Zak Ali

English 101
7/26/19
Designer babies: Future or Frankenstein?

Humanity is ambitious. Maybe too ambitious. Since the beginning of history, we have

used two specific tools to explore vast unknowns – wisdom and bravery. These tools helped

shaped many human advancements from sailing towards unknown seas, achieving flight,

creating medicine, and even space explorations. But have humans become too ambitious? Some

advancements although good intentioned may come at the expense of our destroying ourselves.

In today’s modern age, where cloning, face recognition and GMO foods are a controversial hot

topic, there’s lies a new ambition. Genetically modified human embryos. Editing and pasting

genes onto a future human being like an assembly kit some would say. This alteration of unborn

babies’ fates in the hands of lab coats & greed is a real possibility in our near future. The image

can paint an eerily close picture of the unfortunate creation portrayed in Mary Shelley’s

“Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus”. Humanity may have gone too far in its vison much

like Victor Frankenstein. Designers babies raise many ethical concerns. The possibilities of a gap

in society, disturbance of human nature and regrettable consequences all relate closely to the sad

story of Frankenstein.

The simple definition of a designer baby is an embryo that has been genetically altered to

produce specific traits and characteristics. Meaning in a perfect world you could breed out

certain types of diseases, so that the baby won’t get them. But as history has proven - it’s not a

perfect world. Too much ambition leads to greed, meaning if certain traits can be edited out the

gene pool then certain advantageous traits can also be added in. One could be literally bred to

outclass regular human beings in unimaginable ways. From having immunity to disease, insane

athletic advantages or photographic intelligence. They could inspire unhealthy admiration or

bitter resentment. The gap in society between designer babies and the normal human could be
Zak Ali
English 101
7/26/19
something out of a horror story. In fact, nothing says so like Victor Frankenstein’s reaction to his

designer-like creation, “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate

the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? His limbs were in

proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! — Great God! His yellow skin

scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of lustrous black and

flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriance’s only formed a more horrid

contrast with his watery eyes” (Shelley, 20). His reaction of disbelief, awe & disgust almost

serve almost as a warning to humanity. The designer-like creation is instantly categorized as an

“other” and not a real human. There is a separate distinction made & humanity cannot handle

that imbalances a gap in society. Especially when only the wealthy will have the means to pay

for designer babies, it spells trouble. “Once you start creating a society in which rich people’s

children get biological advantages over other children, basic notions of human equality go out

the window, Instead, what you get is social inequality written into DNA.” (Geib). A world where

designer babies either rule or slave is not a pleasant one.

Man should not fight human nature or disaster will ensue. All the money and time being

put into researching technology for designer babies is only fighting against our nature. Altering

humans like action figures with no uniqueness or weakness only destroy our human essence.

“The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had

worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body.

For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardor that far exceeded

moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream banished, and breathless

horror and disgust filled my heart.” (Shelley,20). Victor Frankenstein regrets toying with human

nature and its balance only after the damage is done. If modern designer babies come to full
Zak Ali
English 101
7/26/19
fruition, we may also be disgusted & regret changing the balance of human nature. Males or

females could unevenly outnumber their natural population ratio. Certain skin colors or physical

feature could die out as time goes on. Families with genetically altered babies and regular babies

could be setting up an envious family structure. Everyone is born equal in human nature but this

technology could change all that, down to the DNA. Designers babies unnatural as they are, may

even one day come to dominate man at the top of the food chain. Leaving regular humans as

outcasts and maybe with enough time & circumstances … to eventual extinction. “Man is the

watershed that divides the world of the familiar into those things which belong to nature and

those which are made by men. To lay one's hands on human generation is to take a major step

toward making man himself simply another of the man-made things” (Turney, 160). Brings an

excellent question. If we disturb with our natural human nature itself then are we still even

human?

And what about the choice of the babies being genetically modified? They have no

consent to whatever consequences of this new disturbing technology could bring. There are

many unknowns to as how far gene editing could go. “Should parents be allowed to pick

embryos for specific tissue types so that their new baby can serve as a donor for an ailing

sibling? For that matter, should a deaf parent who embraces his or her condition be permitted to

select an embryo apt to produce a child unable to hear?” (Scientific American). Purposely

putting in physical defects on babies due to the whims of parents robs the child of all natural

choice. Designers babies are also not an exact science. Unforeseen consequences could result

ruining a babie’s genes. “While the 150 experts from industry, academia, the National Institutes

of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration were upbeat about the possibility of using

genome-editing to treat and even cure sickle cell disease, leukemia, HIV/AIDS … there was a
Zak Ali
English 101
7/26/19
skunk at the picnic: an emerging concern that some enthusiastic CRISPR-ers are ignoring

growing evidence that CRISPR might inadvertently alter regions of the genome other than the

intended ones.” (Begely). So, we could actually be harming our babies who go through this

Frankenstein-like technology with the opposite of the desired outcome. And if they not harmed

by it then maybe they will pass down some harm down toward their family tree. Or perhaps a

new illness could be created from altering genes that would defeat the purpose of designer

babies. Ultimately, we are transgressing the rights of these children who would go through these

designer baby modifications whether they are harmed physically or not. We would be creating

something no different than modern day Frankenstein’s.

Ambition is good. But having too much can blind you. “I had worked hard for nearly two

years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself

of rest and health.” (Shelley,20). We could be creating monsters and not even know it. Working

hard on creating gene modification technology shows parallels with Victor Frankenstein’s

mindset. We would possibly be creating huge societal gaps and classes. We would also be

disturbing the natural balance of human nature. And we would almost certainly have unforeseen

consequences as a result. I & many others would also personally not want to compete against

someone who had their success guaranteed through gene modification. It disturbs our identity of

us all humans born equal. Human advancement is a great thing but designer babies like

Frankenstein could very well be our worst horror story.

Works cited:
Zak Ali
English 101
7/26/19
Begley, Sharon. “CRISPR Has off-Target Effects That Researchers Have Been Ignoring.” STAT,
9 Aug. 2016, www.statnews.com/2016/07/18/crispr-off-target-effects/.

“Designing Rules for Designer Babies.” Scientific American, 2009.

Geib, Claudia. “Expert Argues That Gene Editing Will Widen Economic Class Gap.” Futurism,
Futurism, 9 Aug. 2017, futurism.com/expert-argues-that-gene-editing-will-widen-
economic-class-gap.

“The Need to Regulate ‘Designer Babies.’” Scientific American,

www.scientificamerican.com/article/regulate-designer-babies/.

Turney, Jon. Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture. Yale University
Press, 2000.

Mary, Shelley. From Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus