Designer Babies: From the Pages of Science Fiction to a Fertility Clinic Near You?
“Blue or hazel?”
A pause.
“Hmmm. I like the blue, but I dunno if I like it with the auburn hair. Could we see the dirty blonde again?”
The fertility geneticist keys a few commands into his laptop, and the figure’s hair brightens and gives up its faint reddish hue.
“I like that. What do you think, honey?”
“Me too!” She assents. “Now we just need to do something about those cheekbones. And I think she should have my neck. Oh, and we don’t want her to end up with that little kink in your nose…
The exchange above seems ridiculous to us now, but it may not be so farfetched as it seems. The notion of the “designer baby” is solidifying its place in society’s consciousness, and while considerable technical obstacles remain, reproductive technologies such as selection and even genetic modification of embryos are transitioning from the pages of science fiction novels to fertility clinics. At present, the applications of reproductive technologies to disease prevention are the focus of scientists’ efforts. Diseases with a strong genetic basis such as cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, and Lou Gehrig’s Disease could one day be eradicated by these powerful genetic manipulations.
However, the progress made in the use of genetic techniques to avoid disease will also be equally applicable to the selection and cultivation of positive traits or even cosmetic traits, as was suggested above. Indeed, one day parents may be able to run down a list of aptitudes and check a box next to those they want their child to develop. Athletic ability, a gift for music and even general intelligence could be among those characteristics included on this list.
The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University recently hosted a discussion between faculty members Lauren Dame and Misha Angrist and group of undergraduates that aimed to elucidate some of the ethical considerations that should accompany the development and application of reproductive technologies. I was among the group of 15 or so students that joined in the discussion. Dame began the dialogue by identifying the two broad categories of genetic enhancement our society is likely to struggle with in the coming years. The first of these is manipulation of the genetics of the embryo; that is, the selective insertion and deletion of genes in the embryo. Dame described this process as a relatively “high tech” method of genetic enhancement that modern science is still considerably far from being able to implement. In contrast, the second method of genetic enhancement she identified is relatively “low tech” and is in fact used today. This simpler variety entails no genetic manipulations, only the selection of one embryo over others based on its genetic profile. This procedure allows an expecting couple to read their would-be child’s genotype—which provides an admittedly cloudy image of predispositions to disease—and, with the help of their doctor, determine whether they want to proceed with the pregnancy or not. Notice the differences between the high- and low-tech reproductive technologies: unlike the former, the latter offers no active control of the child’s genome and potential traits. Embryo selection lets us screen unwanted traits, but it doesn’t allow for creation of desired traits.
Of course, the use of either technology introduces a number of ethical considerations. Those that accompany embryo screening are more familiar to us, as they’re related to the issues that come along with abortion in general. The first of these is the controversial issue as to whether an embryo or early fetus constitutes murder. Enough in has been spilled on this one, so I’ll focus on an issue that’s more specific to the case in which genetic screening is possible prior to the abortion. Namely, is it wrong to discard an embryo if doing so prevents a human from being born into a life of suffering? In our discussion, Dame was careful to note that some would argue that we have a moral obligation to make this decision. If we’re in a position to intervene, they argue, we have no excuse for allowing babies to be born with the deck stacked against them, so to speak. Of course, you can see how this belief has its share of critics; is a life marred by pain and physical limitation worse than no life at all? This is a perfect example of how right and wrong can become intractably intertwined in issues regarding the use of reproductive technologies.
These moral issues are only exacerbated when one considers the high-tech “reprogenetics” introduced above. With this technology we move beyond the passive filtering of genotypes associated with predisposition to the development of diseases to the active alteration of this genetic information. This transition dramatically extends the list of changes for the better we can make to “flawed” embryos. Indeed, it would be theoretically possible to produce perfect pregnancies that yielded babies with strengthened immune systems and bodies impervious to the various horrible deteriorations that typically afflict us as we age. And take one step further: we might also engineer humans to be more intelligent across the board. Imagine what could be achieved if the average IQ in the United States were to jump 15 points over the span of several decades… Reprogenetics could usher in a new age of human thought and achievement, just as the introduction of writing did thousands of years ago, or as the Internet is doing now.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. A host of questions would need to be addressed at each step in the development and implementation of these reproductive technologies: to what extent are these manipulations warranted? At what point do we cease being humans and become something more, something posthuman? Are we prepared to introduce such prodigious changes to the human condition? In selecting their children’s attributes prenatally, do parents impinge upon their ability to determine their own paths through life? How will economic factors affect the transition? Would a sort of “genobility” emerge, with the rich suddenly leaping far ahead of those segments of society too poor to afford reprogenetics? Is Aldous Huxley’s nightmarish vision of future human societies presented in Brave New World (and written well before the discovery of DNA) a spot-on prediction of things to come? These concerns and many others were raised in the discourse with professors Dame and Angrist. Both facilitators emphasized the fact that while considerable biomedical advances would have to made before these high-tech genetic alterations become more realistically possible (it’s far from certain that anything like what’s described above is possible in the first place), it’s never too early to begin to ponder how they might affect society. Whether we like it or not, the relentless march of genetic engineering technology is forcing us to recognize that we’re very capable of altering our biological constitutions. To what extent we choose to do so will depend on the resolution of discussions such as the one I had the privilege of participating in several days ago.
For more information on reproductive technologies and the prospects of their future implementation, please visit the following sites:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/embryo-screening-and-the-ethics-of-60561
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103330.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501620.html
- cmartz's blog
- Login or register to post comments
