A More Modern Prometheus - What Frankenstein Tells Us About Geneti
A More Modern Prometheus - What Frankenstein Tells Us About Geneti
A More Modern Prometheus - What Frankenstein Tells Us About Geneti
2024
Part of the Applied Ethics Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons
Recommended Citation
Ambrose, Allison M., "A More Modern Prometheus: What Frankenstein Tells Us About Genetic
Modification" (2024). Honors College Theses. 949.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses/949
This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital
Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected].
A More Modern Prometheus: What Frankenstein Tells Us About
Genetic Modification
By
Allison Ambrose
ABSTRACT
Mary Shelley’s famous novel, Frankenstein, is often hailed as the first true
science fiction novel. In my thesis, I use the premonitive lens towards creation of
life provided in Frankenstein to evaluate the morality of genetic modification of
children. CRISPR-Cas9 is quickly emerging as the most important development
in reprogenetic technology of our time, and many argue for its merits as a method
of designing our children. I argue against this trend of “designer babies,”
specifically raising questions about the soundness of modifying non-disease traits
in future children and encouraging a more cautious attitude in both the scientific
and philosophical communities.
April 2024
Philosophy and Religious Studies
Honors College
Georgia Southern University
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge and thank the professors whose classes or words
inspired this thesis: Dr. Bill Eaton, Dr. Dan Larkin, and Dr. Joseph Pellegrino.
Special thanks to Dr. Paul Tubig as my mentor and avid supporter in all things
academic. I would also like to thank the Honors College and Department of
Philosophy & Religious Studies for the opportunity to attempt a project like this,
and for the support and resources to see it through.
It’s incredible how often literature can predict the future. Science fiction in
particular seems akin to an ancient oracle, with outlandish stories written and
then brought to actuality decades or even centuries later. An explanation for why
this is likely lies somewhere with creativity, progress, and how both reveal our
Looking at the predictions and comparing them with the ways, both positive and
negative, that emerging or existing technologies have been or are being used can
reveal important fears and desires. The unique perspective of writers creating
stories about exotic technologies before they come into existence or become
easily accessible often identifies the potential problems they may create more
sharply than those who are living with the advancements. While these cautionary
or exciting tales should not be taken as gospel truth, they should not be dismissed
because they were written in the past. Authors with no personal or economic
1
investment in technology are able to confront issues that more modern writers
classes and features kinds of technology that were advanced and futuristic at the
time but are now commonplace: “earbuds,” advanced flatscreen televisions, and
ATMs.1 The Back to the Future movie duology previews voice user interface,
and virtual reality, and fingerprint scanners.2 Both pieces’ approach to the
surveillance and censorship. While some of these fears were exaggerated, one
could point out numerous instances that make them seem well-founded. The
spaces certainly make Ray Bradbury’s writing seem like an accurate prediction of
the future. The present-day coordination to limit ideas and organizational activity
science fiction ought to be asking themselves is this: Why is something that was
something we embrace or are aiming to achieve? There are many cases where
other despite being thousands of miles apart, fingerprint scanners keep our cell
1
Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
2
Spielberg, Back to the Future, Back to the Future II
2
phones more secure, etc. Yet there are also many cases where adjustments have
One salient case is the novel, Frankenstein. In the novel, the mother of
science fiction, Mary Shelley, presents the ability to construct a living being and
scientists to understand the genomes of virtually any species and enabled them to
gene sequences can be isolated and examined to determine what phenotypic trait
they coordinate with. A gene sequence may then be “selected” and removed,
pre-genetic diagnostics and in vitro fertilization, scientists can edit the genes of
Although Dr. Frankenstein’s creation was certainly not a newborn baby, he was
will demonstrate, the two scenarios parallel in multiple morally important ways.
3
Reflecting on the glaring moral issues in Frankenstein, it raises a puzzling
but urgent question: why are many members of the scientific and philosophical
designing children? How does the story of Frankenstein inform the ethical
discourse of creating designer children? Does the novel object to or condone this
pursuit?
In my thesis, I will use the novel to frame the ethical issues of embryo
traits and explain why a more cautionary attitude is needed within the
treats people as the problem, as opposed to the society we live in, complicates
and the ways in which the novel illuminates the complicated ethical dimensions
4
more generally. As mentioned in the introduction, science fiction often serves as
a herald or oracle, predicting scientific advancements that may come about in the
take on a perspective of the past. We can revisit what it might be like to speculate
the potential bias of the present towards technology and how it has been
normalized in our everyday lives. For example, it is hard for me to consider the
pervasive role they play in my life. A writer from two hundred years ago will not
have this crutch. They may consider fingerprint technology in a more unbiased
perspective. That is not to say that we do not now have information regarding
technology that is not essential that historical writers would have lacked.
misplaced, and their actualization has been much simpler and less troubling than
premonitive and being able to see without blinders that may be limiting our
perspectives. Combined with current and retrospective data, science fiction can
questions of science and technology, what issues does it discuss and what ideals
5
does it criticize? Ultimately, what is the moral tragedy and moral cautionary tale
briefly elaborate each before relating the novel to modern genetic modification.
her first ideas about her story being the “terror” she felt “for the artist who
and that much inspiration for the novel came from a discussion of Erasmus
consistently throughout the novel as out of touch with the world around him,
heedless of caution, and ultimately self-serving. He admits that his pursuit of the
science was “at first… a matter of duty and resolution,” but as time went on, “the
more exclusively [he] pursued it for its own sake… now so ardent and eager.” 5
The consuming and overwhelming nature of his discoveries and what he was
argument of its impracticality,” and he “beheld only the result,” of his studies,
For most of us, the issues with the original creation in the novel are
glaring, but Shelley includes a second creature, although never completed, whose
3
Commonly confused, “Frankenstein” actually refers to the student and doctor, Victor
Frankenstein. Throughout the paper, I will refer to him as either “Frankenstein” or “Doctor
Frankenstein” or “Doctor” and his creation as “the creature” or “creation.” A further discussion of
the decision to call the creation by those terms takes place in Section 4.3.
4
Ty, Mary Shelley Biography
5
Shelley, Frankenstein p.38
6
Ibid. p.40-42
6
construction scenes juxtapose the original ones. Frankenstein becomes aware of
moral problems that he overlooked in the first experiment and refuses to finish a
companion for his original creature. Even though when someone fails or
overlooks a major problem the first time they attempt something we are usually
quick to forgive, an endeavor such as this cannot be given such excuses. The long
wrong motivation. Discovery and progress for their own sakes left other, more
people behind.
understand that he is creating something truly new and contemplates the ways it
will owe him for his life. He thinks to himself that “a new species would bless me
as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their
being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I
became unjustified when he failed to think about the duties it entailed, especially
towards his creation who is full of sentience and agency. He does not at all
consider that he will have any responsibilities or owe anything to his creation
assumed as the creator of life, he does not maintain this attitude for long. Rather
than supreme pride and affection, he ends up horrified at the creature and unable
7
Ibid.
7
or unwilling to analyze his role as the single contributor and therefore the only
constructed the creature. Some of the smaller decisions made in the creation
process were not given proper consideration and led to complications later on.
The creature’s large and foreboding stature that serves to make him an outcast
later in the story was a deliberate choice by the doctor to simply speed up the
hindrance to [his] speed, [he] resolved, contrary to [his] first intention, to make a
The creature is terrible to behold from the Doctor’s perspective and possesses
superhuman strength and speed because of his strange proportions. In fact, this
becomes a danger to Frankenstein as the creature goes on to threaten him and his
family.
and each with themselves are complicated throughout the story by relative
isolation during his scientific pursuits and the consequential ways that success
8
Ibid.
8
isolates him from the world afterwards. His outlook and his ability to enjoy his
life are severely tainted and his actions cast a shadow of anxiety and fear over his
Frankenstein also alienates the creature from the rest of society even as he
is making him. His decisions about the creature’s stature and appearance leave it
unable to find community later and his reaction to the creature following its
successful reanimation alienates the creature from him, the only person it would
likely ever be able to bond with and the person who owes it a great deal. Upon
first waking, the creature witnesses his creator express great fear, regret, and
horror, and those attitudes color the rest of their interactions. It is left to find its
own place in the world and suffers greatly because of its lack of guidance and
strange, atypical nature. Its creator refuses to provide a companion later in the
novel and its suffering is only increased as it is denied a meaningful existence and
the possibility for life-affirming relationships. This denial is not only in the sense
that it has none of the important relationships necessary to nurture one’s being,
but that it is not even able to name itself or be recognized as a new species or
When Frankenstein first lays eyes on the creature, he is not just struck by
the ugliness of it and his fear of it, but also the knowledge of how the act of
creation has changed himself. Much of the rest of the novel rides on his denial of
discussing the role of human rights in the novel, scholar Diana Reese writes that
understand the creature’s request for a companion because “the work of [his]
9
hands (the creation of this ranging, destructive other) has alienated him from
himself and his authorship from the site of this alienation, he lacks the “power”---
provide for his creation, Frankenstein flees it and attempts to take solace in his
future wife and friends. Although he is able to resume his previous joys and
interests for a short time, he relapses frequently to terror and brooding on his
creature.
The relationship that follows the creation event is one of further rejection,
denials, and frustration. Both parties despair because of the actions of the other.
The Doctor lives in constant fear because of the threats of the creature and wages
an inner war of whether to acquiesce to his request for a companion. The creature
hates his creator for being unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities and alleviate his
concern of students and scholars alike. One high school English teacher writes
that each time they assign the novel Frankenstein, they are always surprised that
“most of the students have chosen to write about the rejected-child syndrome and
the responsibility of the creator toward the created,” closely tying that in with the
implications of their work.”10 The teacher ponders the various reasons for this,
considering the impact it has on the students’ understanding of parenting and the
father’s role especially. I am particularly interested in the way that even young
9
Reese, A Troubled Legacy pg. 52
10
Simmons, “Frankenstein” for the 21st Century p.32
10
how important it is that the creator steps up to be a guardian supportive of the
inspiration for the novel, the central discussion can accurately be described as
one of the unique responsibilities that a scientist will have when they begin truly
creating life, and the remainder of the novel as a demonstration of what those
responsibilities are and what kinds of mistakes someone can make when
pursuing scientific knowledge and technological innovation in ways that are not
design human life. It is this ability that I will raise ethical concerns and draw
before us. My thesis will focus on the new possibilities presented by a genetic
modify the genetic traits of embryos with the aim of designing future children.
11
non-disease traits. I believe this parallels with the story of Frankenstein more
closely than the use of genetic technology to modify disease traits, and will focus
important for understanding its function and the kinds of possibilities that it
genome. Biochemist Jennifer Doudna and her lab are credited with the discovery
of CRISPR, and she speaks on her experience at length in a TED interview I will
different parts that function together to allow scientists to edit genetic sequences
which refers to a specific DNA sequence found in bacteria that enables their
immune system to identify repeat viral infections. After identifying the virus, the
enzyme Cas9 is employed along with an RNA guide to remove and disable the
viral DNA.11
Once scientists understood how CRISPR and Cas9 worked together, they
realized they could employ the combination themselves, allowing them to add,
delete, and replace genetic material in cells. Additionally, there is another step
where edited genes can be “deactivated” or “turned off.”12 This has served as a
11
Rulli, Reproductive CRISPR Does Not Cure Disease, p. 1073; Raposo, CRISPR-Cas9 and the
Promise of a Better Future, p.308
12
Raposo, CRISPR-Cas9 and the Promise of a Better Future, p.308
12
CRISPR. CRISPR allows scientists to do three genetic engineering-based
activities with a much higher confidence rate and much better results than
cellular function in virtually any organism. Doudna explained that her lab was
for wing patterns in butterflies, but it can help isolate and identify any genetic
sequence in living organisms. This, Doudna stated, was the intent of her lab. They
wanted to begin diving into genomes and creating a database for other types of
research to reference.13
Second, CRISPR has a “somatic” function, where scientists are able to edit
the genetic sequence in individual cells and re-insert them into an already
existing individual.14 This is the therapeutic function of CRISPR, and can be used
to treat things like aggressive lung cancer.15 One might accurately say that a
contrast to the third function of CRISPR, which does not cure already existing or
that is known to cause a disease before the embryo is implanted. It is not curative
13
Doudna, The Science and Ethics of Rewriting our DNA
14
Rulli, Reproductive CRISPR Does Not Cure Disease, p. 1073
15
Cyranoski, CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time p.279
13
or a treatment because it affects non-existing persons whose existence is not
inevitable.16
vitro fertilization and pre-genetic diagnostics, IVF and PGD for short. At present,
it is fairly common for parents who desire to have a genetically related child but
are at a high risk for communicating genetic diseases or have trouble conceiving
composition of each one. If an embryo has serious genetic mutations and would
result in a fetus that is not viable or has significant defects, the parents are able to
choose another one and have that embryo be implanted to a parent’s uterus
artificially. It is worth noting that these procedures are expensive and often
traumatic for the mother. IVF is known to be less than successful and often must
CRISPR would take these technologies one step further. It would be used
in combination with IVF and PGD but beyond mere selection. Instead, CRISPR
would allow parents to edit the genetic profile of the selected embryo. If a
16
This will be discussed in further detail later and is a point of great dispute among ethicists. The
differentiation between curative and non curative technology often defines a procedure's
morality.
17
De-Melo Martin, On Our Obligation to Select the Best Children p.74
14
Champions of CRISPR have developed extremely convincing arguments
for why we should welcome its use in whatever capacities. Some have taken that
support one step further to argue that we have an obligation to use CRISPR as it
presents the possibility of a better life for the prospective children it might be
used on. No one has been more outspoken about this than ethicist Julian
private enterprise. 19
many of which I will reference later on, but it points to a very troubling reality
that is not just confined to the theoretical world of philosophy.20 While many
18
Savulescu, Procreative Beneficence
19
Ibid. p.425
20
While there are many other arguments in support of non-disease trait modification, I will be
focusing more on the literary analysis of Frankenstein as it relates to CRISPR in my thesis, rather
than replying directly to supporters. I did want to bring up Savulescu because of how influential
his work has been on this discussion and how the principle of procreative beneficence relates to
Doctor Frankenstein’s motivation. I will also frame some of my later arguments against genetic
modification as a response to his reasoning.
15
scientists who are working with CRISPR are passionate about its potential
that people are not just optimistic about gene editing for the purpose of
enhancing human lives—they are utterly convinced of its merits. One scientist has
already gone so far as to edit human embryos and implant those embryos.21 The
In the next section, I will argue that the pursuit of developing CRISPR to
allow prospective parents to design their children beyond the promotion of health
improve the human condition at the genetic level, I raise a range of concerns for
why the use of CRISPR for editing non-disease traits of future children is morally
to develop and promote CRISPR with this objective in mind. In making this
argument, I will draw from the earlier discussion of Frankenstein and connect its
So how does the story of Frankenstein and the new technology of CRISPR-
Cas9 relate to each other, and what moral questions might we draw on from
21
Relegado, Chinese Scientists are Creating CRISPR Babies
16
Frankenstein when assessing CRISPR? The perspective of Doctor Frankenstein
helps us understand how having such power over the creation of life is morally
editing human embryos. Although this relates more to the technological side of
physical appearance of the creature being a result of the Doctor’s desire to finish
lesson we cannot ignore. Although a generally cautious attitude has been adopted
across the board in regards to CRISPR, specifically in the labs where scientists
are working with it, I think Frankenstein points us to a deeper kind of caution.
We don’t need to just be sure that every step we take is safe but also that it is
morally sound.
beyond simple “caution”? I will propose two types of arguments. First, CRISPR
introduces the “true creator” role to reproduction, where we become more than
parents and the relationships we have with our children change. While this could
be a positive change in theory, close examination will reveal that we are already
well on the way to making the same kinds of mistakes made by Doctor
commodities who add value to a person’s life based on how heavily modified they
are, which will likely lead parents to set much higher expectations for them. This
17
Second, CRISPR could change the way children will fit into society, as well
as the influence society could have over what type of person they will become.
This can include social trends for children that lead to socially enforced eugenics,
society had on the creature was much greater than it would have had on a
“normal” child, and we see him at odds with the rest of society due to his atypical
traits, including how he came into existence. I will outline these key connections,
dividing them into four sections, and explain the various aspects of each while
between the prospective child, the scientists helping to modify them, and the
parents. Most of the conflict in the novel begins with the Doctor’s refusal to
consider himself accountable or responsible for the creature and the moral
relationship he unintentionally entangled himself in, and this choice to spurn and
ignore his creation leads to deaths of loved ones. Although this may be an
transferable.
choices about their genetic makeup and even determined their physical
18
appearance can put serious strain on their relationships, and a parent’s decisions
on how to guide their child through life will reasonably have a different ethical
significance when the parent deliberately determined what kind of child they
would be having. First, the parent’s relationships with themselves come into
question. Parents take on more direct responsibility for their child’s life when
they make the decision to “design” their babies through the use of CRISPR.
Second, the child’s relationship with itself, much like the creature of the novel,
becomes all the more complicated when they consider how different they are
identity is not only shaped by the bodies we assume, but also how certain human
beings come into this world. Let us first focus on the child whose genetic traits
are intentionally tailored by their parents through CRISPR. They will form their
identities based on their abilities, experiences, and how they interact with the
world as well as how the world interacts with them based on their embodiments.
But also how they come into the world will shape their identities in profound
ways. All of these factors are affected when CRISPR is used to alter a child’s
genetic makeup. And given the complexity of the human genome, one of the
already difficult parts of any type of genetic engineering is the tendency for a
change in one gene to affect countless others.22 How would a child conceive of
themselves if they knew any of these factors that shape their identity could have
been determined not by chance or their own exercise of autonomy, but by their
22
Raposo, CRISPR-Cas9 and the Promise of a Better Future
19
parents? The ability to shape a person’s identity before they are even born is not
new. Many parents develop narratives about how their family will grow and exist
long before they have a child to care for, and societal pressures and expectations
CRISPR to alter a person’s abilities, appearance, and interactions with the world
identities of future generations one might come to the troubling conclusion that it
of Doctor Frankenstein not as man becoming god, but as man becoming man in
his attempts to create.23 The creature serves as a foil; he is separated from true
consider the materials he was dealing with—presumably body parts from the
that would have a much more complex existence than his simple hope of a “new
species [that] would bless [him] as its creator and source.”24 The potential life
23
Reese, A Troubled Legacy p. 52
24
Shelley, Frankenstein p. 42
20
These considerations are easily transferable to the question of genetic
novelists, and poets alike are in agreement that the rarity of human life and the
odds of any person having a particular character trait or phenotypic trait are
unique and contribute the ultimate question: what does it mean to be human?
Changing the very manner in which we come into existence may very well change
of morality and ethics as important features like temperament and health become
malleable.
reproduce and the risk of social trends for modifications that many call “new
existence on a population, determining what is desirable and what is not, and the
negative effects it has on the parts of the population that do not have the desired
traits. Many scholars have argued for the merits of eugenics in the past, with
25
Merriam-Webester.com Dictionary s.v. “Eugenics”
21
reproduction and the human genome, eugenics has become a popular discussion
manipulate the gene pool more accurate and could potentially make reprogenetic
and not guilty of imposing standards as it allows for individual parents to make
At the very least, I might be persuaded to agree that new eugenics has
merit in that it is not imposed by the state. But it seems that every other negative
consequence still holds true, and some of the conclusions reached by adopting
new eugenics are even more radical than its traditional counterpart. Prominent
prejudices extensively as a contributing factor to the way this proposed new form
of eugenics would play out.26 Even without rejecting individualism outright, one
can reasonably argue that individual preferences are heavily influenced by social
hairstyles are. They are heavily impacted by location, culture, and historical
factors to that point that they are difficult to consider as independent choices.
26
Sparrow, A Not-So-New Eugenics
22
And what are the consequences of not conforming to social standards of
justification for their decisions to edit their child’s genes, especially genetic
sequences that alter something like their hair type or color, that does not involve
make choices that increase our conformity and therefore ease of life and even
level of success would only expand the power of society to determine what a good
life is and who is worthy of moral concern. Our children’s traits and features
children that those who support the use of CRISPR or new eugenics in pursuit of
The relationship between a modified child and their parents and even the child
27
Savulescu himself acknowledges the great potential for this in his article on Procreative
Beneficence, and responding philosophers De Melo-Martin and Bennett expand on the reasons
why it is not just highly likely, but inevitable.
23
with itself would be transformed and undoubtedly would introduce new
stressors, but the child may also face stigma among larger society, being
created by the Doctor in the novel is ‘othered’ throughout the story, being
different from the people it comes into contact with and actively alienated in
numerous ways. Furthermore, the very terminology of the novel reveals its
complicated identity; Mary Shelley refers to it with various labels and scholars
writing about the creature are divided on the proper way to address it. Any term,
no matter how neutral or what good intentions the user has, isolates the creature
from the rest of society. Creature, creation, monster, daemon, etc. all serve as a
reminder to the reader of how different it is. This problem of how to refer to
people who are products of genetic designing and the use of CRISPR might be
less tricky to navigate, but the moral concern about a difference in nature
qualms?
is not an issue, many would argue that they represent the ultimate form of
traits will widen the gap between marginalized and privileged groups immensely.
A disruption of the social order would take place at best, a subjugation of non-
conforming individuals at worst. It may be less likely that designer babies will
24
face discrimination and more likely that they will increase discrimination towards
harmless, but furthering the social stigma and physical, mental, and emotional
argues that this harm would be outweighed by the good. I think Inmaculada De
the skewed thinking here. Besides bringing the extremely relevant female
perspective to the table, she points out that this defense of the possible
explains that Savulescu’s claim that “it is unlikely that selection on a scale that
institutional reform might reframe what non-disease traits are even desirable or
oppress various identities and groups. Instead of leveling the playing field to
28
Savulescu, Procreative Beneficence p. 422-424
29
De Melo-Martin, On Our Obligation to Select the Best Children p. 80-82
30
Savulescu, Procreative Beneficence; Ibid.
25
allow all to participate, we would erase those who have difficulty participating.
Such adoption of CRISPR implies that the moral issue is with people themselves
good life for our family is a positive thing, worsening inequality and overall
quality of life for others doesn’t seem like a worthy exchange. De Melo-Martin
and many other philosophers who write on the ethics of selecting for and
modifying non-disease traits also raise the concern that choosing advantageous
traits for our children would be a self-defeating sort of effort.31 By selecting and
would render many advantageous traits null and void because of how common
they would become. More generally, the pursuit of perfection in children may
If we are able to decide the very type of people we bring into the world, our
universe, uncovering what is truly good and moral by observing the world around
31
De Melo-Martin, On Our Obligation to Select the Best Children
32
Parker, The Best Possible Child
26
us. Designing our children and effectively designing the future of our race would
unprecedented ways. This might lead us to ask certain troubling questions as:
once everyone is able to determine the skin color of their child, will it still be
immoral to have a preference for lighter or darker skin in the workforce? If traits
like obsessive behavior and tendency to become an addict are manipulatable, the
excuse that someone “can’t help it” and “doesn’t have a choice” disappears and
convictions. We will be able to decide the quality threshold for worthy life and we
will be able to decide what traits are morally or ethically superior by promoting
them in future generations. The claim that societal norms do not reflect a deeper
ethical commitment does not stand up to close inspection, and with the ability to
create quality standards and influence population attributes so much that we can
It is worth briefly mentioning that one of the most glaring issues when it
comes to inequality and CRISPR would be unequal access, even if this thesis is
not of a large enough scope to thoroughly address it. I am of the firm belief that a
27
both government sponsored and private healthcare institutions and denied
modification would only be available to those who could afford to pay extra. And
become a tool of the rich to further promote and enforce their own phenotypic
it would require a person's life savings to pay for it. Things that are morally right
and only attainable by the rich reveal a set of priorities that does not centralize
4.4 Responsibility
this in his popular article, “The Case Against Perfection,” and argues in favor of
treating children as gifts and being able to adapt to the unexpected attributes that
come along with life as a central pillar of what it means to be human. 34 Although
believing we are entitled to a certain type of child and the positive aspects that
Doctor Frankenstein was hoping for the sort of creature that would “bless
[him] as its creator” and thought that “many happy and excellent natures would
33
Crawford et al., Costs of Achieving Live Birth from ART
34
Sandel, The Case Against Perfection
28
owe their being to [him].”35 The creature itself was set up for failure, as it had no
control over its physical appearance and stature, which frightened the Doctor so
much that he fled after giving it life. It laments the lost relationship and its own
inability to fix it while pleading with the parent who rejected it for a companion.
Already we see modern day parents who have children desiring not just to be a
parent or to nurture new life, but to reap the benefits that come along with it.
They often become frustrated when their child does not allow them to live out
their dreams (such as coaching a championship little league team or taking their
child to music recitals) and this damages the child’s perception of love and their
own purpose. How much easier would it be to create unfair expectations and
project your own desires onto a child who the parents feel uniquely responsible
for? If you made decisions to edit the embryo that would become your child to
increase their potential athletic abilities, you might feel more justified in holding
increased expectations for their children also works in reverse. The way in which
you come into the world shapes your identity, but so does the way in which you
bring another person into the world. The same way the child produced by genetic
would feel increased pressure to create a certain sort of environment and to push
their child to perform to higher standards. The weight of knowing you made
choices before they were born that either set them up for success or burdened
35
Shelley, Frankenstein p. 42
29
them would surely be overwhelming. Children may even feel more justified in
identity they are not pleased with or that have caused them grief. While many
autonomy, it may also limit their future autonomy as it puts strain on their
Extensive thought has been given to the subject of the divine’s role in creation.
Now we must begin to turn that pattern of thinking on ourselves and consider
what this new, human role in creation will look like. This concern should increase
our overall caution towards the development of CRISPR. Hopefully, unlike Dr.
between parents as well. In order to take advantage of CRISPR, both PGD and
IVF are necessary. The embryo must be tested, modified, and then manually
the best children possible, then we would also have an obligation to utilize the
combination of CRISPR, PGD, and IVF every time a couple decides to conceive in
order to assure the child has the best genetic makeup possible. After considering
36
Davis, Genetic Dilemmas and the Child’s Right to an Open Future
30
whom these procedures will be done to, we might rephrase the statement of
in vitro fertilization everytime they and their partner decided to have a child. As
de Melo-Martin points out, this is an unfair and unequal burden on women.37 The
process of IVF is costly, risky, and can be traumatizing for the woman involved.38
Men are not asked to take on an equal or even similarly difficult role in the
combination of IVF, PGD, and CRISPR is not considered obligatory, the trend of
designer babies or any form of widespread use of CRISPR would still overburden
skewed than it currently is. Rather than liberating future generations of women
by creating more perfect human beings, designer babies would ensure the
continuation of women’s oppression in the family structure. Thus far, very few
37
De Melo-Martin, On Our Obligation to Select the Best Children
38
Ibid. p. 75-78
31
5. Conclusion
of reprogenetic technology. Shelley writes as someone who can only imagine the
kinds of power and control we now have over our own genome, and sheds light
on many of the concerns we need to address as we begin venturing into the role of
mistakes one might make if diving head first into development of technology like
CRISPR that allows us to modify the genetic makeup of future children, and the
the unique ways societal pressures might impact genetically modified children.
CRISPR is opening the gateway to designing our babies, and this is extremely
morally problematic.
eugenics that fails to rectify old problems, and would lead to a “socially-
32
shoulder the burden of obligatory in vitro fertilization. The problems CRISPR
presents demand caution and careful evaluation of what our priorities are. We
must take great care not to begin treating individuals as the problem when
Works Cited
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.032.
Cyranoski, D. “CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time.” Nature,
33
Davis, Dena S. “Genetic Dilemmas and the Child’s Right to an Open
URL: “https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/7109/5809”.
webster.com/dictionary/eugenics.
European Journal of Health Law, vol. 26, no. 4, Oct. 2019, pp. 308-329.
https://doi.org/10.1525/rep.2006.96.1.48.
34
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/25/138962/exclusive-
chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/.
Rulli, Tina. “Reproductive CRISPR Does Not Cure Disease.” Bioethics, vol.
https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/shelleybio.html#_frankenstein.
35
36