An article from CNN discussing the ability of parents to choose their child's gender before birth. FOCUS: Realistically, what kind of genetic engineering would you apply to your child? What would be too far, and where would your limits be? For those who have kids, do you wish you could go back and do it different? ALT-FOCUS: What superpowers would you splice into your kids' DNA, and why? Forget the "he can do anything and everything" or Superman kind of superpower, but go more for a X-Man or Heroes kind of thing.
Genetic Engineering is one of those slippery slope kind of moral and ethical situations. On one hand, I'm all for the early detection of disease and conditions, so that appropriate measures can be taken. Yes, I'm talking about aborting that Down Syndrome child. (Sorry, but there's no way in hell I would affect my life that much... call me an evil, selfish asshole, but I'll still call myself a realist.) I would also give my kid(s) (if I were to ever have any), as much brainpower as I could. But then again I draw the line at genetically engineering blond hair or blue eyes or higher natural levels of HGH. Why I draw that line where it is, I don't know. Sure, looking better or being able to compete at a higher level physically would give them huge advantages in society (and therefore benefit me greatly in my retirement), but I don't like the idea of pandering to vanity. As to super power, it would be the ability to excrete an "Axe" (the body spray) like hormone, at will, to attract or woo the opposite sex. It'd be like creating your own, natural GHB, or Spanish Fly. I'd call the kid The Hormone, and send him after strippers so that there'd be more drama at Thanksgiving dinners.
I have two children and I agree with this whole heartedly. My first daughter was born with multiple defects in her eyes, her irises and fovea never fully developed and on top of that she has nystagmus. Don't get me wrong, she lives life just like any normal five year old, but she will have challenges in life(such as getting a drivers license) that I wish could have been prevented. Now if there were a way to detect that early and correct it, I'm all for it. I also agree,(and I know this is redundant), that Genetic Engineering is a slippery slope and the path to hell, so to speak, was paved with good intentions.
I just had my first kid, a daughter, a little over a year ago. She's perfect, and she's already been genetically engineered to overturn the most rancid garbage pails in the house and knee dad in the balls while he's sleeping. Honestly, this shit is scary and an abomination to add to the fact. Those ding-dong retards known as "stage parents" who already push their poor, innocent kids to the limits of insanity are now given another torch to fill their own career-void with because they were losers their whole life. I'm not religious at all, and I have true faith in science. I also beleive It's just plain fucking WRONG to customize your kid. It has real potential to cure a lot of tragic defects, but this is also cheating nature as well as this knowledge falling into the wrong hands could be catastrophe.
My issue with genetic engineering is that it implies there is perfect knowledge regarding the type of engineering you're engaging in. That would mean that you would have to know everything that is implicated in 'altering' a gene. Given the fact that we're not 100% sure about anything in our bodies, it seems that altering them could lead to catastrophic, and wholly unforeseen, circumstances. Plus, there's also a shade of 'preference' for one type of gene over another. And again, without understanding exactly what is being done, and the butterfly effects of changing one thing, you may well be altering someone into something that is counterproductive to what you were attempting to do in the first place. I have had this discussion with my wife, in the context of in-vitro (which is not genetic engineering) and my attitude is the same. Some people just can't do some things, and while that may be sad, there are so many alternatives that resorting to this type of science (usually to feed an unbridled and unfounded ego) is probably a really bad idea.
Beyond all the moral arguments, has anyone given any thought to the fact that this will completely destroy the fun and amusement of Special Olympics?
I am all for preventitive measures taken to rid the fetus of diseases that will invariably effect its life after birth. However, I am seriously against the prospect of people being able to pick blue eyes instead of brown, brown hair instead of blonde, or alter gender in any way. Your kid isn't a fucking new car; it's not like upgrading to leather from cloth on some options list. People that wish this was an available service need to be smacked with a baseball bat so that during their period of unconsciousness, doctors can fill their genitalia with concrete to eliminate any chance of procreation.
Thank you for making me cackle like an idiot in the middle of a quite office. On topic though, I could say all I want about the ethics of this topic and that I wouldn't want to tinker with nature too much, but when it comes right down to it I know for a fact that I would be very tempted to make all kinds of "designer changes" to my child. I, for one, would prefer to have a boy but before reading that article I would never have considered the risk of creating a gender imbalance if this sort of thing were available to anyone. I'm all for this kind of genetic engineering to an extent, but its this type of unforeseen consequences that makes it a sticky topic. If everyone is engineered to have the "perfect" traits, then were just gonna end up with a world full of more attractive goobacks. And since I'm the nerd that I am, I have to weigh in on the alt-focus. I think I would probably give my child some sort of telepathic, Professor X type powers. What would be really cool would be a telepathic type of power that would let you implant your consciousness into another persons body, turning them into a drone and creating a hive-mind that you controlled, which would be a bit of an evil power I guess. If I gave this power to my kid I would make it so that I was Immune, of course. Actually, fuck the kid, I want those powers!
I'll chime in here with an opinion for the other side. I agree with the above mentioned "butterfly effect," and the notion that altering one aspect could have unforeseen consequences. However, since this focus of this thread is also adding superpowers, I'm basing my answer on the assumption that when a doctor selects one gene over another, he has a miraculous ability to forsee any and all negative consequences. Really, what's wrong with choosing blue eyes over brown? Girls over boys? The predisposition to be artistic, or to run fast? (Going off my previously mentioned assumption), why is this so morally or ethically wrong? I think very few parents would select a harmful gene; in fact, most parents would choose what they wanted based on the belief that it was the very best option for the child. So, what of it? I have a hard time believing society would melt into what was portrayed in the movie Gattaca...just like now we have some kids with expensive cars and unlimited credit, so in the future we'd have a group of children that was physically - maybe not superior, but certainly selected. I don't see this as a huge ethical issue. I also believe that the gender issue would balance out. As the doctor in the article alluded, many families want girls just as much as they want boys. Oh, and I'd give my kid Mistique's superpowers. She sort of had them all, or at least she could fake it. And then she could look like Rebecca Romijn when she decided not to be blue.
The problem with testing for certain defects and diseases when we were expecting our kids was we were told that if they did the tests, there is a higher probability of FALSE positives than true ones. So to me that signaled that it was still a friggin crapshoot, and since my wife and I had no intentions of playing that game, we declined the test. The first thing I thought of when I read this was to me it's kind of the same as these fucking designer dogs, like "Malti-poos" or whatever so someone with more money than brains can buy a "designer dog" like its a fashion accessory, and I fear that would carry over into the kids.
I'm against the idea of genetically-modified designer babies. What few people seem to understand is that it won't be your kid who comes out of the womb with six-pack abs and an IQ in the quadruple digits. You won't be able to afford the incredible price for this kind of procedure. Changing the gender right now costs $18,000. How much will more advanced modifications cost? I'm thinking tens of thousands, and even if it's affordable, people with lots of money will always have the funds to give their children even better. Rich kids already have a big advantage over your kids -- do you really want them to also be smarter, better looking, physically superior, and capable of punting a Volvo with their mind? Even just choosing between multiple embryos the one which will come out the best, without modification, would eventually lead to the same result within only a few generations. This would create an even larger class divide between the haves and the have-nots. In my opinion, modification of any sort should be illegal. This kind of stuff should only be used to detect whether or not an embryo would have any serious disorders, before planting it into the uterus. Engineering your kid to make sure he doesn't have high blood pressure, asthma, etc., sounds good, but that's just not a path I think society should go down.
Concerning price: things are pretty much always expensive when they're new. What's the price/availability difference between laser eye surgery today and that of 20 years(if it has even been around that long) ago? Or the first horseless carriage and a Honda Accord? If it doesn't start someplace, then there's little chance for it to improve or decrease cost. As for "designer babies". It'd suck to be the competition against someone who's been genetically engineered to be superior to you, but I'm sure it'd suck for a 13th-century peasant to be competing with you. Also, I like the idea of genetic engineering being subsidized to an extent. Removing things like sickle cell anemia (it's good against malaria, but we've got other treatments for malaria) would be beneficial to the public health, and a few thousand dollars spent on a fetus could save a few hundred thousand dollars spent on a human. If stuff that would decrease general public-health expenses was made really cheap, and "designer stuff" like eye color was made more expensive, I think things would work out OK.
If I could go back and change anything about my kids it would just be a longer swim in their mother's end of the gene pool, especially the oldest.
The whole notion of designing babies to have six pack abs and IQ's of 200+ is an absolute fallacy. Show me the DNA sequence that needs to be sequenced and translated inside the cell for this to happen. Having the right frame and athletic build is a pre-requisite for six-pack abs, yes, but you also need to work out and maintain the right diet. Even if all this is a matter of simply having the right genes, knowing which genes those are (not to mention avoiding any unintended side effects of amplifying/expressing those genes) is a hell of a long way off, if it's going to happen at all. What is possible through genetic engineering is to fix defects caused by identifiable genes. Like multiple sclerosis, which is inherited via classical mendelian genetics (i.e. simple dominant/recessive alleles). The gene defect which causes MS is known, therefore making it much more readily fixed once the technology to do so comes online. Other diseases, like familial hyperlipidemia, are caused by a complex pattern of inheritance that isn't yet understood. Even if those genes could be identified, I'll bet you good money there will be downsides to fixing them via genetic engineering. The first thing I was taught in pharmacy school - you can never fix one problem without creating another. As for genetic testing or whatever, I'm all for it. If having a boy means that my child is 50% likely to have [genetic disease] and the other half means he's going to be a carrier, while having a girl means she is only 25% likely to be a carrier of said disease and unable to be affected by it, then yes, I'm going to choose to have a girl. Plenty of ethnicities deal with problems like these because of increased risks of carrying those diseases, like taysach's or sickle cell anemia. And, quite frankly, if I found out my kid-to-be were going to have Down's, or autism, I'd abort it. Not entirely for selfish reasons - what kind of life would that kid have, stuck in the brain of a 5 year old its whole life?
I'm looking at this in a different approach. In the sense that we are talking about, genetic modification means that parents can select specific traits for their children to exhibit. Make them a better athlete, better artist, smarter. I find that ok. Here's the problem: The parents are doing the selection based on their preferences. What I mean by this is that they would want their son/daughter to be a great athlete when they grow up. So they inhibit/express that gene. Now what? When the child is born, the parent will pressure that child to express that trait to the fullest. After all, they wouldn't have genetically modified their child unless they wanted them to be adept at that trait, right? So now the child is being forced into something--playing the piano, for example, because of his artistic ability. As a child, I can understand that your thinking is flawed and you brain is not fully developed. But by the time he's 20, what if he realizes that he doesn't really like playing the piano--he just did it because his parents had him do it? I think that gene expression can be used correctly, but only if parents are careful in how they nurture their child. They should let the child pick what they want to do, within limits of course (have him try the piano for a year, or have him play a season of pee-wee football by all means!). But in my mind, gene expression can be as much of a limiter as it is an enhancer to society.