Designer Babies Research Paper
Felicia Lessard
Student Number: 21995345
Introduction to Biology, SCI 120
Research Project Number: 25088100
DESIGNER BABIES
There have been many social views on the topic of designer babies, which include a scientist point-of-view. Designer babies are those of which parents can make the rash decision to genetically alter their child so that they do not develop the genetic disorders that many of us have today. By using IVF or InVitro Fertilization as the method of altering the genes, doctors have been able to “custom make” unborn babies to portray or eliminate certain characteristics.
What is a Designer Baby and How Are They Made?
By definition, a “Designer Baby” is a genetically modified, unborn child. Basically, they are children who have …show more content…
been “designed” with the desired sex or characteristics. Scientists continue to learn more about the human genome, and as they do reproductive technology continually advances to levels that we never imagined. Researchers linked to Bionet point out:
Advanced reproductive techniques involve using InVitro Fertilization (IVF), which is where eggs are fertilized by sperm in ‘test tubes’ outside the mother’s body in a laboratory.
The type of sperm (X or Y) that fertilizes an egg can be chosen, which is used to determine the sex and genes of the baby. The embryos can be screened for genetic diseases, and only selected embryos are implanted back into the mother’s womb. This technique is called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis or PGD. (Bionet par. 2)
Michael Lemonick, a writer for Time, shows in his article “Designer Babies” that these techniques allow doctors and parents to reduce the chance that a child will be born with a genetic disorder. It must be catching on because each year in the U.S. about 25,000 kids are born by IVF (Lemonick par. 16). And, not only is this like an extravagant shopping experience for parents but it’s also increasing in demand (Lemonick 1999). Society in entirety could be changed due to the increase in wanting that “perfect child.” Not only does this raise ethical and social questions but history could even repeat itself. The misuse of this procedure could cause genocide or make something like the Holocaust happen. The desired characteristics that parents want and demand for in their unborn children are skin, eye, and hair color and it was just how the Holocaust began. This type of lifestyle or procedure is very closely related to the Gattaca, the Brave New World, or the Nazis’ standards for a “perfect race’ (“Designing Rules For,”
2009).
How safe is the Lifestyle or Procedure for the Children?
What are the Effects in the Future Lives of the Children? The first genetically engineered child was born in 1997 but did come with complications. Of course, doctors and scientists make every effort to prevent any complications from arising that could potentially affect the lives of the children, mistakes were made in this case. Shannon Brownlee wrote in 2002: “In the mid-1990s, embryologist Jacques Cohen pioneered a promising new technique for helping infertile women have children. His technique, known as cytoplasmic transfer, was intended to “rescue” the eggs of infertile women who had undergone repeated, unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilization, or IVF. It involved injecting the cytoplasm found inside the eggs of a fertile donor, into the patient’s eggs.”
The doctors and scientists preformed the injection, they also injected the embryos with extra bits of genetic material called mtDNA. This meant that the kids now had three genetic parents: the mother, the father, and the donor.
Even though today’s medical practices are more advanced, the implications and long term effects that it could have on a child is unpredictable. The other children born with the three genetic parents had developed what is called “Pervasive Development Disorder” because of the mismatch between the donor and the mother’s mtDNA. The effects on the future lives of these children are not predictable and can be plagued by a number of diseases and disorders developed from genetically engineering. There are always consequences to a person’s actions.
Animal studies have shown that this type of genetic engineering is unpredictable. There may be a huge risk on the child if we mistakenly produce physical changes, or even change their personality. A study in mice whose genes had been changed to make them more muscular, unexpectedly became very timid compared to other non-genetically altered mice. There is always a chance for something unrealistic to occur when you are messing with the balance of nature.
Arguments for Designer Babies Considering the fact that there are a large number of people out there that cannot physically carry a child, or that have a medical condition that would prevent them from reproducing due to the fact that that gene or ‘disorder’ would be passed along to the child – most people wouldn’t want to put their child in that type of predicament. With the ability to create a child that would not carry those specific genes in their DNA and therefore would be able to carry on a long, healthy, and fulfilled life – designer babies would be their best choice. Techniques used to change the genetic make-up of the embryo allow these parents to have a child without the worry or chances of passing along a trait that could be potentially harmful to the child. There are also cases where parents have had one child with a serious disease, such as cancer, where they have used IVF to select embryos so that they can have a second child that can be used as a future, custom-made blood or bone marrow donor to keep the first child healthy, and alive. Supporters of designer babies also claim that IVF and PGD are used to do what is best for the child. Often times parents try to mold their children into what they think will make them the most successful, and now parents would conveniently be able to do just that before the child is ever born. What child wouldn’t want to be smarter, healthier, and better looking? Parents tend to know what is best for their children, and they are simply assisting in giving their children exactly what they need to survive in this world and be successful. The emotional, physical, and financial strain that is put on a family to care for a child that is sick could potentially be eliminated with the use of reproductive technology (Bionet par. 6). The price of the IVF and PGD would pay for themselves in the terms of the overall cost and emotional strain caused by raising a child with a life threatening illness that could very well have been prevented before the child was born. PGD can screen for over a dozen of the most serious genetic diseases including: cystic fibrosis, various familial cancers, early onset Alzheimer’s, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, neurofibromatosis, muscular dystrophy, and Fanconi’s anemia (Bailey par. 3) and (Lemonick 1). Nearly all genetic diseases could be avoided by testing the human genome using reproductive genetic techniques. Undoubtedly these techniques will push medical technologies to the next level, and provide a way to prevent and cure genetic diseases in the future. One successful case of the IVF and PGD, was that of a child named Adam Nash. Adam was conceived using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and InVitro Fertilization (IVF). Adam was conceived so that he could donate cord blood to his sister, Molly, who was born with Fanconi Anemia. Adam was born on August 29, 2000 by C-section. In October 2000, the blood from Adam’s umbilical cord was transplanted to his sister. On January 4, 2001 the family went home following a successful procedure at the University of Minnesota Medical Center (Derbyshire par. 1). The reproductive technology was used to save Molly Nash’s life. Supporters of this technology would argue that the fact that the technology is saving lives is enough reason to continue its practice.
Arguments against Designer Babies
The Adam Nash story brought praise and criticism due to the ethical issues surrounding PGD and was also the inspiration of the novel and film My Sister’s Keeper. The fact that children are being created to better suit their parents or act as a donor factory is cause for alarm with most. The child may feel that they were only born to be a help to their older sibling. Children need to feel loved, appreciated, respected, and even praised for their own accomplishments and for who they are. The simple gestures that that child may feel like a disposable matter may bring strife among their family and themselves. The techniques are very expensive. The ability is eradicate genetic diseases would be greatly increasing among the rich, but what about those that cannot afford to go through the treatment?! This issue may cause an imbalance between the rich and poor people. Discrimination will rise as genetically altered individuals would be preferred in the schools, workplace, and society over those who are not genetically altered. This continues to be an ethical debate about whether baby making should be a natural process or potential parents can use technology to choose special features for their children. The most quoted reason is that going that route is denying God his role in creation. Another reason is that a baby is an innocent creature that it should be left alone and let nature take its course. Another reason to shun genetic enhancement is that it makes no sense from a biological and developmental perspective. The human traits typically cited for enhancement, such as intelligence, personality or athletic ability, are complex and not only involve dozens if not hundreds of genes, but are the result of a complex mix of determinants, including nutrition, social and environmental factors, gene-to-gene interactions and epigenetic switches that are outside the reductive chemistry of the DNA codes.
What Do You Believe is Right? My own beliefs are a bit unbiased. The procedure itself can be both beneficial and damaging to the child at hand. If you want to have a child that is athletic, then marry someone that is athletic – the same goes for other features. As far as medically speaking, if there is a way to prevent a medical disease from being passed down to a child, every precaution can be taken to make sure that that child will be safe. The greatest danger of a belief in genetic engineering lies in its likely social impact. Eugenics will inevitably be used by those with wealth and power to make others believe that prenatal genetic modification makes people better. This controversy is to be as much of a myth as taking sperm from Albert Einstein to create a child with that magnitude of intelligence. If parents are allowed to use the reproductive genetic techniques to select the sex of a baby, the countries like China and India that value boys more than girls will use the technology as a way to ensure that they get a boy. It may get to the point where women are needed only for means of reproducing. Women would no longer be human – but property. This is inhuman, and we must make sure that it does not happen by carelessly letting this technology be abused.
References
Bailey, Ronald. “Hooray for Designer Babies!” Reason Online 6 Mar. 2002. 19 Nov. 2005 http://www.reason.com/rb/rb030602.shtml. Bionet. 19 Nov. 2005 http://www.bionetonline.og/English/Content/db_cont1.htm
Alma College Lib., Alma, MI. 20 Nov. 2005 <http;//web7.infotrac.galegroup.com>
Lemonick, Michael. “Designer Babies”. Time 11 Jan 1999: 64-67.ReadersGuideAbs. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
McKibben, Bill. “Design-a-kid”. Christian Century 17 May 2003: 22-28. Article First. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2708
Brownlee, Shannon. “Designer Babies”. Washington Monthly Mar. 2002 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0203.brownlee.html
Student Number: 21995345
Introduction to Biology, SCI 120
Research Project Number: 25088100
DESIGNER BABIES
There have been many social views on the topic of designer babies, which include a scientist point-of-view. Designer babies are those of which parents can make the rash decision to genetically alter their child so that they do not develop the genetic disorders that many of us have today. By using IVF or InVitro Fertilization as the method of altering the genes, doctors have been able to “custom make” unborn babies to portray or eliminate certain characteristics.
What is a Designer Baby and How Are They Made?
By definition, a “Designer Baby” is a genetically modified, unborn child. Basically, they are children who have …show more content…
been “designed” with the desired sex or characteristics. Scientists continue to learn more about the human genome, and as they do reproductive technology continually advances to levels that we never imagined. Researchers linked to Bionet point out:
Advanced reproductive techniques involve using InVitro Fertilization (IVF), which is where eggs are fertilized by sperm in ‘test tubes’ outside the mother’s body in a laboratory.
The type of sperm (X or Y) that fertilizes an egg can be chosen, which is used to determine the sex and genes of the baby. The embryos can be screened for genetic diseases, and only selected embryos are implanted back into the mother’s womb. This technique is called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis or PGD. (Bionet par. 2)
Michael Lemonick, a writer for Time, shows in his article “Designer Babies” that these techniques allow doctors and parents to reduce the chance that a child will be born with a genetic disorder. It must be catching on because each year in the U.S. about 25,000 kids are born by IVF (Lemonick par. 16). And, not only is this like an extravagant shopping experience for parents but it’s also increasing in demand (Lemonick 1999). Society in entirety could be changed due to the increase in wanting that “perfect child.” Not only does this raise ethical and social questions but history could even repeat itself. The misuse of this procedure could cause genocide or make something like the Holocaust happen. The desired characteristics that parents want and demand for in their unborn children are skin, eye, and hair color and it was just how the Holocaust began. This type of lifestyle or procedure is very closely related to the Gattaca, the Brave New World, or the Nazis’ standards for a “perfect race’ (“Designing Rules For,”
2009).
How safe is the Lifestyle or Procedure for the Children?
What are the Effects in the Future Lives of the Children? The first genetically engineered child was born in 1997 but did come with complications. Of course, doctors and scientists make every effort to prevent any complications from arising that could potentially affect the lives of the children, mistakes were made in this case. Shannon Brownlee wrote in 2002: “In the mid-1990s, embryologist Jacques Cohen pioneered a promising new technique for helping infertile women have children. His technique, known as cytoplasmic transfer, was intended to “rescue” the eggs of infertile women who had undergone repeated, unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilization, or IVF. It involved injecting the cytoplasm found inside the eggs of a fertile donor, into the patient’s eggs.”
The doctors and scientists preformed the injection, they also injected the embryos with extra bits of genetic material called mtDNA. This meant that the kids now had three genetic parents: the mother, the father, and the donor.
Even though today’s medical practices are more advanced, the implications and long term effects that it could have on a child is unpredictable. The other children born with the three genetic parents had developed what is called “Pervasive Development Disorder” because of the mismatch between the donor and the mother’s mtDNA. The effects on the future lives of these children are not predictable and can be plagued by a number of diseases and disorders developed from genetically engineering. There are always consequences to a person’s actions.
Animal studies have shown that this type of genetic engineering is unpredictable. There may be a huge risk on the child if we mistakenly produce physical changes, or even change their personality. A study in mice whose genes had been changed to make them more muscular, unexpectedly became very timid compared to other non-genetically altered mice. There is always a chance for something unrealistic to occur when you are messing with the balance of nature.
Arguments for Designer Babies Considering the fact that there are a large number of people out there that cannot physically carry a child, or that have a medical condition that would prevent them from reproducing due to the fact that that gene or ‘disorder’ would be passed along to the child – most people wouldn’t want to put their child in that type of predicament. With the ability to create a child that would not carry those specific genes in their DNA and therefore would be able to carry on a long, healthy, and fulfilled life – designer babies would be their best choice. Techniques used to change the genetic make-up of the embryo allow these parents to have a child without the worry or chances of passing along a trait that could be potentially harmful to the child. There are also cases where parents have had one child with a serious disease, such as cancer, where they have used IVF to select embryos so that they can have a second child that can be used as a future, custom-made blood or bone marrow donor to keep the first child healthy, and alive. Supporters of designer babies also claim that IVF and PGD are used to do what is best for the child. Often times parents try to mold their children into what they think will make them the most successful, and now parents would conveniently be able to do just that before the child is ever born. What child wouldn’t want to be smarter, healthier, and better looking? Parents tend to know what is best for their children, and they are simply assisting in giving their children exactly what they need to survive in this world and be successful. The emotional, physical, and financial strain that is put on a family to care for a child that is sick could potentially be eliminated with the use of reproductive technology (Bionet par. 6). The price of the IVF and PGD would pay for themselves in the terms of the overall cost and emotional strain caused by raising a child with a life threatening illness that could very well have been prevented before the child was born. PGD can screen for over a dozen of the most serious genetic diseases including: cystic fibrosis, various familial cancers, early onset Alzheimer’s, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, neurofibromatosis, muscular dystrophy, and Fanconi’s anemia (Bailey par. 3) and (Lemonick 1). Nearly all genetic diseases could be avoided by testing the human genome using reproductive genetic techniques. Undoubtedly these techniques will push medical technologies to the next level, and provide a way to prevent and cure genetic diseases in the future. One successful case of the IVF and PGD, was that of a child named Adam Nash. Adam was conceived using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and InVitro Fertilization (IVF). Adam was conceived so that he could donate cord blood to his sister, Molly, who was born with Fanconi Anemia. Adam was born on August 29, 2000 by C-section. In October 2000, the blood from Adam’s umbilical cord was transplanted to his sister. On January 4, 2001 the family went home following a successful procedure at the University of Minnesota Medical Center (Derbyshire par. 1). The reproductive technology was used to save Molly Nash’s life. Supporters of this technology would argue that the fact that the technology is saving lives is enough reason to continue its practice.
Arguments against Designer Babies
The Adam Nash story brought praise and criticism due to the ethical issues surrounding PGD and was also the inspiration of the novel and film My Sister’s Keeper. The fact that children are being created to better suit their parents or act as a donor factory is cause for alarm with most. The child may feel that they were only born to be a help to their older sibling. Children need to feel loved, appreciated, respected, and even praised for their own accomplishments and for who they are. The simple gestures that that child may feel like a disposable matter may bring strife among their family and themselves. The techniques are very expensive. The ability is eradicate genetic diseases would be greatly increasing among the rich, but what about those that cannot afford to go through the treatment?! This issue may cause an imbalance between the rich and poor people. Discrimination will rise as genetically altered individuals would be preferred in the schools, workplace, and society over those who are not genetically altered. This continues to be an ethical debate about whether baby making should be a natural process or potential parents can use technology to choose special features for their children. The most quoted reason is that going that route is denying God his role in creation. Another reason is that a baby is an innocent creature that it should be left alone and let nature take its course. Another reason to shun genetic enhancement is that it makes no sense from a biological and developmental perspective. The human traits typically cited for enhancement, such as intelligence, personality or athletic ability, are complex and not only involve dozens if not hundreds of genes, but are the result of a complex mix of determinants, including nutrition, social and environmental factors, gene-to-gene interactions and epigenetic switches that are outside the reductive chemistry of the DNA codes.
What Do You Believe is Right? My own beliefs are a bit unbiased. The procedure itself can be both beneficial and damaging to the child at hand. If you want to have a child that is athletic, then marry someone that is athletic – the same goes for other features. As far as medically speaking, if there is a way to prevent a medical disease from being passed down to a child, every precaution can be taken to make sure that that child will be safe. The greatest danger of a belief in genetic engineering lies in its likely social impact. Eugenics will inevitably be used by those with wealth and power to make others believe that prenatal genetic modification makes people better. This controversy is to be as much of a myth as taking sperm from Albert Einstein to create a child with that magnitude of intelligence. If parents are allowed to use the reproductive genetic techniques to select the sex of a baby, the countries like China and India that value boys more than girls will use the technology as a way to ensure that they get a boy. It may get to the point where women are needed only for means of reproducing. Women would no longer be human – but property. This is inhuman, and we must make sure that it does not happen by carelessly letting this technology be abused.
References
Bailey, Ronald. “Hooray for Designer Babies!” Reason Online 6 Mar. 2002. 19 Nov. 2005 http://www.reason.com/rb/rb030602.shtml. Bionet. 19 Nov. 2005 http://www.bionetonline.og/English/Content/db_cont1.htm
Alma College Lib., Alma, MI. 20 Nov. 2005 <http;//web7.infotrac.galegroup.com>
Lemonick, Michael. “Designer Babies”. Time 11 Jan 1999: 64-67.ReadersGuideAbs. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
McKibben, Bill. “Design-a-kid”. Christian Century 17 May 2003: 22-28. Article First. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2708
Brownlee, Shannon. “Designer Babies”. Washington Monthly Mar. 2002 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0203.brownlee.html