Tuesday, December 7, 2010

DIY Fetus!


Today, genetic modification in agriculture is a well accepted practice, but the introduction of altering genetic makeup in childbirth is facing an entirely different reaction. Considering the significant impact this innovation will have on the future of humanity, it’s only expected for people to have their doubts about the social and ethical implications genetic modification poses on society. With every great invention comes great consequences – and the introduction of designer babies is no different.

The notion of using genetic modification to prevent diseases is received with open arms by the majority of society, but its use for cosmetic purposes is faced with a great deal of criticism and repulsion. To cure one of a disease that might damage their quality or length of life is to do well, but to alter one’s physical appearance for unnecessary reasons is seen as a superficial way of playing God. A number of safety concerns regarding genetic modification also pose as a potential threat to the well-being of children. Because many genes carry more than one particular trait, the modification of a gene to increase intelligence might also cause increased sensitivity to pain. Moreover, the ability to choose particular traits for your children would also build the foundation for a ‘super race’ of humans. Considering that these pricey options would be available only to those with the money, it would create an even larger gap between the wealthy and the poor. With the choice of preventing mental deficiencies or homosexuality in children, these marginalized groups would grow smaller while experiencing even more intensive forms of persecution. (PGD - Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, the process in which particular genes are selected to be placed or removed from a cell^)

On the other hand, how can it be denied that genetic modification will significantly improve the quality of life of many people? Millions of people all around the world who might’ve potentially fallen victim to a life-threatening disease can live in peace because of genetic modification. The purpose of technological advancement and progression in society is to find ways to improve the general quality of life. What better way than to eliminate genetic diseases from the very root of the problem? – in the genetic make-up of potential patients. At the moment, this method of genetic modification causes absolutely no form of direct harm to the members of society. None of the universally accepted standards of human rights are breached in any way through the processes of genetic modification; meaning in no way is there a negative effect on the well-being of society. In fact, the issue can easily be compared to the consumption of particular foods during pregnancy to increase the intelligence of children where it is nothing but a harmless decision that belongs solely to the mother.

There’s no doubt that designer babies can create an even greater imbalance between different social classes, but as of now, the level of technology hasn’t yet reached a state in which a superior race could evolve. Since no-one is being harmed through this genetic modification, it’s safe to say that it’s just another harmless option open to soon-to-be parents.

Sources:

- "Designer Babies." Buzzle.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. .
- "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations." ActionBioscience.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. .
- "What is a Designer Baby?" Bionet. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. .
- "Who's Afraid of Designer Babies?" BBC Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. sn/tvradio/
programmes/horizon/babies_prog_summary.shtml>.


Commented On:
Derek Li's 'Genetic Engineering - For Health Reasons... And Good Looks?'
Alex Cabaj's 'Designer Babies'

1 comment:

  1. This idea of manipulating the genes of an unborn child is something that should be throughly discussed for a long time. Scientists have shown that genetically engendering organic life has been proven to have many positive effects, but the idea of doing to an unborn child quite frankly seems inhuman.

    ReplyDelete