Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Biomedical Ethics: Designer Children
If in twenty years you are given the option to be able to "pick" the genetic traits of your child, would you? The options may someday be endless. You could pick hair, eye and skin color, height and weight, aptitude for athletics and academics, gender and health. Which options would you choose? Which options do you think it's OK for other people to choose?
I know environmental factors play a huge role in a child's development but this is a genetic booster shot. Lets say your family has a history of pancreatic cancer, would you choose to turn that gene off?
I know environmental factors play a huge role in a child's development but this is a genetic booster shot. Lets say your family has a history of pancreatic cancer, would you choose to turn that gene off?
Comments
If the technology became affordable to the majority of people I would also see designer babies as a way of leveling the playing field more than creating wider gaps in it. The sad fact is genetics can play a large role in how successful an individual is in life. As of right now no form of competition is truly fair. Is it “fair” that you didn’t get the scholarship available for academic excellence because the kid you were competing with has photographic memory? Is it fair that you’ll never make the football team because you have the unfortunate genetic makeup where you will only be 5’3 and it is incredibly difficult for you to put on muscle mass? (Where you’re competing against those who are a foot taller then you and seemingly can do 6 hours of physical activity week and maintain great condition) I would see designer children as a way of lessening random chance having an adverse affect on your offspring’s life.
Now if it turns out the technology takes incredibly long to become affordable to the masses I can see many problems arising such as MrRoboto pointed out. My feelings on designer babies are solely premised on a large swath of the public having access to the technology.
*Gundam Seed Joke*
But seriously, I don't see the problem ethically with enhancing the health and skill of the kid on a genetic level. Don't most parents want a healthy and happy child? I mean, the problem presented in the Gattaca scenario is that there was bias based purely on genetics and not recognizable skill. Pristine genes would make your child have a better life, I think. Isn't that the most important thing?
The cosmetic things are secondary, but especially if we found a way to turn off cancer/disease causing genes and reduce the cellular damage from aging, I think it would be wonderful to have a science-made kid. Did you know that they are finding that Schizophrenia is probably genetic? What about if they discover an autism-related gene? I think that I would take big psychological problems into account.
Moreover, to design a child for aesthetics and abilities seems disgusting to me. You aren't buying a car, picking out drapes, or even buying a breed of dog. You are creating a new individual, not a robot. While it would be great to just turn off certain diseases, I ask the biologists among us if there are any known or possible consequences of limiting mutations in a population?
Short answer, Yes! in some cases this could be a problem.
I will possibly expound if noone else does when I am not at work.
Second, who is to say what is good? We tailor a generation of "ideal" people, and humanity could lose a lot. What if this "ideal" person is always content? Or prone to thinking logically rather than creativity? As far as we know, that "ideal" brain could be ideal for nothing except working at a desk job.
Humanity has achieved great things and improved dramatically thanks to diversity. I say there's no such thing as ideal, and we're better off just staying imprecise.
On the wider issue, I've yet to hear any really convincing argument either way. The people who say "go for it" rely on the basic goodness of humans. The people who say "it shouldn't be allowed" seem to have a very short term view of the future. I'm inclined to restrict large scale genetic moderations of humans for now, not on the basis that it will create inequalities between rich and poor, but mainly because I'm not convinced it is safe and health for the generation involved.
Cons: Divides classes, makes the species weak (remember: sexual selection exists to help us evolve adaptation, and traits artificially selected for are often detrimental to survival (see the "tulip break virus" that merchants treasured in Amsterdam))
I feel like I'd only change my kid to save him or her from something awful in the geneline (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, autism, cancer), and even then with a great deal of apprehension. I'd prefer not to touch my kid at all, because part of the neatness of having a baby, at least to me, has always been the variation you get out of it. Biology has worked for billions of years, and I don't see a reason to mess with it just because I want a kid with blue eyes, straight teeth, or a cheery disposition.
Also: Gene therapy has really, really ugly ugly consequences when it doesn't work right now (think about it: inserting the right genes just a bit too far down the strand? Ruinous), so I would never attempt it on a child, especially an unborn one. I do like the idea of a Transmet-style world, where a person is born and then can "take trait" to punch up any holes in their genetic firewall. It alleviates a lot of the bioethics issues, and would still help most groups that needed something like that.
2) Eh, okay.
3) I had an argument, but I realized it was a slippery slope.
Alright, so: I'd do it, but only for medical stuff. Like if my baby is going to have Tay-Sachs, mod that shit.
What's to say that humans would not longer mutate or evolve? We would just be controlling our own evolution, rather than leaving it up to chance. The problem is that right now we have a mix of good genes and harmful genes that we are constantly mixing together. We could take out all the bad ones and make sure that we were producing young full of hybrid vigor and shining good health. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything ethically wrong with that.
(Now there is a limit to my genetic engineering optimism...I somehow doubt it would be a good thing to let parents decide that they want a child who grows antlers or glows in the dark. I think that people should be ethically responsible about this.)
Humans have already bred selectively and genetic engineering of plants and animals is an extension of our artifical selection, why shouldn't we do the same to ourselves?
Personally, cyborgs > mutants. Cyborg mutants also an idea. Just think about the jetpacks..
If we do indeed unlock the genetic code perfectly, why not make people with antlers or who glow in the dark? Naturally blue luminescent hair, why not? The only thing that's unfair about it is that the parents are making a decision that the kid can't change, but is that any worse than letting random change make the decision? Even so, I think people will accept this kind of thing a lot more if we also figure out how to make changes post-birth. That way if your parents got you blue hair, you can change to green later. Hyperion addresses this issue.
What about extending people's lives for space flight? or just in general? There are creatures that can live with out a predefined expiration date, should humans be the same?
@Scott: We're talking very hypothetically here. We're a long way off being able to safely alter human genetics.
That is all.
Let's say we want people to breathe underwater. We can do it with technology, like SCUBA. We can do it with a genetic modification, people with gills. Or we can do it with a cyborg-type modification, cybernetic SCUBA. Assuming that all other factors, such as how long you can stay under, are equal, which method is the best choice?
Ask yourself the same question about other things. Let's say we want to make people with better vision. Should we genetically engineer people to have better eyes? Should we make better glasses/contact lenses? Should we replace people's eyes with electronic eyeballs? Assuming that all three choices give the same quality of vision, which one do you do? Should we even bother developing all three, or just concentrate on one?
I've read about all three different choices in science fiction. You've got the genetically perfect beings who kick everyone's ass. You've got the beings who put their brains into machines, like Ghost in The Shell. Then you've got the incredibly fragile and genetically broken beings who live in electronic exoskeletons, like Meklars from Master of Orion.