The City College of New York
English 11000 Honors
December of 2013
Omar Rafael
“Designer Babies” - No Longer a Thing of the Future
Although highly controversial, the ability to genetically engineer our children seems less and less far-fetched with each passing day. Whether it be athletic prowess or an inclination towards musical talent, in the near future, parents might very well be able to pick and choose the characteristics or traits that will shape the development of their child before he or she is even conceived. Because the genetic engineering of babies is still in a developmental state, there are many problems that are worthy of examination. This paper will consequently present the case of genetically engineered babies. It will initially examine its beginnings and look at how the practice has changed till our present day. It will proceed to introduce and examine the arguments that are commonly used by those who are for and against such a practice, and ultimately culminate with an opinion as to the approach that we as a society should take with regards to this pressing topic of wide debate.
The concept of genetically engineering our offspring is not a new phenomenon. Its beginnings began with the practice of in vitro fertilization, 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 is argued to be a step towards designer babies as one is altering the genetic material (Naik, “Designer Babies: Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits” ).
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 that 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”).
Today, advances in genetics technology have situated us in a very crucial position; though no process has been perfected yet, as science stands now, we are on the brink of developing “designer babies”. A personal genomics company in California was recently awarded a broad U.S. patent for a procedure that could be used in a fertility clinic to create babies with selected traits. The company awarded the U.S. patent, “23andMe”, founded their business in collecting DNA from their clientele and analyzing it to provide information regarding their health and their ancestry. “The patented process from 23andMe… could be employed to match the genetic profile of a would-be parent to that of donor sperm or eggs. In theory, this could lead to the advent of "designer babies," a controversial idea where genes would be selected to boost the chances of a child having certain physical attributes, such as a particular eye or hair color” (Naik, “Designer Babies: Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits”). The acquisition of this patent was groundbreaking as the procedure involved is not oriented solely for specific and altruistic medical purposes like in vitro fertilization originally was, but it also seeks to allow parents to pick certain cosmetic traits.
Originally published in the Wall Street Journal, the attached diagram illustrates how the patented procedure would essentially work. According to the company, “while its new patent encompasses trait selection in babies, through a tool called the Family Traits Inheritance Calculator, it has no plans to apply it to that end. Instead, 23andMe said the tool offers customers "a fun way to look at such things as what eye color their child might have or if their child will be able to perceive bitter taste or be lactose tolerant” (Naik, “Designer Babies: Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits”).
Just this past month, the federal government was also 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, the research hopes “to cure disease and to help women deliver healthy, normal children” (Stein, “Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues”). This research would help create an egg with healthy mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). 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”). The procedure would involve three sets of genes in the making of a baby. It 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”).
Advancements like the ones previously described have begun to test the waters with the general public to see whether or not they favor the pursuit of research towards “designer babies”. In recent years, the concept has been a growing issue to the point where the Oxford English Dictionary created an entry defining what constitutes a “designer baby”. The entry defines a “designer baby” as a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected in order to eradicate a particular defect, or to ensure that a particular gene is present. It is important to note that the definition encompasses the reasoning that is being used in the aforementioned research projects: not only is it taking into consideration the ultimate goal of possibly enhancing the quality of life for many, it is also accepting the fact that the ultimate goal may simply be trivial. Generally speaking, there is a divide between those who think that pursuing such research will do much good and those who believe that we should not probe further into the matter. 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 main argument presented by those in favor of genetically engineering babies often points to the fact that not only might the process help parents ultimately have a healthy child, but that the procedure will help eliminate diseases, and that it bestows favorable characteristics and traits onto our future descendants. In an opinions article, written by Dartmouth College ethics professor Ronald M. Green and published by the Washington Post, the professor states that “With knowledge comes power” and that “Eventually, without discarding embryos at all, we could use gene-targeting techniques to tweak fetal DNA sequences. No child would have to face a lifetime of dieting or experience the health and cosmetic problems associated with obesity. The same is true for cognitive problems such as dyslexia. Geneticists have already identified some of the mutations that contribute to this disorder. Why should a child struggle with reading difficulties when we could alter the genes responsible for the problem?” (Green, “Building Baby From the Genes Up”).
Although this may be the case, those who are in opposition are mainly worried that this technology will be misused and that it may just lead to more complications. In an op-ed rebuttal published by the Washington Post, the executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, Richard Hayes states that he supports research directed towards preventing and curing terribly diseases but that he disagrees with altering the genes of babies. He points out that theres still a lot left to answer:
“… these same technologies also have the potential for real harm. If misapplied, they would exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce existing modes of discrimination. If more widely abused, they could undermine the foundations of civil and human rights. In the worst case, they could undermine our experience of being part of a single human community with a common human future. Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop? If it's acceptable to modify one gene, why not two, or 20 or 200? At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone's specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?”
(Hayes, “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks”)
Objectively speaking, the fact of the matter is that there are still many things that need to be addressed before the genetic engineering of babies is either outright banned or allowed. Furthermore, the population as a whole also needs to reach as much as a consensus as possible with regards to what should be done. Intelligence Squared Debates which serves as a forum for scholarly discussions grounded in facts and informed reasoned analysis recently held a debate with a motion to “Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies” as its central topic of discussion. “Before the debate, 24 percent of the audience supported the idea of prohibiting genetic engineering of babies, while 30 percent were against. Forty-six percent were undecided. After each side presented its case, 41 percent of the audience voted for the motion, "Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies," while 49 percent sided with the experts arguing against it…” (NPR Staff, "Should We Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies?”). Evidently, there is a great schism present in terms of public opinion, and this consequently only makes the topic one where both sides have to tread lightly.
With designer babies slowly becoming a reality, one thing that does appear to be gaining ground is the idea that legislation needs to be enacted in efforts to not only regulate these procedures, but to also protect babies from harm. As the practices that were explored in the beginning of this essay gain ground (in vitro fertilization, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and the mtDNA procedure), an elusive form of discrimination has emerged. Evidence has shown that some U.S. couples will go through with in vitro fertilization, and even an abortion, in order to get what they want, particularly to choose the sex of their baby. As the president of the Population Research Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher, describes it, “We're approaching an era of designer babies where everybody wants what they consider to be the perfect child or perfect family… This is the worst form of discrimination possible… We're not talking about discrimination, about pay or job or benefits. We're talking about discrimination that kills” (Sells, "States Move to Fight 'Designer Babies' Trend”). This reasoning, in conjunction with other arguments, has led Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Arizona to ban the practices (especially abortions) if the reasoning is merely rooted in trivial matters. Other states, including New York, have begun to look at passing similar legislations. It is important to note that these legislations are being done at the state level. At the federal level, there is still much uncertainty with regards to whether legislation should be enacted, and even if it is, with what it should address.
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). Lord Robert Winston, professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College London, seconds this view, “We know fiddling with mitochondrial DNA may make a massive difference to what happens to nuclear DNA. … Abnormal children have been born as result of mitochondrial transfer," he said. "I think, in preventing one genetic disease, you are likely to cause another genetic disease” (Howard, "Genetically Engineered Babies? Experts Debate Idea Of 'Designer Baby' Ban”).
The ability to genetically engineer babies to one’s liking becomes a reality more and more with each passing day. As it has been shown, scientific advancements have led us to the brink of possibility. Although this is the case, the fact of the matter is that research needs to continued before we ultimately settle on either allowing or banning the practice of genetically engineering babies. Yes it is true that such a technology can greatly help, and even allow in the case of infertile women, parents to have normal, healthy children. It may even ultimately help our species as a whole in the long run as it may provide a means of eradicating malignant diseases. However, with these great benefits, there also exist repercussions of the same magnitude. With something as delicate as the manipulation of genes, everything needs to be weighted equally and therefore be taken into consideration. For now, it seems the U.S. should adopt an approach similar to that of the United Kingdom. “Since 1991 the U.K.’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has made rules for in vitro fertilization and any type of embryo manipulation. The HFEA licenses clinics and regulates research: it limits the number of embryos implanted and prohibits sex selection for non-medical reasons” ("The Need to Regulate "Designer Babies”, Scientific American). Additionally, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority regulates and inspects all UK clinics providing in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and the storage of human eggs, sperm or embryos and is accountable to the Department of Health. The U.S. need not replicate the same exact system of oversight, but it does seem to be the case that regulatory measures need to be established for the existent procedures, for any research currently being conducted, and for everything that is yet to come.
Bibliography
"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>.
Green, Ronald M. "Building Baby From the Genes Up." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 13 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-13/opinions/36842817_1_preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis-genetic-mutations-pgd.html>.
Hayes, Richard. "Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 15 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501620.html>.
Howard, Jacqueline. "Genetically Engineered Babies? Experts Debate Idea Of 'Designer Baby' Ban." The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
"Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority." HFEA - Fertility, Infertility, IVF, Embryo Research - Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://www.hfea.gov.uk/>.
Krimsky, Sheldon, Lord Robert Winston, Nita Farahany, and Lee Silver. "Debate: Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies." Lecture. Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates. Kaufman Center, New York. 13 Feb. 2013. Intelligence Squared Debates U.S. The Rosenkranz Foundation, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
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.
Pray, Leslie A. "Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/embryo-screening-and-the-ethics-of-human-60561>.
Sells, Heather. "States Move to Fight 'Designer Babies' Trend." CBN News: US. CBS, 5 Mar. 2013. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
Staff, NPR. "Should We Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies?" NPR. NPR, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
Stein, Rob. "Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues." NPR. NPR, 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
"The Need to Regulate "Designer Babies": Scientific American." Scientific American. Scientific American, 4 May 2009. Web. 09 Dec. 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.
