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.