Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 1

DESIGNER BABIES
The Do-it-yourself Style
By Virginia B. Bautista

Introduction Good morning, Maam. May I take your order? Good morning. Let me have a tall offspring with extreme passion for music and an IQ of 165. By the way, make it female! Is that all Maam? This conversation might fill the air in the future as genetic engineering makes it possible for parents to deliberately choose the traits that they want their kids to have. The personalized offspring produced through genetic intervention into preimplantation embryos are called designer babies (Hayes, 2000). Some people might find this science breakthrough a blessing; some may perceive it as a curse. Aside from having social, ethical and medical implications, the anticipated popularity of designer babies is actually nothing more than a manifestation of parents control over their children even before they were born.

Designer babies allow human beings to transcend their own limitation

Genetic engineering is the process of artificially manipulating these inheritable characteristics (Baird, 2007, p. 12). Scientists specializing in genetic engineering may, in the near future, give parents an opportunity to alter genes that they pass on to their children by adding or deleting certain genes in a cell nucleus (Baird, 2007, p. 12; Schaeffer, 1999). Gene modification can either be in the form of somatic therapy or of germ line intervention. Somatic therapy affects only the

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 2 specific individual while germ line modification can have impact even on the descendants of the specific person (Schaeffer, 1999). Basic knowledge on science explains that: Biological entities are comprised of millions of cells. Each cell has a nucleus, and inside every nucleus are strings of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA carries the complete information regarding the function and structure of organisms ranging from plants and animals to bacterium. Genes, which are sequences of DNA, determine an organism's growth, size, and other characteristics. Genes are the vehicle by which species transfer inheritable characteristics to successive generations(Baird, 2007, p. 12).

Whats alarming with this technology, particularly germ line modification is that the coming generations would not know that their genes were actually designed or influenced by a person whom they might have never known. Gone are the days when couples could only hope for a baby girl or a baby boy. With modern technology, couples can select the gender of their child. In 1998, Scott and Monique Collins decided that they wanted a baby girl so they asked for scientific intervention at the Genetics and IVF Institute in Virginia. With the doctors help, Jessica Collins was born female to satisfy Monique Collins reason which is to have a daughter, after having two little boys, whom she could play Barbies with and to go shopping with (Morales, 2002). In the past, parents didnt have the ability to choose between a boy and a girl as their child. Couples usually make the most out of what nature gave them. With science, however, parents are inclined to make decision even before their children are born. Choosing the gender of a child sends a message to the world --- that a female child can make parents happier. If all parents can afford this, then, the ratio

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 3 between men and women would give the society the notion that one gender is better than the other. Of course, there are more convincing reasons for choosing to intervene in the so-called natural evolution of human beings. For instance, the case of Adam Nash proved that designer babies can be used to save lives. Adam is a baby boy who was born on August 29, 2000 to save his own sister, Molly, who was then suffering from Fanconi's anaemia, by becoming a tissue donor (Baird, 2007, p. 13; Derbyshire, 2002, p. 974). Without the scientific intervention, Adam might not have been born that day, and if he were, he could also be suffering from the same illness. The genetic modification, in that case, had paved the way for the two siblings to be healthy and happy (Derbyshire, 2002, p. 974). Testing embryos for tissue matching can, according to doctors, help children suffering from blood and metabolic disorders (Genetic, 2006; qtd. in Baird, 2007, p. 13). However, critics have other things to say. While the parents were glad to see both of their children healthy and happy, two people, Agnes Fletcher and Josephine Quintavalle, according to Derbyshire (2002) expressed their disagreement with the couples decision to bear a child because simply of not being able to accept the previous child . Fletcher and Quintavalle claimed that Adam and Mollys parents violated natural laws and undermined the rights of disabled people (p. 974). In this sense, reproduction seems to have been used as a vehicle to normality and social acceptance (Baker, 2005, p. 571). Theres no doubt, however, that if science can offer wonderful and long-lasting solution to the genetic problem of human beings, then, why wouldnt they grab the chance, especially if it is life that is at stake?

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 4 The most compelling reason to succumb to the idea of genetic modification should be the desire to preserve lives, not merely to improve lives. To preserve lives, in this context, means to get rid of life-threatening diseases in order to guarantee healthy lives among children. With PGD or preimplantation genetic diagnosis, doctors can examine the embryo and detect any sign of disease, e.g. Downs, Cystic Fibrosis, Tay - Sachs disease, Sickle Cell Anemia, Huntingtons disease, etc. Once identified, doctors start discarding the disorder-carrying embryo and utilize only those which are free from any disorder (Baird, 2007, p. 13). Indeed, genetic engineering allows human beings to be responsible for their own evolution and to transcend human limitations (Baird, 2007, p. 13) but these are not without social, ethical and medical implication.

Designer babies as threat to individuals and to society

Over three decades ago, in vitro fertilization (IVF) became a focus of social debates. Those who couldnt have biological children were grateful, yet the critics were saying it was a real threat to humanity. Through the years, IVF found its niche in the society. Now, it is no longer an issue -- but more of an acceptable practice. What then, could happen to the same society that accepted IVF if designer babies would also become acceptable in the future? What could happen if human beings patronize designer babies created through genetic enhancement of the embryo? Perhaps, all parents want to have smart, honest, generous, or kind children. If genetic engineering can design children with the attitude that they want, perhaps,

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 5 parents would not even have second thoughts about grabbing the rare chance science offers. Steinbock (2008) argued that parents normally want to influence their childrens traits. In fact, Steinbock said, To get our children to be healthy, well mannered, intellectually curious, and well behaved we control what they eat, have them vaccinated, teach them manners, read to them, and discipline them when they misbehave(p. 1294). These things that parents do to their children are indications that parents really love controlling their children, and with genetic engineering, parents can be given more freedom to control their kids even before they see the light on Earth. According to Thomas Murray, "When parents attempt to shape their children's characteristics to match their preferences and expectations, such an exercise of free choice on the parents' part may constrain their child's prospects for flourishing (qtd. in Steinbock, 2008, p. 1294). A concrete and real-life instance that supports this argument happened in the Washington, D.C., suburb of North Bethesda, Md. Lesbian couples, Sharon Duchesneau and Candace McCullough, became controversial not because of their sexual orientation but because they were reported to opt for deaf children. Duchesneau and McCullough who, biologically, cannot have their own children, wanted their kids to be deaf, just like them. For the lesbian couple, being deaf is their identity, not a disability so they intentionally searched for a deaf sperm donor giving them two kids, Jehanne and Gauvin, who are both deaf (Blotcher, 2002, p. 15). Critics considered the lesbian couples choice of opting for deaf children as unreasonable. While parents in different parts of the globe turn to science to cure their children, this lesbian couple used genetic engineering to design their own kids. What this couple did is clearly an extreme case of parental tyranny. It seemed like

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 6 they did not realize that when their kids grow, they might realize that they didnt want to be deaf, after all, even if their parents are both deaf. What right do these parents have to take away the right of their children to appreciate the world with all their five senses? If this couple was able to do this to their children, then, the people should not be surprised anymore if in the future, other parents would choose to duplicate themselves through designer babies. Well, the society should be prepared to have more deaf kids who would not even hear their parents speak, or perhaps a new breed of blind kids who were designed not to see their own parents with their own eyes. If all couples will use designer babies to satisfy their own personal motives, without even thinking of the future of the society, then, what else is the point of building a family?

The serious implication of designer babies

The most profound downside of designer babies is the fact that the process of examining embryos to discard what is deemed not desirable and to give life to the desirable, is an irreversible process. Engineering and re-engineering human beings are not like cooking and when the taste is not right, they can cook again until the food is well-done. The secret of delicious food does not only lie on the main ingredients, but on how all the ingredients taste when mixed or combined. These aspects plus the right temperature of the heat emitted by the stove or oven can create a desirable menu. Similarly, the people should not forget that a persons identity is created, not simply through the genes, but also through social interaction with the world.

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 7 Moreover, Steinbock (2008) stressed that what we are actually like is the result of multiple genes interacting with each other, and all of them interacting with the environment (p. 1294).

How designer babies can have impact on the society The question What does it mean to be human? may no longer be answerable in the future when people are busy choosing which traits are best for their children. Technology continues to challenge not just individuals, but also the society. How would people define or redefine human beings in the future if nature no longer decides for the man? How else can human beings be distinguished from other commodities if hospitals soon become a place where consumers can buy the traits they want for their kids or the color of skin that they wish their children to have? Then, if the designer babies grow old, can the normal individuals be still considered normal or do they become the unusual and the cheaper brand? All these possibilities can have profound impact on what it means to be humans, and on what it is to be family, as the basic unit of society. Definitely, the concept of family which people know wont be the same as the family that designer babies would know. In fact, it may be inferred that lesbian couple Duchesneau and McCullough might not have really felt the real meaning of being real parents when they decided to look for deaf sperm donor. It is so because real parents dont normally want their kids to have less than what most kids have. Instead, parents normally want their kids to be the best and the brightest.

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 8 Designer babies are considered as milestone in the application of scientific knowledge but they also have the power to alter the definition of human beings and the roles of family in nurturing human beings.

How designer babies should shape future policies The right of a person to express himself should not be extended to the right to select traits, gender, and characteristics for human beings other than themselves. To decide for other human being even before the child is born is an unnecessary control that only parents who embrace tyranny would normally do. If, and only if, designer babies would be a boom, then, the government should be able to design timely laws that would ensure that genetic engineering or gene modification would only be practiced if the reason is to save the life of the child himself. The constitution should, at all cost, uphold the concept of family by protecting the future babies against parents who desire for kids just to serve their own personal motive. The nation should be reminded that creating balance among desire, reason and will is still the best option. Designing a female baby is a simple desire; choosing to bear a child to save the sibling is reason; failing to acknowledge the childs own rights is nothing but a weakness of the will (Holton, n.d.). Designer babies are reminders to the government that children ought to have rights even before they are born. Without timely policies, a tall female genius music lover who would rather be a basketball player could knock on the neighborhoods door anytime in the future. She would confess, I wish I were not a do-it-yourself baby designed by a frustrated female music lover.

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 9 References

Baker, M. (2005). Medically Assisted Conception: Revolutionizing Family or Perpetuating a Nuclear and Gendered Model? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36(4), 521. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=895963151&Fmt=7&clientId=57020&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD

Blotcher, J. (2002). At Issue: Children by design; A deaf lesbian couple's decision to intentionally conceive deaf children reignites the debate over "designer" babies. The Advocate, (864), 15. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=581489001&Fmt=7&clientId=57020&RQT=30 9&VName=PQD

Hayes, R.In the pipeline: Genetically modified humans? Multinational Monitor, 21(1/2), 29. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=48840768&Fmt=7&clientId=57020&RQT=309 &VName=PQD

LBaird, S. (2007). Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options? The Technology Teacher, 66(7), 12. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1256581981&Fmt=7&clientId=57020&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD Morales, T (2002, Nov. 7). Choosing Your Baby's Gender - CBS News. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/06/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main 528404.shtml

Schaeffer, P. (1999). Designer babies, anyone? National Catholic Reporter, 36(1), 21. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=45748535&Fmt=7&clientId=57020&RQT=30 9&VName=PQD Steinbock, B. (2008). The art of medicine: Designer babies: choosing our children's genes. The Lancet, 372(9646), 1294. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1590786311&Fmt=7&clientId=57020&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD

Tucker, P.Designer Babies and 21st Century Cures. The Futurist, 40(5), 48. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1122137191&Fmt=7&clientId=57020&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD

Designer Babies : The Do-it-yourself Style 10

Weakness.pdf (application/pdf Object). (n.d.). . Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://web.mit.edu/holton/www/pubs/Weakness.pdf.

WGDerbyshire, S. (2002). Debating Matters. Designer Babies: Where Should We Draw the Line? British Medical Journal, 325(7370), 974.