- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Are “Designer Babies” on the Horizon?
The media is abuzz with news of researchers at Cornell University successfully creating the first genetically engineered human embryo. The embryo was destroyed after five days, but critics argue that this is a first step towards “designer babies,” and that the scientists overstepped by making a decision on a controversial subject without consulting the public or opening the issue up for an informed discussion. In order to properly weigh the ethical issues, one relevant piece of information we must consider is the goal of the experiment and its projected benefits. The potential rewards of this work are immense, but we should not scoff at the possibility that this kind of research could ultimately lead to the technology for creating babies with preselected mental or physical traits.
The scientists argue that the embryo they used was not viable—it had three sets of chromosomes rather than the normal two—and therefore could not have developed into a baby anyway. They also claim that since the research, focused on stem cells, was privately funded and passed their internal review board, they violated no federal regulations. The suggestion was even made that this did not constitute a huge technological advance because the technique is already commonly used for gene therapy. So was there anything ethically irresponsible about their experiment? And what can we conclude about this type of research in general?
The scientists claim that their goal was to find out if genetic changes made to embryos can be passed on to daughter cells. Genetic modifications in an embryo are thought to be inheritable, whereas current gene therapy—genetic modification performed on people for disease treatment purposes—cannot be passed on to future generations. The potential benefits of heritable genetic modification are huge—for instance, individuals could potentially rid their offspring of a gene that would predispose them to breast cancer—but so are its potential abuses. We cannot assume without discussion that preselecting our offspring’s genetic makeup is not an undesirable outcome.
Scientists constantly emphasize that we are still a long way away from children with preselected traits. But declining to regulate research that could lead us to a point where such choices are possible is troubling precisely because we cannot expect individual scientists to censor themselves based on a concern for societal consequences. This is arguably not their job. Remember division of labor and how it increases efficiency? Scientists have a mission to explore and pursue the most promising avenues of research within the bounds of government regulations. Policy makers and legislators have a mission to figure out where the lines ought to be drawn. Whether we like the idea of “designer babies” or not, their possibility would entail quite serious public and societal consequences. Decisions about the issue have to be made not simply at the level of individual scientists and research labs, but at the public, societal level, particularly given the extent of moral disagreements on the matter.
As members of a recent AAAS panel on stem cell research have pointed out, the mere existence of moral controversy is not in itself sufficient to determine the ethical standing of an experiment or research direction. However, the existence of moral controversy mandates a public ethical review and a set of regulations consistent both with expert opinions and with social values.
Slippery slope worries can be compelling in some cases, but not everything is a slippery slope. The mere fact that a particular type of research could lead to undesirable applications is not a good reason to ban the research if it also has sufficiently important good consequences. Instead, it is a good reason to ban the undesirable applications. The best way to avoid slippery slopes to bad outcomes is to have an informed, democratic discussion that takes into account both expert opinions and social values. We need regulations because scientists and the general public need clarity about what they can and cannot do, a convincing rationale for permissions and restrictions, and a voice in arriving at decisions with such important ramifications.
Sirine Shebaya, Ph.D. is a Greenwall Fellow in Bioethics and Health Policy at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.
Comments on this article
Desinger Babies Are A Bad Idea. Nature Should Take Its Course And You Shouldnt Tempure With The Nature Of The World
May 21st, 2008 at 4:41 amI also think that this type of advance in research calls for both public discourse and regulation, albeit it might be hard to say whose input should count the most. It seems that many critics of genetic engineering are worried about abuses and “immoral” uses of this technology and feel like there needs to be a line drawn somewhere along the course of this research. While strict regulation seems to be the most logical solution to qualm everyone’s fears, the inescapable issue is that not all possibilities for loopholes and unforeseen consequences can be predetermined. Plus I think there will always be the counterargument of “messing with capital-N Nature.” The definition of a “designer baby” could also be applied to embryos who are selected based on sex, and couples who undergo IVF may have an option to undergo preimplantation genetic diagnosis. So while the government seemingly has the authority to regulate such practices, there’s a lot of gray area when dealing with the ethics of using such procedures.
Some of the same ethical arguments come up in the British Parliament’s debate on allowing research on human-animal embryos: the slippery slope, designer babies, over-promising the medical impact of this technology. If this practice is allowed, however, the current laws that govern stem cell research in the U.K. would have to be revised. It will be interesting to watch for the results of the final vote and if it this practice is allowed, how it is regulated and what the consequences will be.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:40 pmI think if someone wants a designer they should be able to get one. If someone doesnt want a designer baby they dont have to get one. It isnt really everybody elses decision..
August 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pmI’m just SO tired of the “social scientists” telling everyone else what they can, and cannot do. You’re basically the same, afraid, moralists that are screaming “designer babies” and “slippery slope”: with a degree or two. If you say it enough times in print, does it come true? I’m tired of reading it, yet it still sounds absurd.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 pmWe need to be cleaning up a few of the obvious messes in human DNA. It needs to be inheritable. A rising tide lifts all boats. Eventually. Yes, it can be unequally distributed at first. That is the way everything works, so no one will be surprised. The Devil’s Advocate is just that; you don’t get to make the decisions, too. Society appreciates you looking at every little thing that could possibly go wrong, in minute detail; enough already. Please sit down and shut up now, because the world is sick of your moralizing and fear-mongering.
i’m simply not convinced with the idea that designer babies is a bad idea.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 amThe main reason being that if parents know that their child may inherit any disease from then which may prove dangerous to their life & if they know that just by the alteration of some genes they can get their child a safer life.
Then Why not??????????????????
I just want to know if designer babies are possible now? Can anybody help me please?
November 25th, 2008 at 9:53 pmthis is stupid. we do not need atrificial babies!! they will ruin sports
February 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pmwell i honsestly think that genetically altering an embryo is a step towards the future
February 10th, 2009 at 11:17 pmwell my opinion obviously doesnt matter but ever, if parents want to this i think they should definitely go for it and if they dont then, all they have to do is not do it for their children
the research that the scientist are doing is not only for themselves but obviously for the well being of the future generations to come
i did a term paper on genetic engineering and i found that(in my opinion) the pros definitely outweigh the cons, like if a mother or father has a certain disease they wouldnt want to pass it along to their children, it would let their children live longer, healthier lives
and to those who are against it and believe its tampering with what nature, please also consider that if a person is dieing from tuberculosis or sickle cell anemia, nature also intended them to die that way but many take medicine, which scientists found the cure for, to let them go about their lives and not die when nature intended
although my reasoning my be out of place and incorrect in others opinions i believe that even if the US, UK and other regulated countries discontinue this research, it will only be picked up by other countries such as china or india or other places that have no objection to advances that will obviously come in the future
if your against it please give it a thought!
We already “design” our offspring by choosing a particular mate.
This technology is just more accurate method.
Imagine developing a fatal cancer when you know your parents could have prevented it.
I hope that parents in the future are responsible enough to ensure the genetic integrity of their children.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:19 amdesigner babies, is just plain wrong. Whatever happens with the child is what God placed before you. We should not tamper with His plan. We choose who we want to be with so that’s sorta of like choosing our kid. Yeah, it might help disease, but how about they spend time looking for a cure to those diseases and forget the cloning-like things that they are doing.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:44 pmdecades ago, people were convinced that we would be commuting to and from work on our own personal jet packs, living in dome cities, and enjoying our interactive television. Our technological predictions have a pretty spotty track record if i must say so myself. What makes people believe that science and technology will even allow designer babies to exist as something more than science fiction? I’d like to find a science professor in the field of genetics to tell me that they have found the “single gene” that contains the ability to: play jazz flute, be the next champion Olympic distance runner, or even just to have more confidence. These traits that people assume are just so easy to add to a fetus are impossible to determine. Each gene in our body is linked to thousands and thousands of others. How will technology ever be great enough to allow us to manipulate these genes without effecting any others in a positive manner?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pmI like designer babies cuz then they can be beutiful n pretty
March 17th, 2009 at 9:47 amim doing a project on this, and i think that designer babies are ok do this. if you dont like to be the suprised type, than do this and you will have your dream baby. but this will cost a lot of money, and the baby might carry a desiese.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:48 amThis is your opinion, but I believe that it doesn’t matter. If we raise such a fuss over hair and eye color, aren’t we showing that we as a society do believe that certain hair or eye colors have an advantage? Or why else are you so worried about people choosing a certain hair color…
March 26th, 2009 at 2:53 amOr, maybe you believe that hair and eye color defines a child’s intangible qualities? That blonde people are necessarily with a certain personality, and black-haired people are all the same. If not, then why are you worried about selection of hair or eye coloring on individuality?
Lastly, how does this affect race? This only destroys the notion that certain hair colors only belong to the Caucasian race. For example, a mixed minority couple who have white genes could possibly select for a blonde, blue-eyed child and raise said child in the traditional customs, of say, Hinduism. Is that what everyone is so fearful of? That your race will no longer define how you think? Or that race won’t be easily discernible from facial features? I think it’s a step forward, if we can no longer classify someone’s race by how they look. Why do we even feel such a need to classify people, to fit them into neat little boxes? Can’t we just learn to deal with them on an individual basis? This PGD tech, in my opinion, won’t hurt or scare anyone except those who already have implicit biases toward certain hair or eye colors.
Okay you will not love the baby anymore than just having one naturally. It’s wrong and i can’t stand to see that it can happen. If i had child naturally and then my child had a designer baby, yes i would love the baby but i would be extremely resentful of my child for doing that even when it is wrong!
April 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pmwhats the difference in having a child with brown hair and brown eyes when you wanted a child with blonde hair and blue eyes…there is no difference except in appearence. who ever gets a designer baby just for that reason is stupid! you will love that child no matter what and having a designer baby is like having a child thats not really yours! i hate the process and i think it is just for someone to say that they designed their child. well i think God should design your child and give you the heart to love it unconditionally!!!
April 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pmI think that this only the first step in human evaluation and we are only helping the process. Imagine a world with people who could be as smart as someone like Steven Hawking or as athletic as an Olympic sprinter. Also we could take traits form people in the world who have become immune to certain parasites and infections. This could help humanity beat diseases like cancer or other problems like autism. it could also allow us to take traits form people like savant that allow us to read a page it 5 seconds or learn a language in 2 weeks. I as a 14 year old see that it is only speeding up the inevitable because the way evaluation is going it will happen but its just a matter of time, all we are doing is speeding up the process. so by the time it takes us just by normal evaluation to get us there we will be able be super human like if we start now and it is simply a choice and we should have the choice to have a genetically modified child if we wont.
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:52 pmwell i think it is a good thing cause it can stop a lot of disease and u dont have to change anything else…right?
July 27th, 2009 at 6:22 pmThis is all in my opinion, remember that; firstly “Designer Babies” can be split into two categories: medical (perhaps modifying or removing a disease such as parkinsons or whatever) and non-medical (choosing an embryos sex or hair colour or whatever.) Both seem to be years, decades or centuries away, however if they are to be judged morally, it needs to be in context. I have no quarrel with any medical gene therapy, as I am thankful I was born without any inherit disease, I will not stand against a couple who wishes their child to be born without an inherit mental or physical illness, whether it goes against God, Nature or whatever! I do however, have an issue with “elective” genetic alteration or therapy, not that it matters or my opinion will change another. This is where it gets a little outrageous, I believe that as soon as man (or woman) can change his unborn child’s eye, hair or skin colour (examples), the genetic potential will become endless. To the point where every child will be born with “ideal” traits, both mental and physical, and where everyone will look to have their very own perfect children. Now I’m no genius nor extremist, but when I hear “Perfect Race,” the name Adolf Hitler comes to mind. I’m not saying that there will be a war between Perfect Children and the “Flawed” (Plausible?) )Or even that humankind may come to an abrupt halt, however maybe we should have a look at where we are headed before we jump right in? I’m no expert and I’m probably not old enough to comprehend the extent of the technology or whether this comment will even be published. But people screaming affirmative or negative for “designer babies” should think about it first… That’s just my opinion
August 10th, 2009 at 8:47 amI’m doing this topic as research for Biology Homework and I think that the whole Idea is a bit odd, Yes its good for its own benefit to check if your baby will have any diseases but to change the colour of their eyes for you own preference? I disagree with that, Although it IS up to the parents to do what they feel is best for the baby, I think that you should accept any child no matter their Eye or Hair colour.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:30 pm