Technical Aspects

Designer babies are embryos that are genetically edited to produce an infant with desired traits.
When designing the embryo, the parent DNA is altered to eliminate undesirable characteristics such
as genetic illnesses while desirable ones such as strength and intelligence are boosted. Genetic
modification allows the parents to choose more traits, including eye color and the baby's sexual
orientation and make-up. Creating designer babies is a development from the in vitro fertilization
technology and is carried out in several procedures. The first is the Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
which involves the identification of undesired traits. Secondly, non-invasive implantation of the
chosen embryos (those that do not possess unfavorable traits) is done. The mother is cared for, as in
the case of In-Vitro Fertilization.

In the recent past, the process adopted a cut, copy and paste (CRISPR) technology that modifies DNA
fragments to correct and prevent disease-causing genetic variations. Finally, the technology was
advanced using CAS9, which can add or remove chosen genes from DNA and is applied after fertilizing
the edited embryos. Similar procedures such as human nuclear genome transfer also referred to as
mitochondrial replacement therapy, have been used to alter unwanted traits. The therapy involves
using three-parent gamete cells to override the unintended trait and was successfully applied by a
Chinese doctor in Mexico to design a baby in 2016.

Public Policy

Legal frameworks governing the regulation of biomedical advancements often ban or restrict the
practices. The United States of America restricts gene modification procedures to allow only for
research purposes but not for alteration of human life. Different bodies in charge of human health
impede the introduction of human gene editing. The National Institute of Health maintains that it will
not fund any operations on the subject matter. Secondly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
which is in charge of gene editing of different products and drugs, is against human gene editing.
Congress is firmly against the practice and constantly amends the FDA's funding bill to prohibit any
consideration of research proposals aiming at human gene modification. Thus, the implantation of
genetically modified embryos is illegal in the states, but one can research the topic without any public
funding.

An argument for and against

Designer babies offer parents the opportunity to do adequate family planning compared to
conventional forms of fertilization. The ability to choose allows the parent to plan for the number,
gender, and appearances, and thus they can align their family to the desired traits. Secondly, they can
get rid of unwanted hereditary conditions such as Alzheimer's disease from the family and thus
prevent future generations. Further, the designer babies can attain improved immunities compared to
other infants because of the modified gene's vitality and thus increase their survival rates. Scientists
also claim that with the supremacy of the edited genes, the individual can enjoy increased life
expectancy as their body is not prone to disease attacks compared to individuals with no gene editing.
Finally, the editing sets the infant up for a positive transition into life. They assured the timely
achievement of developmental milestones and boosted self-esteem and confidence in the growing
designer baby.
Nonetheless, the practice of designing babies is criticized for its uncertainties and ethical
discrepancies. To begin with, the technology is not thoroughly researched and thus is open to a lot of
errors that could harm an individual's DNA, creating unplanned and unwanted traits. Further, the
process could result in the unintentional removal of vital genes necessary for the child's growth and
development. Besides, if the world is made up of designer people, they will tend to possess very
similar traits and thus become susceptible to similar conditions. They can easily be wiped out
compared to a society with different sets of genes.

Arguably, the designing of babies widens the bridge of inequality as individuals born with the traits
being eradicated in engineering may feel like social misfits. Further, the process is costly and thus can
only benefit wealthy individuals. Thus, the gap between the rich and the poor, the physically and
mentally impaired, and the unimpaired will only grow wider. The practice violates the unborn baby's
rights as they may appear like manufactured property over ordinary people. Further, the child's
consent to the modification of their make-up is not observed and thus is a violation of personal rights.

The United States of America public policy on human gene modification allows for further research
that can prove beneficial to the medical world. Researchers can carry out tests that verify the
procedure to prove the advantages of the procedure beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, the
policy remains protective to human life as it guarantees the citizens the preservation of human rights.
The policy upholds the medical motto of health professionals not to harm.

Nevertheless, the policy presents several loopholes that curious scientists can explore and infringe on
the human rights it serves to protect. For instance, for wiling and wealthy patients, it would be easy to
carry out the procedure with the claims of enhancing life, as was the case of the 2016 designer baby
from their mother's Leigh disorder. Finally, the ambiguity of the policy concerning human rights
definition and understanding may be a weak standpoint compared to other public perspectives on
eugenics.

Conclusion

Designer babies present a golden chance for scientists to test their medical modification capacities in
improving life. Further, they present the parents with the opportunity to choose their preferred baby,
possessing their desired eyes, skin color, and different traits that boost the child's ability to survive on
earth. However, the technology also presents several challenges ranging from medical ones such as
unintended gene removal to decreasing one's survival chances. Further, ethical considerations around
the technology are significant. First, technology infringes on human rights, resulting in injustices and
social class divisions that disturb the standard way of life. Public policies in different countries,
informed by the legislative moral compass, scientific awareness, and readiness, are inadequate to
endorse human gene-editing technology. More clinical research is necessary to identify the effects of
the process and advice on the most prudent procedures to follow when genetically modifying human
embryos. It is only after efficient research is carried that different governments can endorse human
gene modification. Even then, they should come up with regulatory procedures governing the uptake
of the technology to ensure life created is not harmed, harmful to itself and its surroundings.