An article called “In Praise of Designer Babies” ( October 10, 2013) was constructed by Paul Waldman, a columnist and senior writer for the magazine “The American Prospect” for which this article was published in. This magazine covers various topics from a liberal and progressive perspective. Within this source, Waldman claims that the future of Designer Babies may not be as unethical as some people make it out to be, and that society may truly want the potential of genetically modifying their kids more than they think. To fully support his argument, Waldman refutes some of the most prominent ethical arguments with his own thinking about genetically modified embryos as well as what he believes society’s true opinion about designer babies are. …show more content…
Also, Waldman wants to show that society will eventually accept genetically modifying genes in the future despite the conclusion they jump to now. The intended audience of this source can be identified as the portion of society that isn’t highly involved with religion or the science of genetics due to those perspectives both already having a set opinion about designer babies. When analyzing the credibility of this source, I found that since it was published in a magazine that is known for its liberal and progressive view on matters, it has a biased towards that viewpoint, decreasing its overall credibility. The author also doesn’t have any scientific experience or knowledge in the genetics field which also diminishes this source's reliability. However, this source does bring up parallel ethical arguments that I have discovered in some of my other sources, which shows me that the information presented may be useful. I could potentially utilize this source in my project to show a new perspective on the concept of designer babies, but I would need more reliable evidence to strengthen the overall
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.
Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary
The use of genetic engineering shouldn't give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of changing human genes. Because of recent technological advances in "designer babies", parents
Picture a future where everyone is perfect, where judgment would not exist because no one is ugly, everyone is beautiful and flawless. In this “perfect” world each individual would be gifted in a specific category that they would excel in and go beyond what an average mundane could. This is a possible scenario we may encounter in the future if we allow the research of genetically- modified embryos (GM babies) to continue. Discussed by many, this topic has become increasingly popular. For some people this interests them in the sense that we can become the best versions of ourselves, simply by changing our genes. Another reason people support GM babies is that there is experiments that can prevent babies from being born with genetic health problems. Although the creation of these altered GM babies has some advantages, there are several problems that people must consider before we decide to go ahead with these plans. For example, genetic research will disrupt the natural order, which can lead to designer babies or GM babies born with side effects. The dangers of these experiments will greatly affect the world we live in. We must not rush into the practice of GM babies without letting the populations know the outcomes these GM babies can have in our society. Try to help everyone grasp the definition of GM babies and also explain how experiments on embryo can lead to designer babies.
Though it is evident that the concept of “Designer Babies” would prove unpopular amongst the majority of society, there still remains to be advocates for a future compromising of GM children. It is argued that gene technology will bring about a new age of human beings who are happier, smarter and healthier. Supporters look forward to a future when parents could quite literally assemble their children from genes listed in a catalogue. A future in which the health, appearance, personality and life span of our children become mere artefacts of genetic modification.
The side that is in favor of genetically modified babies, or designer babies, will be referred to as Pro-Genetics. The Pro-Geneticists believe that genetic modification of babies, whether in the womb or made in a laboratory, is the next advancement for the human species. The human genome is made of 24,000 genes (sciencemuseum.org). These 24,000 each have a specific purpose. Scientists can now access specific genes and alter them to meet the needs of the
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
Designer Babies are important in making a healthier America because they will eliminate disease. For instance, Caroline Chen, a researcher and journalist for Bloomberg Technology, talks about cases in which people editing embryos through heredity may be “the only or the most acceptable
Malik, Kenan. "Concerns About Biotechnology Altering Human Nature Are Groundless." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850213/OVIC?u=j170902014&xid=e7789a12. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017. Originally published as "Reviews: Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future," New Statesman, 20 May 2002.
“A certain person’s religious, economic, political, and scientific viewpoint of a situation significantly influences what his or her moral beliefs about designer babies are. Those who are highly influenced by religious teachings find the technology used by designer babies to be humans attempting to “play god”, while from an economic standpoint the inequality that would develop between the rich and poor from the expenses of using the CRISPR-cas9 system is inevitably unethical. Yet, from ethical beliefs that are developed from a political perspective, the opinion was split. Those from a conservative standpoint saw designer babies as immoral when considering the traditional rights a child has, but those from a liberal viewpoint brought into the
Michael Sandel’s “Designer Babies” In Michael Sandel’s “Designer Babies”, the topic of genetically engineering children is discussed in depth. Michael Sandel gives his view on the possibility that it could soon be reality that parents could choose their children’s genes, but he does so in a way that may not be obvious at first glance. Sandel uses several strategies to give his opinion, and to attempt to convince others to feel the same way he does. While some of his ideas are valid, upon a closer look some of the things Sandel is saying may not hold to be as true as he would like us to think.
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
Should parent be allowed to genetically engineer their children? : The ethical dilemma of designer babies.
How does it sound to walk into the doctor’s office, choose what attributes you want your baby to have, and then having that exact baby 9 months later? Although this may seem quite harmless to most, the negative effects of designer babies are tremendous: the lack of diversity in our population, violation of a specific set of laws designed to protect humans, going against Christian views, and even destroying the roots of human nature. With genetic engineering biotechnology, such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (or CRISPR), new and unique altercations are being done to revolutionize many aspects of our lives. Along with astounding benefits that can come from these biotechnologies, many people have come up with crazy ideas, such as these designer baby ideas, that could be potentially harmful to our society.