The City College of New York
English 11000 Honors
November of 2013
Omar Rafael
Engineering the Future
“Designer babies”. It is highly probable that you have heard this colloquial phrase in the last couple of months. When we consider the scientific advancements that are constantly being made, the idea that we might one day in the near future harness the ability to genetically engineer our offspring does not seem implausible. Nevertheless, the last couple of weeks have seen various genetic advancements that are paving the road for the aforementioned process. This therefore raises a central question: should we intervene in a process that has conventionally been left to mother nature? Although the idea of genetically engineering our offspring is currently being propelled by benevolent intentions, the endeavor to make this idea a possibility should be stopped altogether as the possible repercussions drastically outweigh any possible benefits.
The concept of genetically engineering our offspring is not much of a new phenomenon. Its beginnings can be said to have started with the practice of in vitro fertilization, which is an assisted reproduction technology introduced in the 1970’s that helps infertile women become pregnant by fertilizing the sperm and egg cells outside the body (Zhu, In Vitro Fertilization). This in vitro fertilization brought about the ability to pre-select embryos before they are attached to the mother’s uterine wall where the embryo will remain until birth. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is a procedure that is often done in conjunction with in vitro fertilization as it allows “viable embryos to be screened for various genetic traits, such as sex-linked diseases, before implanting them in the mother. Through PGD [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis], physicians can select embryos that are not predisposed to certain genetic conditions. For this reason, PGD [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis] is commonly used in medicine when parents carry genes that place their children at risk for serious diseases such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia” (Ly, Ethics of Designer Babies). However, for quite some time now, many clinics in the U.S. have been using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to allow parents to choose the gender of their child. This can be argued to be a step towards designer babies as you are altering the genetic material (Naik, The Wall Street Journal). In 1996, Monique and Scott Collins went to doctors at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Virginia in order to undergo in vitro fertilization. Through this process and pre-implantation genetics diagnosis, the Collins ultimately opted to have a girl given that they had already had two boys and they sought to have a daughter in their family. This marked one of the first highly publicized instances of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis where the selection of the embryo was not performed for purely medical purposes. “The Collins’ decision to have a “designer baby” by choosing the sex of their child entered the public vernacular when they were featured in Time Magazine’s 1999 article "Designer Babies". Though the Collins’ case only involved choice of gender, it raised the issues of selection for other traits such as eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height that are not generally related to the health of the child” (Ly, Ethics of Designer Babies).
In vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis are both practices that initially started off as practices seeking to bestow parents with the opportunity of having a normal, healthy child. However, as time revealed, what started with specific and purely altruistic intentions such as allowing infertile woman to become mothers and allowing carriers of malignant genes to change the future for their offspring, was gradually altered to meet less imperative needs. What guarantees that if “designer babies” were to become a possibility, that people would not just make use of the practice for purely trivial purposes such as desired eye, desired hair color?, or desired talents? If we are eventually able to genetically engineer our children, and if we do allow the practice to be used for purely trivial purposes, we would be commodifying the human being. Now, because an ample supply of money would be all one would need to pick and choose the characteristics of one’s child, the human being would then just equate with any other product that can be bought and sold at will.
Just this month, the federal government was asked to consider whether it would allow scientists to take a controversial step forward and alter the genetic material in a woman’s egg that would be passed down through generations (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). According to scientist Mark Sauer who is part of one of the two teams researching, he says that the research hopes “to cure disease and to help women deliver healthy, normal children” (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). In a more detailed fashion, this research would help create an egg with healthy mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). This mitochondrial DNA is the genetic material residing in the mitochondria, which is responsible for providing energy inside a cell. “Scientists estimate that 1 in every 200 women carries defects in her mtDNA” and that “Between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 4,000 babies may be born each year with syndromes caused by these genetic glitches; the syndromes range from mild to severe. In many cases, there is no treatment, and the affected child dies early in life” (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). However, this research brings about many concerns, including concerns it perpetuates, and could eventually facilitate the whole “designer babies” process. Perfectly phrased by Sarah Ly in her entry for the Arizona State University’s Encyclopedia, The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, “The increased ability to control and manipulate embryos presents many possibilities for improving the health of children through prenatal diagnosis, but these possibilities are coupled with potential social repercussions that could have negative consequences in the future”.
The idea of manipulating genes leaves one feeling more than uneasy and raises many ethical issues. For example, in the aforementioned research that the federal government was asked to consider to be allowed in humans, the procedure would require that doctors take eggs from women and take out all the existing genes except the mtDNA. Then the DNA from the woman who wishes to have a baby is transferred into a healthy egg. The new egg would then be fertilized in the laboratory with the father’s sperm and the embryo could then be transferred into the mother’s womb (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). But even this is very controversial as the baby would be born with genes from three different individuals: from the father, from the mother trying to have a healthy baby, and from the woman who donated the healthy egg. With genetic material from three different people, issues of identity may rise up in the later stages of life of the baby. Furthermore, it is still to be determined if the procedure is safe for the infant and if by trying to fix one problem, if scientists might inadvertently introduce mistakes into the human genetic code (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). As Ronald Green points out, "If [genetic] mistakes are made, they won't just be mistakes in the child that is born. But if that child [is a girl and] has children down the line, those children will inherit the mitochondria from that child, and we'll have introduced new genetic diseases into the human population” (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues).
As you can hopefully see by now, the concept of genetically engineering our offspring to our liking is not there just yet. Although there is still much to research, one thing is for certain and that is that we are closer than ever to be able to make “designers babies” a possibility. Even though this is the case, the endeavor to make this a possibility should be stopped altogether as the possible repercussions drastically outweigh any possible benefits. The driving force behind this concept is that it would allow parents to have normal, healthy children. At hindsight, this seems perfectly fine but such a practice has many readily apparent repercussions. With the latest research that involves the elimination of defective mtDNA, what if the child later on has an identity crisis in the later stages of his or her life? In a broader sense, with genetic engineering, aren't we perpetuating the commodification of the human body? What is it is used for trivial purposes instead of its original intent? What if mistakes are made? What if new genetic diseases are introduced into the human population? With something as delicate as the manipulation of genes, all these questions deserve answers. Evidently, until that happens, the effort to make “designer babies” a possibility should be stopped because the repercussions are much more severe than any possible benefit the practice may bring.
Works Cited
"Brink: Designer Babies." The Science Channel. Discovery Networks. N.d. Science.discovery.com. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-designer-babies.htm>.
Ly, Sarah. "Ethics of Designer Babies." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia., 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
Naik, Gautam. "'Designer Babies:' Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits." The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
Stein, Rob. "Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues." NPR. NPR, 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
Waldman, Paul. "In Praise of Designer Babies." The American Prospect. The American Prospect, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
Zhu, Tian. "In Vitro Fertilization." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia., 22 July 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment