When you think about it, nothing is morally wrong with getting rid genes that would possibly result in a disease affected child. However, there is controversy in the media. With all this talk about “designer babies,” there are concerned ethicists out there who fear that we will take this advanced genetic technology too far and adopt the idea of choosing our own desirable traits for our unborn children. For instance, we would be able to choose the gender, eyes, skin and hair colour of the baby as well as physical traits such as intelligence, beauty, height, athletic ability and so on. With all these options being said, we would ultimately being using IVF and PGD techniques for cosmetic purposes rather than just medical purposes.
People have begun asking the question: "Is it ethical to create designer babies with enhanced physical ability and appearance?" Personally, I disagree with the whole idea of “designer babies.” In a way, parents are taking away the say of their child in their life by choosing the traits THEY want their child to have. Each of us is unique. If a child who was a “designer baby,” found out later in life, imagine how they would feel. They would feel as if their parents had to specifically pick out the traits that would make them love them.
Critics also think that if the option of choosing these desirable traits, is made available, “designer babies” would have a negative impact on society. These genetic techniques are very expensive which could lead to imbalances between the rich and poor. Also, those who are born with genetic enhancement may looks down on those who don’t have them. Those born with disabilities already face intolerance. Imagine the impact it would have on an artificially designed race with the same IQ and appearance. This “designer babies” debate can lead to a greater rift in our society.
Presently though, we don’t have to worry about this. The whole process is expensive, not 100 percent safe, and is illegal. However, now is the time to understand that we cannot tamper or control the way nature was intended to work. Nature has run its course for a long time without humans interfering with its path.
Word Count: 452
Resources:
http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_cont1.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/designer-babies-debate.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
http://singularityhub.com/2009/02/25/designer-babies-like-it-or-not-here-they-come/
BioBlogs I have read & commented on:
Mary A.
http://marysbioblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/design-baby.html#comments
Lucy A.
http://whatisthislucysbioblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/designer-shoes-clothes-bags-how-about.html?showComment=1296596393541#c8890643465963642586
Hey Kim! Very interesting blog! I agree with all of the terms that you have discussed in your blog. I think that by the mdia creating this term "desginer babies", it overexaggerates of what is actually supposed to be. I think people have to be instituted of what the issue is about. I think that if you are going to be changing every quality that your child is going to have, it is techinically going to be a fake baby. And if one does those changes, all the others will continue to proceed with the new techonology. The controversial issue of "Whose child is prettier, more athletic, etc.?" is going to arise. As mentioned above, where would our uniqueness go? The issue of the child's dignity is going to be there too because you don't want them being born and thinking that they were only an experiment of what possibly their sibling is going to look like! I had mentioned about the rich and poor issue in my blog too since I think that it is totally going to make it a big controversy in our society, these procedures are very expensive and you don't want to create this whole level of who can get them done and who can't. I think that this issue is on the verge of becoming more known and as people know it, they would want to bring in these techonologies in. It is wrong and I think that we should let nature do its magic!
ReplyDeleteHey Kim! You’ve mentioned some great pros and cons regarding what the media calls - designer babies. It’s incredible to see that scientists have figured out how to prevent inheritable diseases that would control the quality of one’s life. This would be an example of using genetic modification for a good cause, as it could save lives. I think anything beyond that is just going overboard. I mean there are far more important things to worry about then enhancing babies for unnecessary, non-medical purposes. Does it really matter whether your baby has brown or blue eyes? And who is to say which trait is better? These cosmetic modifications are simply pathetic and degrade the meaning of parenthood, in which a parent should focus on making their child a positive member of society. Although, as you said, we presently do not have to worry about this issue, we should discuss the concept now and figure out where to draw the line before things get out of hand. According to IVF Canada, the average treatment cost, which excludes drug costs, is $10,000. Genetic modification is an expensive procedure that will be available to the rich but limited to those that cannot afford it; then we’d have to worry about a more drastic imbalance between social classes. Though this idea of creating a ‘perfect’ baby may seem intriguing, it poses a lot of social and ethical concerns – most of which you have already mentioned. In reality, just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.
ReplyDeleteHey Kim! It's true, there is nothing wrong in wanting to use this new discovery for the benefit of the born-to-be. To prevent diseases and what not seems like a good purpose. However, once you start to factor in different ideas of what ELSE you could use these advances for, you begin to lose sight of what used to be a good thing. To tamper with a natural process as baby development in such a way shouldn't be done and I, too, disagree with the whole concept of designer babies. We tend to take things out of hand and as people, we try too hard to change everything to suit what we like instead of appreciating what we already have. It's a very unfortunate flaw, and "designer babies" probably only covers a portion of everything else the human race has come up with to suit their needs.
ReplyDeleteHi Kim! It would be great if we could prevent diseases in humans, but unfortunately, some people want to use the technology for immoral purposes (i.e. changing physical appearance). This would only cause more problems! What if the `designer baby' itself grows up not liking his/her appearance? Not everyone has the same preference, so there's the possibility that what the parents see to be perfect is different from what the child sees to be perfect. The process also costs $7,500 at the very least. The rich will be even more 'perfect', while everyone else segregates from them. So ethically, socially, morally, and financially, I think the concept of designer babies is wrong.
ReplyDelete