Designer Babies; Ethical Considerations for Technological Advancements
Imagine the power to cherry-pick traits for your child. Choose their hair color, immunities, and even talents. It sounds dystopian but this may be a reality courtesy of genetic engineering. Specifically, with designer babies.
What are designer babies? Designer babies are embryos that have been genetically modified. Genetic engineering itself is not new; it has been around for decades through our agricultural practices. It’s purpose — to make food last longer. Designer babies on the other hand are relatively new. In 2019, researcher He Jiankui genetically modified the first embryos for HIV immunity. This should’ve been a positive step for disease prevention, however, it sparked outrage in the media due to ethical concerns.
The major dilemma is how designer babies can amplify inequality and what we consider to be our societal norms.
The current debate about designer babies identifies an interesting viewpoint on socioeconomic disparity. Genetic engineering will likely be afforded to the well-off. In turn, this may enable the wealthy and their offspring to have an advantage over those who are not. By limiting the prevention of disease to the well-off, we intensify the concentration of these diseases in the underclass. In addition, it furthers the gap in healthcare costs.
A common rebuttal is that this is a pattern with all new technology. At all points in time, only the rich could afford these luxuries. Inventions like radios, computers, and phones were all originally for the affluent. All would provide some level of advantage over the lower class. Only later were these inventions accessible as a result of infrastructure development.
This line of argument overlooks an important distinction; this isn’t just new technology, but new lives. Even if designer babies get more affordable it doesn’t change the fact that entire generations could be disadvantaged.
Beyond preventing diseases, it must be addressed that genetic modification opens the idea that other traits can be changed as well. Such traits may include intelligence, beauty, and talent. All of which contribute to what we consider “success.” Thus, if the wealthy are the ones with access to these traits, the wealthy will be more likely to “succeed.”
A contrasting idea worth noting is that society already functions to perpetuate these differences. Commodities such as tutoring, piano lessons, braces, and to an extent plastic surgery exist to enhance our version of “success.” All these instruments are already a privilege that is granted to the rich. So how is genetic modification any different?
While these privileges already exist, allowing genetic engineering will not improve the situation. Not only will it further preserve class-based inequality but it may also instill the idea that people without these traits are undesirable.
Such a concept can be compared to modern-day eugenics. Eugenics is a set of practices that aim to improve the quality of a population by selectively reproducing. The most famous example of eugenics was during Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler aimed to have a “pure race” by sterilizing traits he deemed “inferior.”
Although the motivations for designer babies and eugenics are different, both encourage “desirable traits.” In the case of designer babies, this is dangerous because it implies that non-designer babies are inferior and unwanted. Coupled with the likelihood that the wealthy will have access to this technology first, we may end up creating a society in which we unconsciously view lower-class individuals as worth less. This harmful narrative can impact future generations and set back equity.
Knowing this, should we ban genetic engineering on humans as a whole? While it may seem like an ideal solution, it is not practical. In truth, our technology will keep developing. If genetic engineering is not done through legal means, it will be through underground practices. This will then make it even more likely that this technology will only be accessible to the rich. Additionally preventing ethical practices from being put into place. So then what should we do?
All things considered, the emergence of genetic engineering in the context of designer babies presents a difficult dilemma. On one hand, it is a way to enhance disease prevention and is a developing technology that can be used for good. On the other hand, it can create a slippery slope to further the gap between classes and become a modern-day form of eugenics. So while we may not know how to navigate this issue now, it is imperative that we keep the discussion open. In the end, technology will keep developing, and while that is a scary fact, we can only make informed decisions if we recognize the ethical dilemmas on both sides.