The Price of Perfection: Ethics in Genetic Design
The future of gene editing technology.
‘Designer babies’—does this phrase conjure visions of dystopian madness or utopian freedom? Either way, it’s part of humanity’s future, and the ethical consequences must be considered.
Not leaving your children’s genes entirely up to chance has advantages and disadvantages. Genetics is something we’ve been taking advantage of for thousands of years and it’s one thing to change the phenotype of domestic dogs over time, but how about selecting personal characteristics of your children like a Sims character? This is the most hands-on approach to the direction of human evolution we will ever encounter. So the question becomes: how much say should parents have in the genetics of their children?
The dystopian film Gattaca depicts a world full of genetically designed people. It warns against embracing such a modified society. However, technological advancements and the opportunity cost of not tinkering with children’s genes may inevitably bring about a future similar to Gattaca’s.
I’ll get this out there now: there is no situation where genetically modifying humans doesn’t become a widespread practice. The only question is, to what extent?
The Future of Children
There are two main scenarios when it comes to designer babies. One is in vitro fertilisation (IVF). This is where several viable embryos are produced from the mother and father and each one’s genetic code is examined. From there the parents select which embryo they want to bring to term. Doing this enables them to scan them for any major health risks. This has a more ‘natural’ feel as chance still plays a massive role in the genetic makeup because it’s still based on the parent’s genes.
The other scenario is to have one viable fetus and change the genetic code completely to one’s preference. For instance, it’s almost genetically impossible for a blue-eyed couple to have a brown-eyed child. But if we can find out which genes need to be edited to make this change then it’s not a problem - the child will have brown eyes. This may seem innocent enough, but there’s a concern about those who hold strong opinions on certain genes, people or traits. We’re far from fully designing children, but gene-editing tools like CRISPR give us a glimpse of what is possible.
Some may argue this is eugenics and we should stay as far away from this practice as possible. And to be fair, it is a form of eugenics. But eugenics tends to get a bad rap, the term itself poisoned by those damn Nazis (typical Nazis, ruining everything). Eugenics is something we all participate in.
We are all Eugenicists
The act of choosing a mate is a form of eugenics. Clear skin, symmetrical features and well-proportioned bodies are things we subconsciously take into account to judge if somebody is healthy. Evolving beauty standards exist, but this is further evidence of us choosing a mate based on genetic makeup. We are all eugenicists. We want offspring with ‘better’ genes - ones in which future offspring are more likely to pass on their genes. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just evolution.
There is such a thing as good eugenics.
Good eugenics = I want my children to be born without a debilitating disease so I will do this through genetic modification technology. This is a voluntary decision by the parents.
Bad eugenics = I want a future with no genetic impurities so therefore I will do this by killing all disabled children and their parents so they cannot reproduce. This is a forced decision by the state.
The next time someone brings up eugenics, instead of automatically being repulsed by the word, figure out exactly what they mean before making a judgment. If they have a red armband with a funny black symbol, your snap judgement may be correct.
It’s an easy distinction.
Or is it?
Where should we draw the line? I’ll give a few scenarios, and you’ll see that the grey area starts as clearly defined but quickly becomes an indistinguishable smear.
If you had the choice between having a child with progeria and a child without, which would you choose? A child with progeria will die young, and live with bone fragility, cardiovascular issues, social stigma, and many other complications. Suppose you selected an embryo with progeria over one without. In that case, you’re condemning them to a life of disproportionate hardship and in doing so, in my opinion, you would be committing an immoral act. Fortunately, with IVF it would be possible to select an embryo that doesn’t have this condition.
What about Chron’s disease? It’s not fatal, but certainly not ideal. This child would have a harder life than necessary. So out of the few potential embryos to choose from, you discard the ones that have progeria and Chron’s disease over ones that do not, fair enough. I don’t think anyone would blame you.
On we go.
Do you want a child who has a weak immune system? Well, it’d be good if they weren’t bogged down with medical bills due to being sick constantly, so of course you choose one with a regular immune system. What’s the downside?
I wish I didn’t have to wear glasses all the time, and I’m fortunate enough not to have needed braces. Both can be fixed with money, but… they could also have been fixed through my genes before I was born. Is it okay not to want to wear glasses? Do you see the elevator shaft we have just fallen down?
So far, we have covered ignoring the negatives, most of which are reasonable. But what if we take this a step further and, using IVF, we select embryos that embrace positive attributes such as height and strength, is that alright?
Now, instead of choosing from a few, we genetically modify a single embryo to make it outstanding: perfect immune system, high IQ, strength, and longevity. Given the choice… why wouldn’t I want to edit my child’s genes to give them the best chance of life?
Widespread Use
Think of the many applications that genetically modified children could be used for. A state could breed super-intelligent babies to advance their country’s technological or military capabilities. We may end up seeing a superhuman arms race.
Whereas the middle and lower classes have to rely on luck, wealthy citizens could use their money to rig the genetic lottery for their children, using it to extend their riches and power. This could exacerbate the wealth gap leading to more social discontent.
Or maybe it could be an ego thing: Parents living vicariously through their specially engineered children and having bragging rights because they have the best child in the city.
On the other hand, all of this may become obsolete as we enter the age of AI and robots. Man, the future is difficult to think about.
I don’t like the idea of every person in the future being genetically modified, it feels… unnatural. But maybe I’m just a victim of my time. People of the past would be appalled at the things we consider normal today.
One thing to keep in mind is all this tinkering and tampering with our genetic code may cause unforeseen issues in the future. Either way, what seems inevitable is that it will happen to some degree and it’s up to us to decide. I hope this has invited some thought about the upcoming genetic future of humanity.