Designer baby

The term "designer baby" is a term coined by the media and journalists which refers to a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilisation to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.

Ethics

See also: Procreative beneficence, Reprogenetics, and Liberal eugenics

The technical capacity to heritably modify the biology of mammals, available since the 1980s, has led to proposals to apply such methods to the biological improvement of humans. The term "designer baby" was originally derived from "designer clothing" and used pejoratively as implying commodification of children. More recently it has gained currency as a relatively neutral shorthand for such manipulations, which, as far as the public record is concerned, have yet to be implemented. Supporters of designer baby technology include liberal technophiles, libertarians, and transhumanists, who variously believe in a moral imperative to improve society by improving the health, intelligence or physical capability of individuals, or in the right of individuals over the disposition of their own bodies and those of their unborn children. Opponents of the prospect of designer babies include those who object to experimentation on human embryos, either because they reject abortion, which would be an inevitable consequence of some designer baby attempts, or because they oppose experimentation on humans in the absence of informed consent. Some have projected a dystopia in which a race of superior humans look down on those without genetic enhancements, though others have counselled accepting this vision of the future. If genetic manipulation could successfully prevent diseases and disabilities, some have anticipated that discrimination against those with disabilities would greatly rise. It has also been suggested that genetic engineering could have deleterious effects on the human gene pool.

Genetic modification is widely believed to be potentially capable of affecting the full range of biological traits, from gender to susceptibility to disease, and eventually appearance, personality, and even IQ. Such broad claims for the efficacy of genetic manipulation have been disputed, however. Nonetheless, the perceived desirability of genetic modification technology has led to controversies concerning the price of such procedures and its ability to create a gap in society. The technology is fairly recent and as it develops is a very costly procedure. With only the wealthy being able to pay for the modification that will eliminate disease for their children and eventually choose to treat people with disabilities or diseases and those used to enhance healthy people. They are particularly wary of this technology’s ability to lead to a new eugenics where individuals are "bred" or designed to suit social preferences such as above average height, certain hair color, increased intelligence, or greater memory. Not only is the prospect of future generations of "better people" a metaphysical concern, but apprehension also arises from the possibility that such groups of people might become prejudiced against one another due to a feeling of lost common humanity with non-enhanced or differently-enhanced groups. Within journalistic coverage of the issue, as well as within the analysis of bioconservative critics, the issue of safety takes a secondary role to that of humanity, because it is thought that the ethical issue of safety can eventually be resolved by innovation and so should not be focused on due to its fallibility. The so-called Frankenstein argument asserts that genetically engineering designer babies would compel us to think of each other as products or devices rather than human individuals.

The genetic modification of humans can pose an ethical debate about the rights of the baby. One side of this issue is that the fetus should be free to not be genetically modified. Once the genetic modification of the fetus takes place then the baby is changed forever, there is no chance that the genetic modification completed prior to birth could ever be reversed. The opposing view to this is that the parents are the ones with the rights to their unborn child, so they should be able to have the option to decide their genetic code. Despite the pejorative nature of the term "designer baby", a minority of bioethicists consider the notion of a designer baby, once the reprogenetic technology is shown to be safe, to be a responsible and justifiable application of parental procreative liberty. The usage of genetic engineering (amongst other techniques) on one's children is said to be defensible as procreative beneficence, the moral obligation of parents to try to give their children the healthiest, happiest lives possible. Some futurists claim that it would put the human species on a path to participant evolution.

It has also been argued that designer babies may have an important role as counter-acting an argued dysgenic trend. Initially this may be limited to wealthy couples, who may possibly travel abroad for the procedure if prohibited in their own country, and then gradually spread to increasingly larger groups.

Cost

One round of in vitro fertilization (IVF) currently typically costs around 9,000 USD. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) adds another $4,000 to $7,500 to the cost of each IVF attempt. A standard round of IVF results in a successful pregnancy only 10–35% of the time (depending on the age and health of the woman), and a woman may need to undergo subsequent attempts to achieve a viable pregnancy. As a result, a successful pregnancy is currently very costly—and cost-prohibitive—for most women.

Biological risks

There is a wide variety of biological risks associated with genetic modifications. There may be irreversible genetic changes that get passed from generation to generation with germline treatment/enhancement. New diseases may be introduced, although it is impossible to predict what they may be until they appear. Pleiotropic effects of genes are well known. For example, the gene for sickle cell anemia confers resistance to malaria. If this gene is expunged more people could die. Given the inherent variabilty of the technology, a new gene could insert into the targeted genome in a way that could lead to deleterious interations with other genes. It is thus difficult for scientists to accurately predict the outcomes of genetic modification because genes operate in partnership with many other genes and the environment.

Future technology

See also: Human genetic engineering and DNA microarray

Researchers have already connected the genes in the striped zebra fish which control the color of the fish to genes in humans that determine skin color. With this knowledge genetic engineers could alter human skin tone. It also leads to the manipulation of other genes which control hair, facial shape, quality of teeth in terms of enamel, and eye color.

A 2012 article by Carolyn Abraham in The Globe and Mail stated that "Recent breakthroughs have made it possible to scan every chromosome in a single embryonic cell, to test for genes involved in hundreds of 'conditions,' some of which are clearly life-threatening while others are less dramatic and less certain". There is already a "microchip that can test a remarkable 1,500 genetic traits at once, including heart disease, seasonal affective disorder, obesity, athletic ability, hair and eye colour, height, susceptibility to alcohol and nicotine addictions, lactose intolerance and one of several genes linked to intelligence. This particular gene has been shown to result in a seven-point IQ gain if a baby is also breast-fed". It is still difficult to get enough DNA for such extensive testing but the chip designer thinks this technical problem will be solved soon.

Genome sequencing

In the near future, there may be devices in each laboratory and doctor’s office that can sequence anyone’s entire genome. At the cost of $1,000, people can use this to determine their chances of disease or the origin of their non-disease-related traits, as well as discover patterns in DNA sequences and understand the complexities of specific traits.

Viral injection

Gene implantation using viruses starts with a non-virulent virus being injected with a specific gene that the scientist wants to be expressed. Usually, another gene is attached to the desired one that can help determine if the cells took up the gene. This other gene may code for the resistance to an antibiotic or produce a fluorescent color. Once the virus is implanted into the embryos, those cells are cultured. After a few cycles of mitosis, the cells that survive a dose of antibiotic treatment or that are fluorescent are then transferred into the uterus. A test of the reliability of viral vectors was done in 2000 at Necker Hospital. Ten children who had a rare disease of X-SCID, a hereditary immunodeficiency disease similar to AIDS, were involved in the trial. After taking blood samples and infusing them with harmless retroviruses carrying the gene to correct the initial gene that was causing their illness, the blood was transfused back into the ten children. Because of the misplacement of the gene, three of the children developed leukemia. Therefore, the problem with viral injection is misinsertion. Viral DNA places itself anywhere on any chromosome, which can lead to problems with the functioning of other genes, otherwise known as insertional mutagenesis. However, nine of the ten were cured of the initial disease, so viral injection is still a plausible technology to be used for a "designer baby."

Germline modification

Another and slightly more controversial method for genetic engineering is germline modification. Human germline modification aims to alter the genes which are carried in the ova and sperm. As a result, all future generations will be affected by the genetic alteration, whether it is an enhancement or eliminating a disease. Usually, genetic alterations made to an embryo already extend to later offspring. Therefore, no matter the method of genetic engineering, the possibility of altered traits being passed on to future generations must be considered.

Homologous recombination

One of the more promising techniques of proper gene insertion is homologous recombination. This process of identifying, cutting out, and replacing a misspelled sequence of DNA letters occurs naturally in the cell. Scientists could later turn predesigned, implanted chromosomes off by activating a recombinase that would recombine the ends of the chromosomes. While homologous recombination avoids the problem of insertional mutagenesis, it is very inefficient, producing only about one out of a million cells that have actually taken up the new gene sequence.

Human artificial chromosome

Another possibility is the use of human artificial chromosomes, or HACs. This would involve adding a completely new chromosome to the forty-six others that we already have. The benefits are that the new genes on the HACs would not disrupt the existing genes on the other chromosomes and scientists would be able to create promoter regions that could be used to turn the gene on and off. There are critical flaws in this method, though, including the fact that usually extra chromosomes have been linked to diseases. Also, in order to pass along genes to offspring, there must be a matching chromosome from the other partner, so at least right away these HACs may not be particularly useful for germline, or sex cell, modifications.

See also

• Reprogenetics
• Human enhancement
• Human genetic engineering
• Transhumanism
• Eugenics in the United States
• Genetically modified organism

External links

• Bonsor, Kevin. Howstuffworks: How Designer Children Will Work
• Strongin, Laurie Saving Henry, a non-fiction account of Strongin's pioneering use of IVF and PGD to have a healthy child whose cord blood could save the life of her son Henry