifications of healthy people to give them a longer life. Once we fully understand the genetics of ageing it may be possible to slow down or reverse some of the things that lead to our decline.
As exciting as all of this sounds there also are several downsides and ethical dilemmas to genetic engineering. There are risks associated with getting genes into a human body and having them carry out the desired function. Also, we simply do not know long term the potential ramifications of altering genes. A positive change one place can cause a negative effect in another place.
As many other people have mentioned there is also the notion that scientists are “playing God”. Many believe that because of human genetic engineering soon man will be just another man-made thing.
As many others mentioned above there are some great advantages, but also some important disadvantages to genetic engineering. I think that it would be great to be able to use genetic engineering to prevent individuals from getting diseases. This would improve the quality, and in some cases the length, of life for those who would have otherwise been born with a genetic disease. However, once this is allowed it will lead to a slippery slope effect, as Alyssa said above. It will be hard to draw the line and determine to what extent genetic engineering is ethical and should be allowed. Some parents may believe that choosing certain traits for their child, such as physical appearance, is the same as manipulating genes to prevent a disease. It could be argued that the reason for wanting to genetically engineer a child to be a better athlete is the same as the reason for wanting to prevent disease- they both aim to improve the overall quality of the individual’s life. While I think it would be great to prevent disease, I worry that the proper regulations won’t be made to avoid the use of genetic engineering for other non-health related reasons.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem with genetic engineering is the cost. If the use of genetic engineering begins to spread, children will be created with enhanced traits and capabilities. This will raise the standards and norms, and children who are born without genetic engineering will not possess the enhancements and superior traits. I’m not sure exactly how expensive genetic engineering would be, but it can be assumed that the lower and middle class population will not be able to afford it. The higher class will be able to afford and have access to genetic engineering, thus creating greater disparities and widening the gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Ultimately, I think strict guidelines need to be put into place regarding when genetic engineering should and should not be allowed.
Genetic Engineering in the case of babies is all together WRONG!...yes it may help prevent diseases from occurring but this is eventually going to go way to far. Eventually there will be no limits to how far people want to manipulate genes. Having a scientific and a religious approach to this topic, it is hard to determine when do you set a limit for yourself? When do you find that you are almost playing God? I am against genetic engineering when it comes to babies because I feel the child has no voice when this occurs. For a parent to feel that it is okay to manipulate their future children's genes seems rather selfish. Also being that genetic engineering is costly, all this is going to do is create an even greater division in classes. The rich who can afford genetic engineering will have the most intelligent,artistic, musical children while the poor will have to raise the diseased, less intelligent children. Now that would be entirely unfair!..Knowing this why play with the infant's genes. Diseased or not diseased it should be left alone.
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily object to testing embryos for certain genetic disorders, and to the selection and implantation of only the embryos that do not have the genes for the disorder (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD). If there is a significantly high risk of a couple conceiving a child with a serious genetic disorder, then I think that the potential benefits of PGD outweigh the risks. (Of course, then there is the issue of where to draw the line for who is high risk, and which diseases are appropriate to use PGD for.)
ReplyDeleteHowever, when it comes to genes for traits unrelated to disease (such as eye color, musical talent, or athletic ability), I do not believe that people should be able to select which genes their children will have. As others have already discussed, genetic engineering for non-disease traits raises a number of issues (psychological, social, ethical, and moral). First, do you tell the child that they were selected to have certain genes? How will it affect the parents’ style of parenting and the environment that the parent exposes the child to? What if the child does not turn out as the parents expected? (Many genes, as well as the environment, diet, and behavior interact to influence phenotype. Simply because you select a certain trait for a child does not mean that the child will exhibit the trait as you expected.) How will this affect the parent-child relationship? How will all of this affect the psychological well-being of the child? Second, we don’t yet know much of what there is to know about genetics, genetic engineering, and the consequences of interfering with nature. For one thing, what are the health risks to the individual of modifying their genes? One gene can affect more than one trait, and, as the example with mice in the article demonstrates, modifying a gene can have both desirable and undesirable phenotypic effects. Furthermore, designing babies (selecting and modifying the traits of embryos) is in essence interfering with the natural processes of reproduction, natural selection and evolution; interfering with nature can produce unforeseeable and undesirable consequences not only for the individual but for society as a whole. I can’t help but think of our modern food industry, in which we grow vast monocultures of corn (which conflicts with the diversity of nature), feed animals diets that they never evolved to eat, and do not allow animals to live in the symbiotic relationships that developed through evolution. Our creation of a food system that is at odds with nature has created many problems for our health and environment (in particular, obesity and pollution). Finally, one thing that I find unsettling about designing babies is that people would almost be objectifying or dehumanizing embryos (which are living organisms that have the potential to develop into people). It would seem almost as if people would be “shopping” for traits as they select and/or modify the traits of their embryos. Moreover, if people select from among a number of embryos the one embryo that has the traits they want, what happens to the extra embryos? This is an issue that was raised in an article on PGD that the first article above linked to, and this article suggested the possibility of embryos being treated as a marketable commodity. Again, I find this dehumanizing.
I find this to be somewhat frightening. People love to compete, it's in their nature, and i am sure that there are those who would take it beyond what it is intended for - to save lives. If it will be possible to make it so that we know exactly what our baby will grow up to do (have the talent for), what they will look like, etc. whats left? What happens when nothing is left to chance, and life is knowingly predestined. Does it make the journey less interesting, less of an accomplishment if it was what you were programmed to do/become? It's almost as if we were going to plan a whole life out and leave no "free will". Not to mention, the consequences of such manipulation of the human genome are not known. Life should be a mystery, a journey worth taking. A world with no sickness and genetically crafted children seems like a utopia, one which is near impossible to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this topic is unethical and certainly controversial. It can cause unnatural feelings between parents and children and also between children depending on the action taken as a result of genetic screening. Furthermore, it cannot be available to most of the population due to its financial burden. Therefore, it would be unfair that only those in a high socioeconomic class would have access to this technology. Due to our naturally competitive society, I believe that this technology could provide severe consequences in the future.
ReplyDeleteHuman Genetic Engineering raises many ethical concerns including but not limited to unintended personal, social, and cultural consequences, whether or not we are taking a step in the direct of eugenics, and unfair distribution of access to these technologies. These are all very important issues that need to be addressed individually. I think that granting power over deciding what genes are “better” than others in babies is going too far when the reasons are social.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that we should focus more on the advantages to HGE medically. I think that if using HGE can bring about certain benefits such as preventing diseases, it should be legal. I think that using HGE to choose a sex of a baby just because parents prefer one sex another is not a justified reason for using HGE. I think the line should be drawn at a point where HGE can be used to help prevent suffering or disease of the baby itself. Preference of the parents should not be an acceptable reason. Countries like the United Kingdom already have laws in place to help draw this line. In the UK, sex selection based on social rather than medical reasons is not allowed.
As the admin of this site is working, no question
ReplyDeletevery soon it will be well-known, due to its feature contents.
Also visit my page: Craftstuebchen.De
Since the admin of this website is working, no hesitation very
ReplyDeleterapidly it will be renowned, due to its quality contents.
Feel free to visit my homepage :: therapy quit smoking
Incredible! This blog looks just like my old one!
ReplyDeleteIt's on a totally different topic but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Wonderful choice of colors!
my weblog; mkwiki.se
Also see my web page: narutovolution.com
Simply wish to say your article is as surprising.
ReplyDeleteThe clarity for your put up is just excellent and i can suppose
you are knowledgeable on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grasp your RSS feed to stay updated with impending post.
Thanks one million and please continue the enjoyable
work.
my blog: coffee flavor
It's a shame you don't have a donate button! I'd definitely donate to this outstanding blog! I suppose for now i'll settle for
ReplyDeletebook-marking and adding your RSS feed to my
Google account. I look forward to new updates and will share this website with my Facebook group.
Chat soon!
Feel free to surf to my blog post; http://groupbuyingindia.com/property-deals/tall-womens-clothing-fill-your-wardrobe-with-trendy-clothing/
Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up.
ReplyDeleteThe text in your content seem to be running off the screen in Safari.
I'm not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I thought I'd post to
let you know. The design look great though! Hope you get the issue
solved soon. Thanks
My web-site; http://whitecoatresearch.com/?p=27
Do you have a spam issue on this site; I also
ReplyDeleteam a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many of us have developed some nice practices and we are looking to swap methods with other folks, please
shoot me an email if interested.
Also visit my web site - http://1980designs.com/trendy-plus-size-clothing/
Appreciate this post. Will try it out.
ReplyDeleteMy webpage: http://badlandstudio.com
Hey great blog! Does running a blog such as this take a great deal of
ReplyDeletework? I have very little expertise in computer programming but I was
hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyhow, should you have any suggestions or techniques for new blog owners please share.
I know this is off subject but I simply needed to ask.
Appreciate it!
Here is my web site ... http://www.moremead.com/fashionable-and-trendy-clothing-for-women/
I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here.
ReplyDeleteThe sketch is tasteful, your authored material stylish.
nonetheless, you command get got an impatience over that you wish be delivering the following.
unwell unquestionably come further formerly again as exactly the
same nearly a lot often inside case you shield this increase.
my web site ... http://Xino-xano.Org/
I am very interested in what you write
ReplyDeleteST3 Telkom