Designer Babies

Angela Ledger
IB Reflective Project
Hld470
Word Count: 2,400
Introduction:
Genetic engineering first gained a foothold in society when scientist began genetically
modifying organisms for the exponentially growing food industry. This was originally devised
to help feed vast amounts of people on a larger, yet cheaper scale to keep up with growing
population sizes. With that said, is it ethical to also have genetically modified human beings?
The thought of genetically modified babies, or designer babies, was to hopefully be successful in
removing harmful genes that cause severe implications for any child’s future. This procedure is
aimed to get rid of genetically inherited diseases and eventually eliminate them from human
kind. The idea of this has gained a tremendous amount of attention from average civilians and
people that carry the mutations for a genetic disease. This is a chance to give children and future
generations a normal and healthy life. Science also shows that the CRISPR system may also
allow genetic engineers to alter physical genes including hair color, eye color, and athletic
ability. It also includes the ability to determine the child’s intelligence. Essentially, engineers
use in-vitro fertilization to remove or add genes to an embryo in a petri dish, which is later
injected into the woman. This child may be born the way the parents designed them. There are
two polar opposite sides to the argument, ‘for’ and ‘against’. The ‘for’ side consists of scientists
who believe that this technology is essential to the riddance of genetic diseases. Wealthy
families that want the best treatment for their future children may hold this viewpoint, as it keeps
their family heirs above everyone else. People that are against this new technology are those that
may lack healthcare and cannot afford the treatment. This technology is against the morals of
people that do not support any form of genetically modified organisms.
Regulations:
There is no clear regulation on genetically modified humans. The technology is so new
and there are no recorded trials on humans and there is no clearly written legislation that
regulates this technology. The line of ethics is very blurred when discussing human gene
editing, and scientists have no problem crossing this line with the hope of a medical
breakthrough. The FDA, Food and Drug Administration, considers the use CRISPR/Cas9 gene
therapy should follow the protocol as if it were a newly introduced drug. There must be a
submission request of a biologics license and that request must further be approved in order to
continue testing. There is old legislation in which outlines medical testing on humans called the
Declaration of Helsinki, which is “a statement of ethical principles for medical research
involving human subjects” (WMA, 2018). This is the only clear legislation regulating scientific,
medical research on humans. This document overall puts the subjects and patients first over
medical advancements. It says that the health and rights of the subjects are the most important
aspect of any medical research trial.

For Designer Babies:

Genetic diseases affect the day-to-day lives of many people. Genetically modifying
human embryos can help families prevent inherited diseases from being passed down from the
parent(s), to the child, potentially saving a life. After many disease free generations, genetic
diseases could be completely eradicated from an entire familial line. Ultimately, this would be a
medical breakthrough if all goes well. Allowing people to live longer, healthy provides
improved quality of life. Professionals in the field say “It is unethical not to intervene in the
development of an embryo if we have the capacity to alleviate future suffering and hardship
(Rothman, 2017). With that, it can be said that the child could potentially resent the parent for
not undergoing the life-changing alteration of his or hers genes. The parents, if given the option
and if financially able should be given the option to undergo the pivotal genetic modification of
their child as it prevents from future altercation with the child. It can also save money in the
future. Operations and medications from genetic diseases have a crippling impact on bank
accounts. Investing in one operation that can prevent many future operations is the right decision
to make in order to prevent from potential debt and financial instability.
During a personal interview on August 16, 2018 with Sara Sims, a professional in the
field of genetics who is now working at a law firm, is an accredited professional in the field of
genetic engineering. She is familiar with the use of CRISPR-9 and how it may be used in
genetically modifying human embryos. In an email, she said that once scientists figure out how
to manipulate a certain gene for a disease, they would be able to use the technology to
manipulate the genes of physical appearance. She is a scientist and is therefore in favor of this
cutting edge technology. She believes that the costs outweigh the benefits. Costs including
social divide and benefits being eradicating genetic diseases.
Many genetic diseases are terminal such as Huntington’s disease, which rapidly
deteriorates brain capacity. This disease is most common in older adults; however, there is a
more severe form that appears in children. Watching a child deteriorate is extremely
heartbreaking. With the use of genetic engineering, this disease can be cured and the suffering
will end. This technology is already being implemented in China. A scientist has claimed to
create the first genetically modified child. Twin girls have supposedly been edited to be resistant
to HIV. The case is being investigated to decide whether it violated any laws or conditions,
however, if this scientist was successful, it can pave the way for the future procedures. China is
studying all possibilities using CRISPR. The country also is the first country to use modified
cells into a lung cancer patient.
Against Designer Babies:
This technology relies on human hands and man-made technology. A human genetically
altering other humans does not sound right. Humans are capable of a wide range of error. In this
case, the error could result in unforeseen mutations of a child. This child will then have to live
with those mutations for the rest of his or her life. The goal of these experiments and treatments
is to resolve the problem of genetic disorders. Human error only adds another variable that may
not only be harmful, but unpredictable as well. The unpredictable outcome is extremely
daunting. If the outcome is unfavorable, it can be very dangerous to undo the mistake, or predict
future implications. While doing research “In mice, researchers have shown that the addition of
a certain gene made them better at running mazes, but also made them hyper-sensitive to pain”
(Steinbock 2008). The research done during this experiment proves that there are implications
and trade-off that must be considered before beginning this treatment in humans. If this were to
happen in a human, he or she would have to live their life with a burden in which he or she never
asked for. The person is consequently scarred by a mishap in technology.
The social class divide is currently growing faster and faster as business officials get paid
millions and the working class people get paid a small fraction. Three people own 50% of the
wealth of the United States. How is that fair? It is the same question for those that cannot afford
the genetic surgery and the small amount of people that can. This will create an immense divide.
Looking into the far future, if this technology is implemented, normal humans will die out, as
they are not able to compete with the genetically engineering humans. Given that the technique
works, this technology has the ability to create another species of human. Dystopian societies
are feared by most, so the thought of such uniformity may be unbelievable.
In the legislature for medical trials on human subjects, it says that the health and well
being of the subject is the number on priority. If this is true, then gene editing human embryos
should not be carried out. This is because there is potential for error to made and unexpected
outcomes may do harm to the subject. That means that technically, this technology is against the
guidelines of this declaration to keep the subject away from potential harm,
Personal Viewpoint:
Personally, this technology should not be implemented due to the fact that it is very
exclusive and has much room for error. The treatment is very expensive and not many people
would be able to afford this. This keeps the wealthiest people at the top and only drags the lower
class further down in the system. This drastically enhances social class separation, as it provides
the genetically enhanced an unfair advantage to the natural born children. Social classes are
currently a problem; imagine how much it will change once designer babies are introduced into
the world. Parents are willing to spend large sums of money in order for their future child to
reach perfection. This is not ethical in that it seems as though that parent will not accept a child
that may not be perfect. There is a certain aspect of life that is stripped away when discussing
genetically engineering embryos. That aspect is appreciation and diversity. “To appreciate
children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as products of our design or instruments of
our ambition” (Sandel, 2005). Unfortunately, there is a certain stigma of beauty and perfection
in modern day society. If everyone wants their child to conform to the social normality of beauty
and perfection, the world will be filled with people that all look the same. No one appreciates
unique qualities anymore. “Many countries have outlawed or placed a moratorium on germline
modification of embryos” (Designer Babies). The United States has also banned the FDA from
overseeing and approving clinical trials in which produce genetically enhanced embryos
(Designer Babies). “CRISPR, the revolutionary gene-editing technique that could potentially
prevent congenital diseases but could also be used for cosmetic enhancements and lead to
permanent, heritable changes in the human species” (Achenbach, 2017). Scientists plan on
solely using the technology for eliminating harmful diseases; however, it is human nature to
want to extend his or hers capability to its fullest potential, so there is no doubt that the
technology will be used for physical enhancement.
Since this genetic enhancement is capable of physical changes, it is thought that
governments may use this treatment to create a superhuman species for military advances
(Designer Babies, 2017). This strong of governmental control over genetics can lead to an
extreme dystopian society. Yet another reason to say no to genetically modifying children. With
many people without healthcare in the United States alone, what does that say will happen to the
social divide? The divide will increase rapidly, as only the richest may afford the technology.
The wealthy already have an advantage in society: high degrees of education, medical care, and a
plethora of other luxuries the average person does not have. Do they really need another?
The projected lifespan will obviously increase, as eliminating the harmful disease will
increase that individuals chance at survival. The world is already growing faster than the Earth
can provide, which is causing harm to the earth and the organisms on it. As morbid as this
sounds, increasing the survival rate of many individuals worsens the overpopulation crisis.
There is already a water crisis and food shortages, lengthening the lifespan of future generations
will most likely lead to Earth and mankind’s demise. As it is, the world’s population is
increasing at an exponential rate, meaning its birth rate is far larger than the death rate. This is
very dangerous when discussing widespread life-changing technology. This will only add to the
population, further contributing to an unsustainable society. The world population has increased
by one billion people since the year 2000. One must think of his or hers children. Do parents
really want their child to live in a society full of scarcity?
There are unforeseen circumstances associated with delicate and complex parts of the
human cell. Altering one gene can have effects on other genes that are not targeted. Scientists
do not yet have all of the knowledge or power over the all genes in the human body. There are
multiple genes that code for one genetic trait. The amount of unknown information and
unknown effects makes me wary of supporting such a new technique in science. A recent, 2017
study on in vivo editing (the egg never leaves the human) in animals shows that there are
numerous unpredictable mutations to that offspring (The Lancet, 2018). The national library of
medicine published a question and answer regarding gene therapy. In that article they discussed
the ethics involved in the use of gene therapy. They address the fact that there could be potential
mutations and long-term effects that are not yet known to science yet. For this reason, it is
dangerous to begin testing this new technology. The world may end up with children developing
side effects in which were unexpected and the cure or treatment may be unknown as well.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, ‘designer babies’ is a heavy topic to discuss and it is difficult to draw the line
to discern what is ethical and what is not. Science is always evolving with new technology and
there will always be debate on what is going too far. Regarding this specific topic, the idea is
very old, however, the technology is very new. In other words, the idea of editing humans to
remove unfavorable diseases or traits has been in existence for years, however, the technology to
actually perform this operation is permitted through the use of new, cutting-edge techniques.
There are two clear sides of the argument and swaying that decision is quite difficult, as once
someone has a stance, it is tough to change. The argument in favor of designer babies (gene
editing then human genome) is based on the idea of eradicating genetic diseases in future
children and further, adults. The people that support this technology are those in which support
science to its fullest capacity, scientists themselves, and those that have been affected by a
genetic disease and wish to prevent others from experiencing it. Those that are against the
technology are people in which fear technology and its capabilities and environmentalists. Both
arguments are valid and each can be supported by facts and scientific research.
 References

Achenbach, J. (2017, February 14). Ethicists advise caution in applying CRISPR gene editing to

humans. The Washington Post. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints in Context

database.

Belluck, P. (2017, August 4). Gene editing for 'Designer babies'? The New York Times. Retrieved

from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/science/gene-editing-embryos-designer-

babies.html

Declaration of Helsinki, Fed. Reg. (July 9, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/policies-

post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-

human-subjects/

Designer Babies. (2017). In Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Retrieved from Opposing

Viewpoints in Context database.

Editing the Human Genome: Balancing Safety and Regulation. (2018). The Lancet, 391(10,119).

Retrieved from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-

6736(18)30153-3/fulltext

Gallagher, J. (2015, January 19). 'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say. BBC.

Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30742774

Genetically engineering humans: A step too far? (2015). The Pharmaceutical Journal,

295(7881). Retrieved from https://www.pharmaceutical-

journal.com/opinion/comment/genetically-engineering-humans-a-step-too-

far/20069421.article?firstPass=false
Hanson, Jack. “Designer Babies.” Designer Babies Pros and Cons | Gene Therapy | Genetic

Engineering, Aug. 2017, www.futureforall.org/bioengineering/designer-babies.html.

It’s Time to Think about the Implications of Human Genetic Engineering. (2017). In Opposing

Viewpoints Online Collection. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints in Context database.

(Reprinted from We Need to Talk About Genetic Engineering, Commentary, 2017, July

27)

Sandel, M. (2005). Genetically Designing Babies Is Unethical. In C. Mur (Ed.), At Issue:

Reproductive Technology. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints in Context database.

(Reprinted from Designer Babies: The Problem with Genetic Engineering, Tikkun, 22,

40, 2007, September/October)

Sims, S. (2018, August 16). [E-mail interview].

Steinbock, B. (2008, October). Perspectives: Vol. 9746. Designer babies: Choosing our

children's genes. Retrieved from Elsevier website:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61538-X/fulltext

Young, T. (2015, September 12). My own modest proposal: Designer babies for the poor.

Spectator, 328(9759), 68. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints in Context database.