Name
Instructors’ Name
Course Title and Code
Date
Should We Allow the Production of Designer Babies or Not?
Introduction
There has been great controversy surrounding the notion of designer babies. One school of thought repents it while the other supports it. Various aspects make the production of designer babies an ethical dilemma. Many scientists claim that perfecting the genes of babies will become morally permissible shortly. As for now, the scientists are only permitted to genetically edit the human embryo up to fourteen days. After that period, the embryos need to be destroyed. Also, it is deemed illegal to place that embryo in a womb. The Nuffield Council of Bioethics has claimed that there is a window to change these laws if proper precautions are taken. Under the Council's report, gene-editing will become acceptable over time if the disadvantages are decreased and the future safety of the patient is assured. The most important aspect of the legality of gene-editing is the need to demolish divisions and discriminations that are present in society. This paper will discuss in-depth if the production of designer babies should be allowed or not.
Discussion
Karen Yeung a professor of law, ethics and informatics at Birmingham University and has claimed that the usage of gene-editing to manipulate or change the characteristics of the future generation cannot be deemed unethical. The advancement of the technology CRISPR-Cas9 has put great focus on the morality of designer babies. This technology makes it simple to tweak the human genome if the embryo is at a young stage. When IVF is combined with new genetic tools, scientists can change the DNA of human beings. The DNA is the blueprint of the embryo (Kwan). At an earlier stage, the embryo only consists of a few cells. There is no doubt in the fact that certain technical hurdles to gene-editing are present, but the advancement in the field can help deduct and eliminate genetic diseases. This aspect of technology is making people view it in the moral domain.
Having said that, many people are against the concept of designer babies. They deem the notion extremely unethical. This school of thought believes that allowing this advancement will lead to the formation of superhumans. This fact will cause a great deal of discrimination as the babies who are born with the help of gene-editing will have an unfair advantage over other individuals (Howard et al., 1). Furthermore, there are certain religious schools of thought that claim that the production of designer babies is not natural. An embryo created by God should not be tampered with as it is the most unnatural act. Both the groups who support and apprehend the designer babies have logical backing for their argument which will be explained below with stats and logical facts.
The Argument of People Who Support Designer Babies
This school of thought supports the notion of designer babies mainly because of the health aspect. A lot of diseases are caused because they are genetically present in an individual's DNA. This aspect makes it hard to detect and treat them. People claim that the diseases that are caused by a single genetic mutation if left untreated, can cause adverse effects on an individual's life. So, if gene-editing of the sperm or DNA gives such people a chance to lead a healthy life, then why not? This technology can help in removing a fault in the human race for good. Without doubt, the human genome has its imperfections and it is ethically authoritative to support the notion of this kind of technology. This debate carries great weight as helping people in every aspect is a deed of kindness (Howard et al., 1). We humans are not perfect and tend to face many issues related to our health as we age. Scientific advancements are at present regulated by many international and national bodies which provides numerous evidence for safe processing of human DNA artificially. If these advancements are not regulated, then legislations at national and international bodies can be put forth so that any doubt can be addressed accordingly.
A poll that was conducted in the United States of America concluded that more than 83% of people considered artificially enhanced babies as it makes medical advancements quite superior. However, Oxford Scholar named Nick Bostrom had the view that a person with a little enhanced DNA structure would be a better choice for the world in the future. It would help the world become a better place for mankind with the presence of people with creative minds. Having the ability to alter the genome structure to fight diseases and provide health benefits to newborn babies is something that will be appreciated by the world. There are many cases of babies being born with deficiencies and other health-related issues. Though many diseases have been exterminated by health forums and agencies around the globe, certain issues still exist that can only be addressed with genetic alteration (Howard et al., 1). As the cost of hereditary testing decreases, many adults are finding out about their hereditary cosmetics as a feature of routine medicinal consideration and finding explicit hereditary dangers before pregnancy.
Be that as it may, these individuals are still well on the way to be more educated and have good knowledge about the working of genetic engineering. As time is passing by, many couples are opting for genetic alterations for their babies as each year, the number of such couples is increasing by almost 71%. With the advancement in technology, many people will be willing to accept the alteration process of genomes. At present, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.7 percent of babies born in the United States of America are conceived utilizing In Vitro Fertilization. However, the numbers are rising in America and in other parts of the world where this technology is being funded publicly. For example, the percentage of babies being conceived in Denmark by the utilization of IVF is 5.9% while in Belgium it is 4%. Having a world without mortality rates and diseases will be a dream come true. Further, this kind of technology can be used in third world countries where the mortality rates are high and genes have not evolved (Howard et al., 1). Providing a cure to the babies so that they can live without any illness needs to become a reality. Providing an individual with a better genetic code will ultimately make life a bit easier and healthier.
The Argument of People who Oppose Designer Babies
There is the likelihood that individuals will utilize innovation for improvements related to intelligence and physical appearance as opposed to battling sickness and diseases. The more command individuals have over the capacity to structure their babies and alter their genomes, the greater the ethical inquiries that arise. People are of the view that challenging mother nature has never resulted in anything good and individuals have always suffered. Having a complete natural capacity to fight illness and tackle severe physical issues is what makes us humans and it should remain that way (Kwan). There is also an issue of practicality in this matter. Many doctors debate the point of the alteration process. They argue that we cannot apply the process of alteration on every single gene as doing so will cause the genes to collapse and change into something unnatural.
The process of gene-alteration is at its first stage and it is expensive so only rich people can avail it. The In Vitro Fertilization IVF at present costs more than $20,000 and each additional testing costs $10,000. This process is lengthy and impairing. Cost is not the only main limitation. The technology of Reproduction is less adequate in cultural, ethnic and religious nations where a person who is infertile is cursed and shamed. Language obstructions can diminish mindfulness and referrals. Geology additionally assumes a job, since IVF technology is only available in the regions where people are interested in this technology. Our inconvenience around such babies has consistently had to do with the way it makes the playing field level low, taking existing imbalances and transforming them into something inalienable.
In March of this year, the World Health Organization advisory group contended for a ban on clinical human genome altering "until its suggestions have been appropriately studied." However, no arrangement of worldwide direction exists to actualize or authorize such a restriction on the training of human genomes. People are of the view that since there is no complete documentation of the process, the technology cannot be trusted even though there have been more than a million babies born with IVF. For some, the thought of probing people is untrustworthy, particularly when there is deficient proof to propose that the investigation will be effective or will not cause any harm or damage (Kwan). Now, there is not sufficient proof to show that CRISPR is sheltered, no one has a clue about the impacts of altering any given quality on the current individual or on who and what is to come.
Truth be told, an ongoing report by the Welcome Sanger Institute showed that the utilization of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats CRISPR can prompt broad hereditary harm in the objective genome. For other people, these strategies exhibit a dismissal of all-inclusive acknowledged logical and moral benchmarks. These norms exist to avoid inquiries about people when the proof is absent. This will make a new class of genetically enhanced babies that will most likely have the riches of the world and will be able to accumulate more success than the children who have natural genomes. It will permit science and not nature to control the development of mankind.
Conclusion
Many renowned scientists have said that at present there is a very low chance that the use of IVF and genetic alteration will become public or be available to people like medicine. However, they are sure that in 2 decades times it will have its importance all around the globe. It is a known fact that people are facing many health issues as diets and eating habits have changed tremendously. Our physical and mental health has also been damaged and in turn, many forms of illness like Cancer and AIDS have become common. Through proper regulation, laws and with the family’s consent, the process of alteration process should be restricted to save children or individuals from diseases. If a family has suffered from life-threatening diseases for a long time, they can have genes researched and altered for their babies so that they can live a better life without any illness. A limited number of doctors should be allowed to research this technology and present the findings to an international body like the WHO so that they can legislate on the findings and allow a minimal amount of alteration processes in DNA or genomes. Research on such hereditary diseases should be made compulsory so that cure can be discovered rather than altering the genomes.
Annotated Bibliography
Kwan, Martin. "Human Gene Editing and Human Rights: An Uncertain Future." Human Rights Series (2019).
The researcher of this article discusses the human rights insinuation in regards to the recent birth of the world's first human twins born via the procedure of gene-editing in China. The legal analysis has claimed that the process of human gene-editing has serious human rights implication issues. The writer of the article claims that countless human rights laws are being violated under the procedure of gene-editing.
Howard, Heidi C., et al. "One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans." European Journal of Human Genetics 26.1 (2018): 1.
The researchers of this article claim that there might be certain issues associated with gene-editing but there are many pros to the procedure as well. If efficient tools like CRISPR-Cas9 are used there is a possibility of safe usage of the technology. For example, numerous clinical trials for HIV are going on lately [3, 4] and further, an infant’s leukemia was treated in 2015 via the modification of immune cells. The stats might be low but if the technology is given the chance to thrive, there are chances of forming a better human race.
Works Cited:
Kwan, Martin. "Human Gene Editing and Human Rights: An Uncertain Future." Human Rights Series (2019).
Howard, Heidi C., et al. "One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans." European Journal of Human Genetics 26.1 (2018): 1.
