Designer Babies: Subscription Database

My next step in exploring my topic of human genetic engineering was to explore the library's subscription databases. Initially, I went to Opposing Viewpoints. On this database, I found the article "Human Genetic Engineering is Risky and Should be Stopped," by David King. King opposes human genetic engineering on the basis that it will inevitably lead to purely cosmetic alterations, which will then lead to a society dictated by market forces and eugenics principles. Eugenics is the idea of selectively controlling a hereditary trait in a human or race. Currently, the science is only available to use gene therapy in one individual. Yet, it will not be long before scientists will be able to engineer a gene to become hereditary. It is a very pressing threat. This source also outlined Silver's concept of the GenRich and Naturals. King highlights that this separation would not be beneficial. The article then outlines the negative aspects of human genetic engineering. One such aspect is the safety side genetic engineering. There will never be a time when the risks are at zero, and these risks involve human life. More specifically, a human unable yet to speak for themselves. King also attacks the notion that genetic engineering is good for medical purposes. He states that there is only a small percentage of people for whom genetic engineering is the only option. Diseases are not always passed on, people scared of passing on diseases can adopt, etc. Therefore, King assumes that genetic engineering will mainly be used for cosmetic purposes. His point of view is interesting because he uses past examples to make his point. In one instance King points to the recent environmental problems as indication that humans should not interfere with nature. He asserts that developing this technology will only lead to greater problems for the human race.

Designer Babies: Web Sources

In order to continue to prepare for this project I explored more sources found when I conducted a basic web search. A website that explores popular issues contained an article about genetic engineering. The article asserted that the biggest risk associated with genetic engineering is intentional germline genetic engineering in which any changes made will be passed on to successive generations. Essentially, this is natural selection as accelerated by science. However, critics state that the use of this science will create an unstable environment in which social, political, and other forces will influence the lives of children. These uncontrollable force will cause an unstable society. This source also suggests that with the widespread use of genetic engineering, society will be split into two social classes. Molecular biologist Lee Silver refers to these classes as the genetically engineered GenRich class and the Naturals class. Silver speculates that these two classes will become so divided that no cross breeding will occur and a way of life will be firmly established. This source also suggests that giving human beings the ability to play G-d, especially human beings without true foresight about what they are doing, is extremely dangerous. Overall, the information presented in this article was interesting as it displayed various risks to genetic engineering. It seems that while some people support genetic engineering for health benefits, many fear the general societal repercussions of creating "super-humans."

The second web source I used is by Mike Adams, editor of the website Natural News. This article, in contrast with the other sources I have explored, voiced solely the benefits to genetic engineering. Adams asserts that men and women are borne with outdated "software" that limit how they interact with the world. He suggests that men are borne with the idea that they are meant to lead and control, while women are borne with "social software" that causes them to innately desire to connect with others. He suggests that men are motivated by power and control, while women are motivated by social desires and a desire to procreate. Consequentially, he says, women are more concerned with the common good than men. Adams sees genetic engineering as a solution to these innate desires and other problems. For example, he suggests that by engineering babies to hate the taste of sugar, America's obesity problems will be solved. Adams does acknowledge that America is not at a level of maturity in which genetic engineering is advisable, but sees it as a problem-solver for the future. He sees genetic engineering as the way to uplift our species and hasten improvement. This article was extremely interesting to me because Adams explored benefits to genetic engineering that are hard to argue with. It seems logical to want to create humans to be the best they can be. Yet, Adams largely ignored some of the risks of genetic engineering that the other articles explored.

Designer Babies: Magazine Source

My topic for the Marketplace of Ideas is human genetic engineering. My first step in becoming an expert on this issue was to conduct a basic web search. The first source I explored was a magazine article in MIT's MURJournal, an undergraduate magazine focused on science. The article, titled "Designer Babies: the Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering," by Yin Ren, was very helpful. Ren discussed both sides of the debate on genetic engineering. Ren first placed the science in its historical context. In 1976, scientists first successfully genetically manipulated mice by placing new genes into the mouse's embryo. In 2001, scientists created ANDi, a baby monkey carrying a jellyfish gene in his genome. One month later, scientists had completed mapping over 97% of the human genome. This was a step towards genetic modifications in humans. In 2003, a scientist reported the first modification of the human genome. This sequence shows that genetic engineering has been of fascination to many scientists over the years and that, ultimately, it is human genetic engineering that is of most interest. Scientists proclaim that one such use for human genetic engineering is the elimination of diseases and disabilities. Currently, there has been progress in the use of genetic engineering to cure muscular dystrophy. Scientists have inserted a synthetic gene into the muscles of mice that prevent their deterioration (a symptom of muscular dystrophy). Obviously, a cure to such a debilitating disease would be amazing. However, there are many concerns with human genetic engineering. There are still many health risks attached to genetic engineering, including death. Also, specifically, genetic engineering that strengthens muscles may become an athletic advantage. This would create an unfair competitive advantage. This criticism leads into the heart of the problem--designer babies. One of the speculated uses for this genetic engineering is to customize babies. Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis gives adults the ability to screen and select specific genetic traits to be implanted in their children. This clearly presents problems. Having traits imposed upon children leads to a decrease in freedom, inappropriate uses, unfair advantages, increasing social divides, economic gaps, etc. It then becomes a society in which babies are viewed as consumer goods. Those with more money have the ability to create "better" babies, while those with limited funds or those who oppose human genetic engineering continue to have babies the natural way. Critics of human genetic engineering suggest that this will lead to a divided society.

In this article, Ren mentions the book by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. I read this book Freshmen year and it had a profound impact on me. Brave New World details a society of the future in which all people in the world are genetically engineered to fulfill a specific role. There is a drastic division between the alpha leaders and the gamma drones. There are levels of intelligence, athletic ability, artistic ability, etc. Essentially, human beings are mass produced in a lab and have absolutely no freedom over which class they are assigned to. This novel brings up moral implications of human genetic engineering. I think that it relates very closely to this issue as one of the main concerns over genetic engineering regards the social division that is sure to ensue. If interested parents are able to genetically engineer their child to have a higher skill set, than those children will eventually gain higher roles in society. This seems extremely unfair because it gives the child no choice in the matter and raises many moral questions. Overall, connection to this book had a large impact on me because it is easy to imagine a world in which a race of genetically engineered "super humans" creates an even greater contrast to those normal children who are not genetically engineered.