Creating a Designer Baby

Once babies are grown in test tubes, there would be no need for parents and therefore vanish the incredible bond between the mother, father, and child. The childhood of a child that was grown in a test tube would be completely unconventional, since that child would not have loving parents to teach them anything. Adults raised this way would grow up to be unusual as a result of not knowing what love is since people first know about love because of the love between them and their parents. The adults grown from test tubes would most likely be independent and isolated from the rest of the world because they would not have created a bond with anyone or even interacted with anyone as a child.

As we stand in the world today, we as humans have never been more technologically advanced or scientifically intelligent. We have the ability to explore outer space and the depths of the oceans. We are even in the process of developing organs using 3D printing technology. But there is a limit to the extent of advancements that humankind can reach before some begin to pose dangers to humanity or become unethical. Currently, technology is being developed to expand the procedure of in vitro fertilization to genetically modify embryos. The products of this engineering are commonly known as “designer babies”. This technology, when fully developed, would grant parents the opportunity to select against possibly life threatening or altering conditions such as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s. Using this technology, parents would also be able to make extensive selections regarding their baby’s gender, physical characteristics, and possibly even personality traits and talents. While it is positive advancement to be able to select against life-threatening diseases, the creation of an a-la-carte baby is unethical and crosses the line between positive sociological developments and immoral manipulations of nature for many reasons.

The first child to ever be from using test tube techniques happened in the late 1970’s. Although many have applauded this new type of technology, there is an ethical issue on whether or not embryos should be created in test-tube knowing that fact that many are not implanted and have human development. “Octo-Mom” is a classic case that may have changed many people’s perception when it comes to in-vitro fertilization. Many felt that it was ethically wrong for her doctor to conduct that type of procedure to a woman who will not have the ability to provide adequate care for the well-being of her children who may have health issues.

Living in such a fast paced society people look at new technologies as almost being something that they are forced to try. Biological and technological advances become so over bearing that we almost can’t resist. Although Stephan L. Baird in his article Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options? And Bonnie Steinbock in her article Designer Babies: Choosing Our Children’s Genes, take issue with “designer babies”. Baird believes that this technology has already enabled “designer babies” and now the concern should be over regulation. Steinbock, on the other hand, is both critical and dismissive of “designer babies” and doesn’t believe parents have

Chan School of Public Health revealed that “Roughly one in four Americans (26%) think changing the genes of unborn babies should be legal to reduce their risk of developing certain serious diseases, while 65 percent think it should be illegal.” (Harvard 1) The prospect of engineering a child, however, is not as far-fetched as one may believe. Sarah Ly explains in her article for The Embryo Project Encyclopedia that “IVF has become an increasingly common procedure to help couples with infertility problems conceive children, and the practice of IVF confers the ability to pre-select embryos before implantation. For example, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows viable embryos to be screened for various genetic traits, such as sex-linked diseases, before implanting them in the mother.”. (Sara Ly) Though it is an unpopular position to hold, many modern families would fight for their reproductive rights because their families would not have been possible without the aid of medical intervention. In an early and well-known case of gender selection, Monique and Scott Collins visited doctors at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, in 1996 for in vitro fertilization. Monique and Scott Collins desired to have a girl, because their first two children were boys, and the couple wanted a daughter in the family. Even though this procedure was performed to achieve the parents’ desire to create a more balanced family, this was one of the first highly publicized instances of PGD, as the decision was for a more cosmetic purpose rather than to address a specific medical condition. The Collins’ decision to have a “designer baby” by choosing the sex of their child entered the public eye when they were featured in Time Magazine’s 1999 article "Designer Babies". Even though the Collins’ case only involved choice of gender, it raised issues of choice for all other traits such as hair color, eye color, height, or

The fetuses will grow and have no diseases or abnormalities that were not predestined for them. We have already begun the scientific research on test tube babies and using artificial insemination, babies were made. The stance on test tube babies is still split, but with more research and births happening, the public is getting used to the idea. The article Test-Tube Baby, states that after the birth of Elizabeth Carr, “more fertility clinics were established all over the world and the number of successful test-tube baby births continued to grow as in vitro fertilization became both a more refined and more accepted practice” (Ruffenach). As people see that there are no side effects or consequences to the practice, they become more and more okay with the

(Thadani 2). The process of “Designer babies” involves fertilizing the egg by the sperm in a test tube outside the mother’s womb, and altering the genes. This procedure is also called Pre- implantation Genetic Diagnosis, known as (PGD). It is noble to eradicate disorders and diseases. Some people use the process for non- health reasons. When the screening is opened up to non-related health, 72 percent disapprove of the procedure, (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). According to a June 2006 paper published by Kathy L. Hudson of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, many people wanted to enforce a line between acceptable and unacceptable uses for PGD. (Hudson 1). By 2009, the Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles were letting parents select their children’s hair and eye color. The procedure brought over 4 billion dollars a year to the clinics. Clinics were focused on the money and no the important things, like the patients. They did not have the best interest in their patients, as much as they did in the money. (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). The public had a very negative view about using PGD for personal traits. (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). The clinic changed their policy after the outbreak of the public. (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). Also the procedure is very risky. The procedure involves some risks to the embryo, and some parents with no personal history of disease or disability. (Briggs 2). If the process is not done correctly and carefully, the embryo may have a chance of being terminated. (The Ethics of “Designer Babies”). The procedure also causes a chance of mutation. (“Preface to ‘Genetic of Enhancement of Human Abilities’”.). The technology

In the mid-1990s the first ever "designer baby" was made by Jacques Cohen, who believed he had discovered a way for infertile women to become pregnant. The way in which he went about doing this is by taking the DNA from the father and then from the mother and another from a third party who was a donor for cytoplasmic transfer. It was later found out that this “cytoplasmic transfer” actually gave the children extra mitochondrial DNA therefore the first genetically modified baby was born.

Like most high school seniors, I was handed a copy of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which I found myself lost in a world where childbearing was mechanicalized, as children were made-to-order inside of test tubes with specific traits and societal roles. Now I sit three years later, reading about how this once imagined world of Aldous Huxley has become a reality as we now have the technology to make these made-to-order babies. As mentioned in lecture, the first test tube baby, or child conceived in a petri dish, took place in 1978. Although this type of treatment was scolded by scientists and leaders around the world it eventually became accepted and now roughly 55 million people are a product of this process of in vitro

“A baby whose genetic makeup has been selected in order to eradicate a particular defect, or to ensure that a particular gene is present”; the definition of a designer baby is a simple one. A child who, through science and engineering, is given traits desired by it’s parents to resemble their view of a healthier, better baby. Whether that is to treat a mutation in the child’s DNA that could result in Down’s Syndrome or changing the baby’s eye color from brown to blue, science has made it not only conceivable but a very likely possibility, for fully designed babies to be waddling down the street within the century. Though the term “designer baby” is not one recognized by scientists, many journalists across the world have coined the term to explain the quite terrifying potential reality that lies ahead for humanity. Currently, only two types of advanced reproductive techniques can be conducted on humans. One, analyzes the sperm to determine the sex and genes of the baby, and the second screens for various genetic deformities that may occur before birth, thus allowing people to only fertilize healthy embryos.

Science is now able to better improve human health and safety thanks to the advanced modern technology and medicine that are available. Yet with today's technology being implemented into science comes the questions of human morality, or bioethics. One of the bioethics debates is on the coined term “Designer babies”; on if or where society should draw the line on genetically altering our children before they are born. With the technology able to stop hereditary diseases, the scientific development’s are able to change the child’s “eye color, hair color, social intelligence, right down to whether or not your child would have a widow’s peak” before the child is born. From the options on choosing whether or not your child will look or act a certain

October 2001 - Fertility experts announce they will begin to offer PGD for use in sex selection to clients

This article describes how and why there has been an increase in demand even though there are ethical issues. The article states, “‘People want it. It’s legal,’ said Dr. Michael Feinman, medical director of HRC Fertility offices in Westlake Village and Encino. ‘In a competitive market, it’s obviously a way to acquire other patients’” (“Lab Methods”).

tubes to become pregnant (Purdy, 2001, Bioethics of New Assisted Reproduction). In addition, in vitro fertilization could lower the costs

Jennifer Rosenberg on about.com (n.d.), had stated, “On July 254, 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the world’s first successful ‘test-tube’ baby was born in Great Britain.” This was advancement in the medical history for women everywhere who had difficulty getting pregnant; this medical breakthrough, known as In-vitro fertilization, or IVF, since Louise Joy Brown’s birth had only grown in ease and the amount of people that use this technology is at an all-time high. The CDC (2014) stated on their website that, “Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.4 million.” This is a massive number of people that use this service. In-vitro fertilization’s advancement in medical technology allows people to have children despite