Designer Babies

My presentation was a look into the future to see what options parents may have available to them to create the “perfect child” and the pros and cons of genetic engineering.

We currently use selection techniques such as carrier testing and prenatal screening to identify persons at risk for having handicapped children. Once a problem is identified, the parents have the choice of either continuing with the pregnancy or terminating the pregnancy. Wouldn’t this be considered a quest for the “perfect child?”

Different types of gene therapy (the deliberate manipulation of genetic makeup to repair a defective or mutant gene, to replace it with a “better” gene or to introduce a completely new gene) are being experimented with. Somatic Cell alteration is a type of gene therapy that modifies only somatic (non-reproductive) cells. Somatic cell alteration alters the cells after birth, sometimes being introduced into the cell in the form of a virus. The results will die out when that person dies-the results will not be passed on to the next generation. Another type of gene therapy, and the most controversial, is germ-line therapy. Germ-line therapy involves taking sperm or eggs, or cells in a developing embryo and adding new genes to them. These changes will be passed on to all future generations. The consequences to future generations are unknown.

Human cloning is the simplest way to achieve a “designer baby.” This is done by taking a cell from an adult and combining it with a human egg. The result is a clone of the adult from which the cell was taken. The child has guaranteed genes and parents will even know what diseases the child will be likely to catch.

Reducing the risk of genetic disease for a child by selective choice of ancestor genes is the strongest argument in favor of genetic engineering. People’s fears of creating “carbon copies” are unrealistic because most researcher believe genes define or determine a range of possibilities but the fine details are filled in over our lifetimes as a result of our interaction with the environment.

The negative aspects of gene therapy are quite numerous. The biggest concern is unintended consequences because a DNA map offers possibilities and predictions but the outcome is not certain. A second major concern is that of a slippery slope, meaning that parents will eventually want genetic intervention not only to prevent severe defects but to enhance other offspring characteristics as well. The ability of parents to select the gender of their offspring and the possible imbalance of the male/female ratio is another concern. Some researchers feel genetic engineering will decrease the diversity of the gene pool. Diversity is good in a population because if a population becomes too in-bred, it loses the ability to respond to new threats such as new viruses. Another, less popular argument against genetic engineering is the fear of the government becoming involved and requiring certain genetic modifications to meet their needs.

Currently the emphasis is on trying to prevent and cure disease, but how long will it be before those parents with enough money will find a way to genetically engineer the “perfect” child? Lee M. Silver, a cell biologist from Princeton University, sees society dividing into the “gen-rich” and the “gen-poor” those with and those without a designer genome.

The following are interesting results from a Time Magazine Poll:

q ¼ of Americans polled felt genetic engineering should be used to improve physical appearance.

q 34% found it acceptable for boosting intelligence.

q 60% felt it should be used to rule out fatal disease.

q 12% felt it should be used to influence height or weight.

q 11% felt it should be used to determine sex.

Currently, only gender can be selected. Gene therapy in embryos is still a few years away. The gene or genes responsible for most of our physical and mental attributes haven’t even been identified yet BUT THE RACE IS ON!!!!!

The feedback on my presentation was very enthusiastic and very positive. Everyone thought the presentation was well organized, informative and well presented. The perceived weakness in the presentation was my ability to generate class discussion and manage the discussion that did take place. I did include leading questions in my Power-Point presentation but due to technical difficulties was unable to use the presentation. I feel this had an effect on the overall quality of the presentation. I also do not feel it was fair for you to penalize me so heavily for not being able to use my Power Point Presentation considering the fact that you gave me the option of doing my presentation at a later date. I chose to go on my assigned day so as not to disrupt your schedule, but that choice lowered my grade substantially.

I found the following books helpful but somewhat technical. There was also a lot of reading to obtain a small amount of information. Overall, I found the websites and related articles to be the most valuable in obtaining information and enjoyable to read.

Resources

Kitcher, Philip. The Lives To Come, Touchstone. NY.1997.

McGee, Glenn. The Perfect Baby. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Maryland. 2000.

Robertson, John A. Children of Choice. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 1994.

Rothblatt, Martine. Unzipped Genes Temple University Press. Philadelphia. 1997.

Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden Avon Books. New York. 1997.

Websites

Deneen, Sally. “Designer People” Emagazine.com. January-February, 2001.

Hayes, Richard. “The Politics of Genetically Engineered Humans”

http://www.anth.org/ifgene/hayes.thm

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/mmGMhumans.html

http://users.compaqnet.be/jpnitya/science/clone.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/001002/genetics.htm

http://www.washingtonpos.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4115-2000Jun5.html