Preimplantation Embryo Genetic Modification Should Be Legal

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

A Brave New World published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley was about a utopian society in which people were placed in castes because of how their embryos were modified. Little did the author know less than a century later the idea of “designer babies” might be a reality. Designer babies are very similar to Huxley’s idea; a person could be genetically altered before they were born. Unlike Huxley’s book, in which embryos were genetically modified due to government industrial control, designer babies’ destinies are determined by parental control. Although, gene alteration can prevent genetic diseases, predetermining genetic outcomes should be illegal because of its negative effects on society; the effect genes have on each other, and the underwhelming success rate.

The movie “Gattaca” is a sci-fi movie that takes place in “the not-too-distant” future, where genetic engineering of humans is common. In this sci-fi future, class differences are construct is primarily determined by your DNA. In the movie society’s culture is ingrained with eugenics, evident by the clear institutionalized discrimination. Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim at improving the genetic quality of the human population. Eugenics is not a “new” concept, people have been discriminating based on looks ever since prehistoric times. The movie inspired me to do some research on popular eugenics movements in the post-industrial age (1850-present). My primary goal of was to identify the motives behind early eugenics

The Oxford University Press defines eugenics as “the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics” with a further—and rather illuminating—explanation which states, “Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis”.

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

Starting in the late 19th century, American philosophers, theorists, and scientists began experimenting and theorizing the idea of eugenics. Derived from Darwinian theories and the extensive works of Gregor Mendel, eugenics is known as a set of practices aimed at enhancing the human genome into sameness. Edwin Black’s “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” looks at the horrific background of eugenics, the ones who supported it, and the twisted ends it came to. This source, along with the two others, brings light to the awful means pursued to obtain a brilliant, but illogical and immoral goal of sameness. Overall, a negative vibe is shown through these sources.

Despite the few supporters of “Designer Babies”, the notion of genetically enhanced children brings forward many ethical issues. A primary concern of this technology is its use for enhancement purposes. It would be impossible to prevent such use and would thus blur the objectives of gene technology from medical purposes, to the trait selection and enhancement of embryos. It has also been noted that the genetic modification of people mirrors the extremist views of Hitler, who sought to shape the German

in our culture. Eugenics was a vital part of several social movements in the twentieth century that

There is much bias and confusion surrounding the topic of eugenics. Many times the reason for this is the lack of understanding of what the term means, where it states “In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar, and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning ‘well-born.’ (Genetics Generation, 2015).” This term has evolved to encompass more than just “well-born” as can be seen in the encyclopedia. “The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as ‘the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.’ (Court, 2004).” The meaning of the word eugenics, due to the way it has been used, confuses many people.

The US News ranked Yale #3 in the best National University in 2015. Yale’s historian Daniel Kevles offered a “tutorial on the Eugenics movement” and wanted to admonish its presence in the 20th century. He makes a connection to the Eugenics movement and the dawning of the “designer baby” and says “today, the driving force for human-genetic modification will be consumer demand, and with the biotech industry serving as “a new player in this game””. It's been said that ¨This will ultimately result in segregation between the superior ´modified´ humans, and the pure but inferior ones. Sooner or later,this situation will get ugly¨. The look on races, eye color and hair color will reverse from just traits to a more primitive ideas as used in Nazi Germany. There is no way to tell how this technology being available would change our society, with Hitler ¨life was cheap if you did not conform to the Aryan race

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

The definition of eugenics is to breed out undesirable traits. Based off of Austrian scientist Gregor Mendel’s studies, eugenics is accomplished through selective breeding. Dominant traits would replace recessive traits and the law of dominance would be ineffective. Originally, the idea behind eugenics was not completely bad. Over time though, problems surrounding it have been found. Dealing with positive and negative traits, questions have been asked about what constitutes as a negative trait and who decides which traits are

The roots of eugenics can be traced back to Britain in the early 1880’s when Sir Francis Galton generated the term from the Greek word for “well-born”. He defined eugenics as the science of improving stock, whether human or animal. According to the American Eugenics Movement, today’s study of eugenics has many similarities to studies done in the early 20th century. Back then, “Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes.” (www.eugenicsarchive.org) According to Merriam-Webster, the modern day definition of eugenics is, a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of

     There isn’t any background information of human genetic engineering because it is perceived as unmoral, but there are many comparable instances of altering genes. Genetic engineering is the largest food experiment in the history of the world. “More than 100 million acres of the world's most fertile farmland were planted with genetically modified crops last year, about 25 times as much as just four years earlier”(King,1999). There is a series on genetic engineering of food crops, genetic engineers are now moving genes around among plants and animals. The attempt to improve the human race genetically relates to someone creating a specialized breed of horses or dogs. “In the early decades of the 20th century, eugenics projects in the U.S. led to forced sterilization of some people who were considered to have undesirable