If you were given the opportunity to design your own children, would you take it? In the future, we will be facing the issue of some people having genetically modified children, while others do not. Think of the science fiction movie, Gattaca, or the dystopian novel, Brave New World, the fantasies created in those works of art are beginning to have a place in our world. In Gattaca, children are conceived through genetic manipulation and people are discriminated against according to their genes. In Brave New World, there is no normal child rearing; all babies are test tube babies. Scientists have already identified which genes code for characteristics such as eye color, height, and hair color. They also have invented the means of inserting and changing existing genes using new technologies. Not only have scientist identified the genes that code for physical characteristics, but they have also found the genes that code for genetic diseases such as early onset Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s disease, and cystic fibrosis. These advancements being made in the field of genetics can be living saving to many babies that would otherwise be born with life-threatening diseases. However, the controversy surrounding genetically engineering children is ongoing. 

The main issues that need to be discussed are the points where genome testing and genome editing become more than just a helpful medical practice and where they start to be unethical. Is it even possible to find a way to genetically modify our children in an ethical manner? If so, where do you draw the line between eradicating diseases and creating these designer babies? In order to have these questions answered, research needs to continue on human genome editing. One in every thirty-three babies are born with a birth defect, and birth defects are the leading cause of infant deaths in the United States. Common birth defects include, spina bifida which is a birth defect of the spine, cleft palates, and down syndrome. By isolating the genes that cause these defects, scientists are one step closer to preventing them. For that reason, it would be a disservice to halt researching ways to prevent humans from being born with genetic diseases. This research does need to be monitored and there need to be more discussions on how far scientist can take DNA editing. It should not be used to make children smarter or ore beautiful, but give every child an equal opportunity, instead of creating an even bigger disparity among the classes. Until, this can become a universal goal, creating designer babies needs to be banned.

The term designer baby is widely used in news media whenever the selection of features of a child is being discussed. One of the biggest issues with designer babies that in order to create one you would have to choose which embryo to use over the others. Discarding imperfect embryos facing genetic disabilities can be taking as a huge insult to individual living that are living with those conditions. In Where Science and Ethics Meet, the authors focus on the benefits and the negative consequences of editing human genes. They said, “we have attempted to be as accurate and balanced as possible- to chart an appropriate path between fact and fiction and to avoid imposing our point of view.” They also state that editing human genes could possibly be “the end of immune problems. No more organ rejections.” One of the negative consequences of editing human genes used was “in keeping with other techniques that extend lifespan, might contribute to overpopulation.” The advancements in technology the authors refer to, are happening now. These advancements will alter our lives and civilization in the coming years. The authors talk about extending the human life span beyond 100 years, cloning, and other forms of gene manipulation. Dealing with these possibilities is our reality now (Willmott & Macip). 

Although advancements in science and technology are happening quickly, modifying the human embryo into the perfect human beings may be farther away than we think. It is possible to change the genetic makeup of an embryo, such as changing the eye color or the sex of the baby. It is difficult to genetically modify an embryo so that the child has a high IQ or is athletic because there are too many genes that affect IQ and athleticism. Complex gene manipulation such as those may be farther off, but gene mutations that cause genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Alzheimer’s can potentially be eradicated soon. There of course is ethical concern regarding gene manipulation, there is a fine line between modifying a genome to be free of diseases and modifying genes in order to enhance the appearance or qualities of a human. Even without these fears preventing advancements, the ability to completely choose the makeup of your child is just not there yet due to the complexity of genes (Belluck). 

New developments in scientific technology making headway with the invention of the CRISPR or the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, which is a scissor that allows you to swap, delete, or insert any gene that you want. This microscopic scissor gives genetics the ability to change DNA of many organism. The way CRISPR works is that it changes the nucleotides which in turn changed the DNA code that codes for specific proteins and genes. It has been used in GMO foods in order to increase the shelf life of many fruits. It has been regularly argued who is allowed to use this machine and whether or not this device should be patented. Also, there is a huge controversy on what CRISPR can be used on (Das). There are currently labs using CRISPR technology to explore “base editing to fix blood disorders, neurological disorders, hereditary deafness, and hereditary blindness (Mullin).” If there is a possibility to put an end to all these disabilities, should we go for it? Many deaf people see deafness as a blessing and would be very insulted if people were looking to engineer embryos so that they would not be deaf. There is currently research doing on with CRISPR and Parkinson’s disease. Trafton stated “CRISPR is normally used to edit or delete genes from living cells. However, the MIT team adapted it to randomly turn on or off distinct gene sets across large populations of cells, allowing the researchers to identify genes that protect cells from a protein associated with Parkinson’s disease (Trafton).”

Furthermore, improvements in the genetic research have even gotten attention from the government. Democratic Representative, Bill Foster, is speaking to the public and the Congress on behalf of the scientific community I regard to editing human DNA. Foster talks about how breakthroughs in science such as new technologies that can be used to edit the human genome at a much faster and cheaper rate, and they are going to affect our world. He addresses how these new technologies could be beneficial to us in ways such as helping in agriculture and in producing animal meat. However, when the technology starts to involve editing human genes, Foster states that it would detrimental. He did talk about how there are a few possible ways to positively use gene technologies, such as bone marrow replacements and IVF, but the technology being used on human embryos would fundamentally change the course of humankind, and we need to be prepared and warned for the dangers that are to come. Foster feels a personal responsibility to be the person that warns the American government about the dangers of gene editing. He feels this responsibility because he is the last PhD scientist in all of Congress. Foster is calling upon the leaders of our government to take notice on this issue. Initially one would think that Foster’s PhD in science would make him a credible person to talk about the debate of human genome editing. While doing research on Foster I uncovered that his PhD was not in the field of Biology or genetics, but it was in Physics. We do need to keep an open conversation open about genome editing and designer babies, but it is nowhere near as critical as he is making it out to be. He compares extending research on genome editing with the discovery of the atomic bomb. He states that just how the atomic bomb fundamentally altered the world, genome editing will do the same thing. Foster is failing to address the fact that continuing to conduct research on human genome editing poses no harm to the people that are already alive (Foster). 

Genome sequencing in newborns has saved the lives of many babies. Using genome sequencing, doctors treat patients with gene therapy. Although genome testing can be lifesaving, it has become a controversial topic among individuals. Screening for diseases opens up the possibility of choosing which genes you want in your child (Moyer). Over the past few years. Technological advancements have completely changed the field of genetics. Today, we now have the ability to sequence the human genome. It is possible to know every single gene you have, and what diseases and conditions you are predisposed to. This new technology has the ability to positively impact many lives, but with this new technology comes a lot of responsibility (Jacobsen). For instance, Laurie Hunter, a forty-two-year-old mother from New Jersey, found out some unsettling news while doctors were testing for her ill daughter’s genetic condition. Unrelated to her daughter’s condition, they discovered that she was predisposed to rare tumors. Without having tested her genes, the other would have never found out about her daughter’s condition, and she would not have been able to take preventative measures to help her. There is a way to use these new technologies in a positive way. For example, Rochman states “in an ideal world, genetic analysis could save money by catching diseases early, offering targeted treatments and identifying the most effective preventive measures (Rochman).”

During a Ted Talk Paul Knoelpfler touches on the past, present, and future of eugenics. Eugenics is the science of controlling the human population by breading to increase the occurrence of desirable traits. He talks about how in the future we will be facing the issue of some people having genetically modified children while others will not. In current times, we do have the ability to modify human embryos and even though it is not being done in the US, it isn’t necessarily illegal. For the past, he talks about how in the early 1900s there was the eugenics movement. His goal is to bring awareness to the possible dangers of genetic modification. The public does need to be educated on this topic. Additionally, Knoelpfler said that at this time we need a moratorium and genetically modifying human embryos must be banned until the ramifications are further discussed. A repeat of the previous eugenics movement is undesired and this reason many scientists are hesitant to continue research on genome editing in humans (Knoelpfler). Also, because gene editing is so expensive, most likely only the very wealthy would be able to afford to modify their children, leading to an even bigger and more apparent disparity between economic and social classes. This is because not only will the wealthy have a leg up when it comes to economic status, but their children will be perceived as more beautiful healthier, they’ll be disease free and genetically “perfect.” The contrasting argument to that is that if we, as a society, have the ability through our new technologies and scientific advancements to further explore the technology and use it to help people, especially families that could use the help, then it should be done, and it is the duty of those scientist to do it.

Even if choosing your child’s IQ level may be out of the picture for a while, advancements in the field of genetics are moving quickly and they must be confronted. The discussion on human DNA manipulation must stay open, and research needs to continue but should be monitored throughout in order to ensure that everything is ethical. 
