Genetic Engineering Babies

Should parent be allowed to genetically engineer their children? : The ethical dilemma of designer babies.

A Brave New World published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley was about a utopian society in which people were placed in castes because of how their embryos were modified. Little did the author know less than a century later the idea of “designer babies” might be a reality. Designer babies are very similar to Huxley’s idea; a person could be genetically altered before they were born. Unlike Huxley’s book, in which embryos were genetically modified due to government industrial control, designer babies’ destinies are determined by parental control. Although, gene alteration can prevent genetic diseases, predetermining genetic outcomes should be illegal because of its negative effects on society; the effect genes have on each other, and the underwhelming success rate.

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

I support that the danger of the misuse of genetic engineering is too great and development and use of technology should be halted. The first reason I don’t support the creation of designer babies is that some important historic figures had sickness. Another reason why I don’t support the genetic modification of babies is that the scientists can make mistakes. Finally, the last reason I do not support the genetic engineering is so that people don’t enter a bad emotional state.

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary

Imagine a world where maladaptive genetic diseases have ceased to exist, parents have the ability to alter and improve their unborn child’s attributes such as height, intelligence, and attractiveness, and each generation becomes healthier, smarter, and stronger. Sounds like an unfeasible utopia, does it not? However, due to scientific advancements in the field of embryonic gene modification, this fantasy may soon become a reality. In a nutshell, embryonic gene modification refers to scientists altering the genome of an embryo in vitro for a multitude of reasons, ranging from eliminating harmful genetic diseases to altering superficial characteristics. Although embryonic gene modification may seem like a dream come true to many, it is not without ethical concerns that require intense debate.

What if there was a future where having a child was as simple as selecting desirable genes out of a catalogue? A future where technology granted parents the ability to design and perfect their children. The notion of “Designer Babies” seems absurd; however the rapid development of technology and the potential of gene manipulation could make this a startling reality.

This following essay will discuss about how the advantages of designer babies potentially act as the enhancer that emerge the harms in the society. It is just because of this advanced benefits that introduced the disadvantages of designer babies. It is likely that there will be both moral and safety objections as there has been for in vitro fertilization, stem cell science and early gene therapy. The moral objections range from concerns about the manipulation of the germline to worries about the patenting or commercialization of the technology itself. The safety concerns, much like we saw with early recombinant DNA research include both potential dangers to the offspring of patients treated and to the

According to Antonio Regalado, 15% of adults think it would be fine to alter a baby’s genes to make it smarter. However, 46% think it is acceptable to fix a newborn’s genes to reduce the risk of serious illnesses (Doc. 4). The unique thing about the world is that every single person is different. If genetic engineering gets out of hand, it could lead to a “dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it” (Doc. 3). Once altering the genes of humans is feasible, international rules should be made so that diseases from mutated genes can be fixed, but messing with the child’s attributes are illegal. That way, every country’s government can prevent a future dystopia before it

Most parents would do almost anything for their children to be the best and know that in life they will be successful and ahead of the game, but what if even before they are even born you could alter their genes to give them an even greater advantage. This would allow one to “create” a child who is smarter, taller, and prettier, even if the parents never carried any of these traits. As the human race continues to develop and modern technology continues to advance, we have been able to create new inventions that could potentially help us overcome daily issues linked with diseases and mutations, but although to some this seems like an incredible idea, the motion of one day being able to modify your unborn baby to look and be who you want is not only morally wrong, but could result in drastic environmental changes. Genetically engineering has influenced many debates as to whether the ethics behind the motion are right, and like most scientific discoveries comes with many advantages and disadvantages.

Science is now able to better improve human health and safety thanks to the advanced modern technology and medicine that are available. Yet with today's technology being implemented into science comes the questions of human morality, or bioethics. One of the bioethics debates is on the coined term “Designer babies”; on if or where society should draw the line on genetically altering our children before they are born. With the technology able to stop hereditary diseases, the scientific development’s are able to change the child’s “eye color, hair color, social intelligence, right down to whether or not your child would have a widow’s peak” before the child is born. From the options on choosing whether or not your child will look or act a certain

It is a series of genes alongside the strong influence of external factors such as the environment. Nonetheless, technology and science continued to move in the direction of designer babies. Those who support human genetic engineering claim that the science is meant to prevent diseases and encourage more healthy births. They compared the use of gene therapy to prevent genetic diseases to medicine which helps cure it. Professor Lee Silver at Princeton University said, “Some people say we should not go against nature, but that’s illogical because every time we cure a disease we go against nature” (Schicholr, Simonet, and Canano, 2012). The pregnant women from the ABC NEWS study thought picking the traits of a child takes away the surprise. However, other felt different. Supporters claimed that the selection of a child’s genetic pool could be beneficial because parents get to choose how they want their children to be. There will be no surprises and no disappointments. They create the child who they imagine it would be, leading to their perfect family (Resnik, 2012). Everyone wants to be smarter, be more athletic, or better looking and if technology can design babies in such a way then everyone should want genetic engineering as stated by scientist Joe Tsien (Annas).

The term designer children is unnerving at first to many. The idea of parents designing the genetic makeup of their offspring makes children seem like a commodity in a genetic free market. Thoughts of a dystopian society like the one in the film “Gattaca” come to mind. However, taking an immediate repugnant stand against genetic enhancement is not well-founded. A more open-minded inspection of the issue reveals that the idea of parents improving their children’s life prospects through genetic engineering (provided it is safe) is, at its core, not unethical. In fact, some genetic enhancement in addition to correcting deleterious genes to prevent disease is a moral obligation. It is moral to make rational decisions using the science and

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.