The Pros And Cons Of Genetic Engineering

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.

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

Most parents would do almost anything for their children to be the best and know that in life they will be successful and ahead of the game, but what if even before they are even born you could alter their genes to give them an even greater advantage. This would allow one to “create” a child who is smarter, taller, and prettier, even if the parents never carried any of these traits. As the human race continues to develop and modern technology continues to advance, we have been able to create new inventions that could potentially help us overcome daily issues linked with diseases and mutations, but although to some this seems like an incredible idea, the motion of one day being able to modify your unborn baby to look and be who you want is not only morally wrong, but could result in drastic environmental changes. Genetically engineering has influenced many debates as to whether the ethics behind the motion are right, and like most scientific discoveries comes with many advantages and disadvantages.

The future of genetic engineering results in ethical issues pertaining to the unlawful decision to design a child. D’Souza describes the possibility to design a child: “He envisions that, in the not too distant future, couples who want to have a child will review a long list of traits on the computer screen, put together combinations of “virtual children,” decide on one they want, click on the appropriate selection, and thus--in effect--design their own offspring” (D’Souza, 2010, p.810). Giving parents’ the authority to design their child affects the nature of the children. This authority will place parents’ in power instead of God. Then, D’Souza claims: “Gene therapy has already been successfully carried out in people, and now that the human genome project has made possible a comprehensive understanding of the human genetic code, scientist will possess a new kind of power: the power to design our children, and even to redesign humanity itself” (D’Souza, 2010, p.811).

In this essay, I will be discussing whether it is morally obligated by parents to use genetically advanced technologies to have a child that is best suited and best expected to have the best life possible. I will be looking at Julian Savulescu view on Procreative Beneficence in support of this idea that the best child should be produced, and in response to Savulescu’s argument, I will also be looking at Michael Sandel’s response against the use of genetic technologies. After considering both for and against arguments I will lay forward my response to the idea that genetic technologies should not have to be used by all couples when it comes to having their child, and is not a moral obligation.

The term designer children is unnerving at first to many. The idea of parents designing the genetic makeup of their offspring makes children seem like a commodity in a genetic free market. Thoughts of a dystopian society like the one in the film “Gattaca” come to mind. However, taking an immediate repugnant stand against genetic enhancement is not well-founded. A more open-minded inspection of the issue reveals that the idea of parents improving their children’s life prospects through genetic engineering (provided it is safe) is, at its core, not unethical. In fact, some genetic enhancement in addition to correcting deleterious genes to prevent disease is a moral obligation. It is moral to make rational decisions using the science and

This will increase the segregation between the richer and poorer parts of society. Also this could create prejudice and discrimination between the “Designer” and “Non-designer” children, with “classes” created between them. The non-designer babies could miss out on opportunities, such as jobs because people are more likely to take the “optimum” candidate for something. The use of designer babies could also create a gap in society, as there will be a loss of individuality and diversity. This is because parents will choose the prime characteristics such as intelligence or athleticism resulting in everyone being relatively similar. The means the ability to “change” and evolve as humans will falter. Who would want a world with everyone the same? It is also concerned that these techniques will be developed with innocent intention, for example repairing a faulty gene, but will be marketed to people or abused by the government and turned more into a business rather than a medical

For years the discussion on designer babies has been up surging and is now at the forefront of many medical and academic discussions. An experimental technique, known as gene therapy, birthed the idea of designer babies (“Gene Therapy”. GHF). This very experimental technique, why, uses healthy genes to treat, or rather prevent diseases that could be passed down from parent to child. However, scientists have ventured to further expound on the concept of preventing disease to a more cosmetic and superficial approach. The more imposing science of gene therapy would attempt to take science further into the realm of altering physical characteristics ultimately allow parents to choose their babies eye color, gender, and other physical characteristics that have no bearing on the child 's well being or health. The term now coined as “Designer Babies” is used to describe how by using gene therapy, parents can quite literally design their babies employing genetic screening combined with in vitro fertilization to alter otherwise naturally occurring physical appearances. Whether or not this revolutionary new science should be banned in the United States has become a very controversial topic in the U.S. igniting the strong opinions of scientists and politicians alike. Those in opposition believe that gene therapy is unethical, arguing that science is pressing toward a level that is morally perverse by allowing science to create the next generation instead of

Engineering designer babies who are perfectly healthy, intelligent, and athletic is just a glance at what the future may hold. This brings about controversy involving the ethics. Society would be dividing from genetically engineered people and natural people. The rich who can afford the treatment will be superior to those who cannot afford it. In society, people’s individuality will be stripped away. The child does not even have a choice in what happens to it. Engineering designer babies in the future may ruin the society people live in today.

Many wonder if it is ethical to use genetic information to alter natural processes of procreation to give people the best genes they can get. There are already ways to predict the presence of a genetic disease in a child based on the parents and in vivo testing. Eugenics is “increasing the number of genes in the human population responsible for improving intelligence, beauty, musical ability and other traits we value” (Munson, 2012 272-273) Eugenics is often confused to just be for consideration of the parents and the child. However, the definition of eugenics is reliant on the outcome for the entire human population. The two types of eugenics include positive and negative; positive eugenics is “The aim of increasing the number of

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

In the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Powell, Russel, and Buchanan pose the idea that human genetic engineering of babies can overcome many natural impediments for the sake of the human race. They declare that natural selection “never gets the job done” and “does not achieve perfection.” However, natural selection is not designed to make human beings perfect. Humans adapt to what best fits their surroundings, but they can never be perfect. With designer babies, the traits that are seemed optimal will accede to the future generation, which eventually allows humans to change without process of natural selection.

Gene therapy and by extension designer babies may be one of the most unethical, immoral human breaches within the scientific and medical field ever thought of by man. Altering and modifying the body into having artificial, synthetic traits like expansive height, bright blue eyes, blonde hair follicles may end harming the body moreso than contaminating it into the ultimate Übermensch. “Genomics may also one day enable otherwise healthy individuals to change their own DNA to improve athletic prowess or brain power, or allow the wealthy to artificially conceive genetically “superior” progeny.” (Tucker, par 3). That statement alone confirms the mortal yearning to possess superiority over the populace.

Throughout history few human beings achieved greatness like Mozart, Leonardo De Vinci and Albert Einstein. But with designer babies making babies like those geniuses will be more common. Also, the technology will be more advanced thank to the intelligent generation of designer babies. Ethicists believe that by genetically engineering our babies, parents will put a pressure on them to become what they design them to be. As a result, they will be disappointed if the doctor decided to become a lawyer. Parents will love, cherish and respect their kids whatever they are. In addition, Nicholas Agar believes that “we are all, in a way, designer children”, because they train us to become what they want us to be by tutoring and putting us in lessons.(4) No child has a free well as a kid. Do any kid decides on his/her kindergarten, preschool, clothe? No, because their parents are their gradient till they grow

With the help of technology, scientists are capable of repairing one’s genes and prevent babies from inheriting “abnormal genes”. However, focusing on designer babies, this idea might sound really appealing to a lot of people. People will have a chance to “program” their own child according to their own will, and they might take the excitement out of the unexpected. On the other hand, aren’t parents abusing or taking advantage of technology to fulfill their own desire by selecting certain traits for a child and make them “perfect”? Providing a chance for parents to create “perfect babies” makes no difference with encouraging discrimination in society. We could not deny the fact that people have an image in mind of what characteristics