Designer Babies

Human birth, in the way most people conceptualise it, entails a natural life process of one human giving birth to another. However, as of 2018, human birth can no longer be restricted to this definition. With processes such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), babies can be grown outside of the mother’s womb. With the rise of “test tube babies” has come the possibility for parents to handpick a child’s genes. Though socioeconomic factors put limitations on the number of parents with access to the genetic modification of their children, the moral and political implications of genetic modification render it an important topic. With genetic modification, parents can control the sex of a child, their physical characteristics, and in some cases, even enhance their intelligence.

The advancement of bio-technology seems to be developing at such a rapid pace that society has neglected to consider the ethical ramifications of this new technology. Both state governments, like the United States and the United Kingdom, and supranational organisations like the European Union are struggling to create policies and laws to protect and contain the potential consequences of these genetically modified humans. This article will attempt to outline the ethical consequences these international governments face by legalising the unadulterated genetic modification of humans. The argument against genetic modification will be split into three concise sections: the argument for freedom, the slippery slope argument, and the argument for equality. 

To begin, it is important to set aside the argument of whether or not genetically modifying babies is ethical, and for a moment consider a larger question of freedom. Though this might seem like a strategic diversion by avoiding the harder question in favour of an existential one, this question is pertinent to the argument. Freedom, in the way most people understand it, is the ability to think, feel, and act as one pleases. To be free is to have the ability steer one’s life in whatever direction one chooses. However, this freedom, this ability to create one’s own destiny, is compromised by genetic modification.

Prior to genetic modification, children are born with varying abilities. Some are athletically gifted, others blessed with musical talent, and some conceived with unbelievable minds. These unique gifts are not predetermined but naturally inherited. With parents choosing their children’s genetics, the life of these babies encompasses a sudden predetermination that has never been dealt with before. To illustrate, if a child is genetically modified to be tall, fast, and slender, with the object of their becoming an NFL quarterback, an individual's personal autonomy is compromised. While most parents hope their children are athletic, often forcing them into sports camps and primary school teams, altering the genetic makeup of a child is a different measure — it inherently makes the playing field uneven.

In addition to tampering with the innate abilities of humans, genetic modification jeopardises the concept of “free will”.  While some will argue that the genetically modified children are still free to make their own decisions, this argument does not successfully dismiss the issue. To illustrate, Michael Jordan is universally agreed to be an accomplished basketball player. However, Jordan was not merely born with his endurance, speed, and precision. He worked hard to earn his title. Though parents have the ability to force their children to play sports, there is a difference between being forced to play sports and being genetically engineered to play sports. Children can resist their parents and refuse to play a sport, however, children do not have the ability to refuse genetic modification. The differentiation between being ‘forced’ and being ‘engineered’ creates the issue of a child’s free will. 

If designer children are merely engineered to have these talents, the definition of hard work, skill, and success becomes obscured. Without genetic modification, Jordan had to demonstrate agency and a strong work-ethic, devoting his time and money to become professional basketball player. If Jordan was designed to be an excellent basketball player, his success and accomplishments would seem less commendable. While Jordan chose to be a basketball player, the genetically modified child did not. Critics might respond by saying that even with these genetic advantages, one would nevertheless have to possess a strong work ethic. Though this is probable, it does not defeat the argument that, in terms of athleticism, the genetically engineered child will still have an innate advantage.

As wisely stated by ethicist Michael Sandler, “rather than employ our new genetic power to straighten the crooked timber of humanity, we should do what we can to create social and political arrangements more hospitable to the gifts and limitations of imperfect human beings.”  Instead of creating the “perfect NFL player”, society should recognise the imperfect player who works and trains to overcome obstacles, showing a better command over their life success than a human that is merely designed to be perfect. Perfection eliminates failure, and without failure, the meaning of success begs for a revised definition. 

With human’s individual autonomy at risk, it is also important to address what the legalisation of “designer babies” could mean in a legal sense for international governments such as those of the European Union. In January  EU Advocate General Michal Bobek attempted to begin the discussion regarding how these genetic technologies should be regulated. Many EU representatives feel that genetic modification in humans should be legalised for the sole reason of preventing various diseases. For example, by having access to the genes of a foetus, scientists have the ability to eliminate predisposition to illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, and even blindness. Though scientists do possess the ability to prevent these illnesses, it does not justify them using these technologies without assessing the implications of their actions. 

Diseases such as diabetes and various cancerous cells are recognised as detrimental ailments that have robbed humans of their lives for countless years. However, while eliminating these genes may have beneficial short term effects, its long term consequences massively outweigh its benefits. While cancer and diabetes are universally deemed as “bad” sicknesses, handicaps such as blindness or deafness may incur more debate.

For example, in 2008 a deaf couple in the United Kingdom, Tomato and her partner Paula, wished to have a deaf child. Their first child was coincidentally born deaf. Preparing for their second child, Paula and Tomato wanted to use IVF to produce another deaf child. However,  according to parliament's clause 14/4/9, the selection of a hearing child through IVF is permitted, but, embryos found to have deafness genes will be automatically discarded. The case of Tomato and Paula showed the United Kingdom’s implicit preference for individuals who have normal hearing capabilities. This offended the international deaf community causing those such as Steve Emery, a sign language expert at Heriot Watt University to speak out. Emery publicly stated, “This clause sends out a clear and direct message that the UK government thinks deaf people are better off not being born.” With handicaps such as deafness, it seems a moral overstep to allow the government to decide what traits are beneficial for survival and what traits should be seen as a malfunction in need of correction. If the EU Health Council decides to legalise genetic modification in respect to correcting illnesses and genetic predispositions, normal traits such as hearing and sight will be labelled as superior, those with atypical characteristics to be deemed as lesser. This will create a whole new class system within Europe, those who were groomed to be genetically superior, and those who have atypical human functions.

The slippery slope that occurs when genetic modification is legalised for “health” reasons shows that even an inherently good action can have substantial consequences. While a world free of cancer and diabetes appears a utopia, with closer examination, this idealistic visions fades away into a hellion dystopia. If the ability to eliminate precancerous genes became available, it would only be accessible to the wealthy. This would create a class system of those who are genetically “superior” and those who either could not afford to be “designed” at birth or those who chose not to be. This reality would be eerily similar to the warnings of movies like Gattaca or television programs such as Black Mirror. Though an extreme comparison, Hitler’s eugenics vision, of a “perfect race” would seem to be similar to the “genetically perfect” Europeans, Americans, or British, that would come from a genetically modified DNA. 

As philosopher Immanuel Kant once said, “human beings are ends in themselves, worthy of respect.”  To tamper with the genes of a future human, to predetermine their characteristics without weighing the political, legal, and ethical consequences of these actions, seems nothing less than a neglect of human dignity.  In the words of Michael Sandler, “to change our nature to fit the world, rather than the other way around, is actually the deepest form of disempowerment.” We as humans have the responsibility to work through adversity, seeing the beauty in imperfection. Great ideas and innovations stem from atypical individuals such as Albert Einstein or Vincent Van Gogh. Einstein did not read or speak until he was five, being diagnosed with severe autism. Van Gogh had depression. These two men changed the course of history, not despite their imperfections, but because of them: Einstein with his mathematical break-throughs and Van Gogh with his transformation of modern art. Simply put, imperfection within humans should be championed, not treated as a problem begging a solution.