Sunday, February 25, 2007

Dawn of the GM babies?





After 14 days the embryo would have to be destroyed so it could never grow into a GM baby.

But Dr David King, director of the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, said that to allow such research suggests that one day the Government hopes to overturn this current ban.

"If this were not the plan, why allow scientists to begin research?" he asked. "We must not start down the path to a future of GM "designer babies".

"Once scientists can dangle before the public realistic rather than theoretical possibilities of curing genetic diseases, it will be difficult to counter well-meaning support for human genetic modification."


And why exactly should we counter well-meaning support for genetic modification, so long as our intentions are ethically and scientifically grounded? The biotech "debate," such as it is, begs reinvention.

4 comments:

Chris said...

I think we need to get past the "what does it mean to be human" part of this debate, and make this an issue about limiting the rights of parents to exert undue control over their children's lives.

Do people have a right to better themselves, evade horrible diseases, prolong their lives etc? Of course they do. But how far does a parent's right go to determine what their child's sexual orientation, personality type, temperament, etc will be? I'd say the creepiest aspect of this whole debate is the prospect of control freak parents trying to architect every aspect of their children's lives.

As for redefining humanity - we can't even define it now. I don't think we'll ever be able to answer it. But the parents-as-designers thing: that's a creepy issue we need to set some guidelines for right now.

Anonymous said...

I have always wondered about the "right" of parents to bring a child into the world. What are they thinking (well its most likely they are not and relying only using their biological imperatives)?

Consider the myriad of horrible things that can happen to a child (really we should look at the entire continuum of the person rather than consider it just a baby or child) via genetics or environment. Enough to make you think that simply having a child IS child endangerment.

In any event, if forced to be brought into this world, it would be nice to at least remove all the genetic imperfections and predilections (yes homosexuality is not a nice "feature" for a person for a variety of reasons so it would likely be purged).

I would prefer a parent that chose to "pre-edit" a child to be a social individual rather than the typical computer geek (or blogger, no offense intended) that is miserable/depressed and a loner (oh yes we can take pride in being independent though).

Also, perfect vision/digestion/memory/reflexes/etc would be nice. The way parents do it now, essentially completely random chance, is like Russian roulette.

Chris said...

Well that's the risk isn't it though: that as a result of well-inentioned parents who want nothing but "the best" for their precious little angels, we'd end up with an IKEA planet of well-adjusted bland nobodies. It's bad enough that parents name their children after celebrities. How about when they're able to model their kids after them? I hope I don't live to see it. I may just see to it that I don't live to see it.

That's the real thing that gives people pause about GM children - not that it'll be used to eliminate genetic imperfections, but that the unimaginative flocking behaviour and conformity that are wired into us as primates will translate to complete phenotypic stagnation.

Whether that will happen or not is up for debate, but it's a real issue that needs to be adressed, and if possible, legislated against.

Anonymous said...

"that as a result of well-inentioned parents who want nothing but "the best" for their precious little angels, we'd end up with an IKEA planet of well-adjusted bland nobodies. It's bad enough that parents name their children after celebrities. How about when they're able to model their kids after them? I hope I don't live to see it. I may just see to it that I don't live to see it.

That's the real thing that gives people pause about GM children - not that it'll be used to eliminate genetic imperfections, but that the unimaginative flocking behaviour and conformity that are wired into us as primates will translate to complete phenotypic stagnation.

Whether that will happen or not is up for debate, but it's a real issue that needs to be adressed, and if possible, legislated against."

You see the first step is to eliminate all diseases from the offspring preemptively. This is the foot in the door. How can one argue about eliminating disease potentialities in a person, especially for the one you are bringing into the planet? But once this is done, the "enhanced survival" modifications not related to disease become easy to slide into the mix.

But your concern of alot of bland carbon copy children seems a trifle irrelevant. Look at our society today. Most people do not give the genetic blend of there children ANY thought (who selects a mate CONSCIOUSLY based on genetics?). Basically what happens is that a guy "knocks up" a gal and a baby may result, genetics be damned. So essentially, it is a biological imperative to go through the motions to reproduce, governed by the chemicals in the body. This is a sorry way to help offspring one chooses to bring into existence. At least GM babies implies that the parents have given thought and really care about what genetics their children start with.

Now it seems you are worried that there is lack of diversity in the genetic pool with everyone selecting a baby to be exactly like Britney Spears or Pamela Anderson . The problem with this is that who cares if everyone chooses to have the identical genetic baby, if society maintains the capability of genetic manipulation, it can create any kind of baby it wants in the future. Does it want a centaur like baby? Four arms? Eyes in the back of the head? You see diversity is actually mindboggling.

Also, assuming that all babies have identical genetics and civilization collapses in the meantime, this doesn't mean the end of diversity, just a slow pathway (via random mutation via radiation, chemicals and viruses) back to it.

"Phenotype stagnation" is not really a large concern. However what we should be worrying about is the rationale for existence. If existence has no purpose and we insist on bringing MORE people into the universe, then at least they should have perfection in terms of genetics including absence of disease and hopefully a mind that can be happy. I know people say that it was the frustrated, suffering people that brought us much great literature, art, science,etc, but I for one feel uncomfortable with the thought of billions of suffering lives before me just to give me some niceties of the current era. Far better that they never had suffered.

Anyhow, you know what will happen with the GM baby industry, only those elite who can afford it will be able to use it. If societies do give it to their population on a large scale, it will mostly be used to control them (in addition to "helping them").