Designer babies?

i thought i would post this… The thread was sparked from a very interesting conversation i had with CocoNut. i would love to hear what other Guppies’ opinions are about this, and Insha’Allah have a serious discussion about this issue.

Firstly, a quote from a BBC article:

To add an update on this story - the couple were eventually allowed, by the Court of Appeal, to select an embryo that would give a match for a suitable bone marrow for their 3 year old son.

Their story, of course, touches a raw nerve. Which parent would not want to do everything humanly possible to save their child?

The trick, of course, is that - where do we draw the line? Think of it in this manner… today, we enter our laboratories to develop a designer baby with “essential” characteristics that might potentially save the life of that newborn baby’s elder sibling. Tomorrow, we enter our laboratories to develop a baby that possesses a higher IQ, or bluer eyes, or fairer skin, or is genetically engineered to not put on excess weight, or possesses a genetic disposition to grow thicker and longer hair, 6 ft tall, … Where do we stop?

…contd…

i just wanted to add a few excerpts from this British news article. i thought it was an excellent read… It is extremely long but a fantastic read. i would love some comments on it.

~ ~ ~
…what if, instead of crudely cheating with hypodermics, we began literally to programme children before they were born to become great athletes? Muscle size, oxygen uptake, respiration - much of an athlete’s inherent capacity derives from her genes. What she makes of it depends on her heart and mind, of course, as well as on the accidents of where she’s born, and what kind of diet she gets. And her genes aren’t entirely random: perhaps her parents were attracted to each other in the first place because both were athletes. But all those variables fit within our idea of fate. Flipping through a catalogue at a clinic for athletic genes does not; it’s a door into another world.

And as we move into the new world of genetic engineering, we won’t simply lose races, we’ll lose racing : we’ll lose the possibility of the test, the challenge, the celebration that athletics represents. Say you’ve reached mile 23 of a marathon, and you’re feeling strong. Is it because of your training and your character, or because the gene pack inside you is pumping out more red blood cells than your body knows what to do with? Will anyone be impressed with your dedication? More to the point, will you be impressed with your dedication?

“Genetics” is not some scary bogeyman. Most of the science that stems from our understanding of DNA is marvellous - cancer treatments, for example. But one branch of the science raises much harder questions.

…suppose you’re not ready. Say you’re perfectly content with the prospect of a child who shares the unmodified genes of you and your partner. Say you think that manipulating the DNA of your child might be dangerous, or presumptuous, or icky? How long will you be able to hold that line if germline manipulation begins to spread among your neighbours? Maybe not so long as you think. “Suppose parents could add 30 points to their child’s IQ,” asks the economist Lester Thurow. “Wouldn’t you want to do it? And if you don’t, your child will be the stupidest in the neighbourhood.” That’s precisely what it might feel like to be the parent facing the choice. Deciding not to soup your kids up… well, it could come to seem like child abuse.

…] With germline manipulation, you get only one shot; the extra chromosome you stick in your kid when he’s born is the one he carries throughout his life. So let’s say baby Sophie has a state-of-the-art gene job: her parents paid for the proteins discovered by, say, 2005 that, on average, yielded 10 extra IQ points. By the time Sophie is five, though, scientists will doubtless have discovered 10 more genes linked to intelligence. Now anyone with a platinum card can get 20 IQ points, not to mention a memory boost and a permanently wrinkle-free brow. So by the time Sophie is 25 and in the job market, she’s already more or less obsolete - the kids coming out of college just plain have better hardware. The vision of one’s child as a nearly useless copy of Windows 95 should make parents fight like hell to make sure we never get started down this path.

…] Though our lives in the developed world are easy enough by comparison with lives in other places and other eras, challenges remain. Or, as when we run marathons, we can invent them. Our parents try to draw us maps, which we can follow slavishly, burn in the fires of our rebellion, or glance at from time to time as we chart our own courses. But these new technologies show us that human meaning dangles by a far thinner thread than we had thought. What if the ending to our story is already written, our compass already set? What if we have been programmed, or at least must suspect each time we choose a path that we have been nudged in that direction by our engineered cells? Who then are we?

…] We’d have to start considering more carefully what we owe to society (which is to say what we owe to children in general, and to the future) as distinguished from what we owe to our own individual children in our own particular moment. Over time, this politics will let us say, “This far and no farther.”

Excellent topic Nadia.
I wanna know what Coco had to say about it.

My thoughts in a day or two....

Many thanks for the reply, Muzna Baji :flower1: :flower1:

CocoNut and i agreed on the gist of this issue - i.e., why mess with something that has been naturally-created.
This isn’t to imply that we should be hostile towards emerging technologies - it’s just i think that we need to constantly redefine the cost-benefits of how advanced this tech. should get before we lose something about our very humanity.

i would love to hear from anyone on this topic - doesn’t necessarily have to coincide with my point of view. (If it’s different than mine, that would be equally if not more interesting i think :smiley: ).

In my opinion I don't see any problem in designer babies no matter to what extent people wanna go. If someone wants a genius kid then how this gene treatment is different from sending him/her to a better school. Some people can afford to send their kids to a better school and some can get better treatment at earlier stage. Some might spend more money in hospitals for their kids if any disease would occur so why not treat them earlier.

hmmm.. Interesting. Many many thanks for sharing your thoughts, Khan Sahib :slight_smile: :flower1:

True that parents have the option of sending their children to schools that are proven to have a higher level of educational quality. However, students that are not attending those types of institutions, still (sometimes, not always) have other options available to them - technically speaking (i realize this is not always possible), they can apply for scholarships or bursaries. If all else fails, they can theoretically strive to improve their academic record - in the hopes of gaining a scholarship to a higher educational institution. i know this sounds VERY idealistic and i realize not all children ofcourse have these options available to them. i think to compare their lack of educational choices infront of them, though, with the risks of gene manipulation - these are two different issues in my humblest opinion with very different consequences for the world.

When a parent makes a decision to send her/his child to Harvard, that particular student still has to actively exercise her brain cells in order to come out with a degree. It’s still an effort that the student consciously makes, within her natural self, to improve her academic lifestyle. Gene manipulation, though, is tinkering with humanity itself - i mean, once we go down this path, we can’t reverse it. You can’t ‘un-clone’ someone who has been cloned. The article that i had posted in my second post begins off with the author discussing his participation in the extremely gruelling Boston marathon. Technically speaking, if i train hard enough i could join that marathon (although i’d probably come in last or die of exhaustion). But if we start to enter our laboratories in the hopes of creating faster, stronger human beings - what sort of meaning does that give us in our life ? How is a genetically-endowed athlete superior to one who trains/runs/practices naturally? If we go down this path, do we not risk the chance of losing that very precious thing that makes us human?