Designer baby: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 173.186.106.34 to last revision by Alansohn (HG) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Ethics== |
==Ethics== |
||
Objections to the idea of designer babies include the termination of embryos and how many disapprove of methods such as these under moral and religious grounds. For example, a group who believes in pro-life would not approve of the termination of preborn embryos. Also, the social standards go much further. It can be projected that we will breed a race of super humans who look down on those humans without genetic enhancements. Assuming genetic enhancement becomes readily available will it be incredibly expensive? In this instance only the wealthy would be protected from inherited diseases and disabilities, and the discrimination against those with disabilities would greatly rise. Lastly, humans have never experienced the effects of genetic structure alteration. The results could have dire consequences and possibly damage the gene pool.<ref>Stephen L. Baird, Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options.(April 2007), available through Technology Teacher Magazine.</ref> |
Objections to the idea of designer babies include the termination of embryos and how many disapprove of methods such as these under moral and religious grounds. For example, a group who believes in pro-life would not approve of the termination of preborn embryos. Also, the social standards go much further. It can be projected that we will breed a race of super humans who look down on those humans without genetic enhancements. Assuming genetic enhancement becomes readily available will it be incredibly expensive? In this instance only the wealthy would be protected from inherited diseases and disabilities, and the discrimination against those with disabilities would greatly rise. Lastly, humans have never experienced the effects of genetic structure alteration. The results could have dire consequences and possibly damage the gene pool.<ref>Stephen L. Baird, Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options.(April 2007), available through Technology Teacher Magazine. prononced ( shmegma)</ref> |
||
Genetic modification can be used to alter anything from gender to disease, and eventually appearance, personality, and even IQ. Another controversy facing the advancement of genetic modification technology is the price of such procedures and its ability to create a gap in society. Altering embryos is fairly recent technology and as it develops is a very costly procedure. With only the wealthy being able to pay for the modification that will eliminate disease for their children and eventually choose to treat people with disabilities or diseases and those used to [[human enhancement|enhance healthy people]]. They are particularly wary of this technology’s ability to lead to a [[new eugenics]] where individuals are "bred" or designed to suit social preferences such as above average height, certain hair color, increased intelligence, or greater memory. Not only is the prospect of future generations of "better people" a metaphysical concern, but apprehension also arises from the possibility that such groups of people might become prejudiced against one another due to a feeling of lost common humanity with non-enhanced or differently-enhanced groups. Within journalistic coverage of the issue, as well as within the analysis of [[techno-progressivism#Contrasting stance|bioconservative]] critics, the issue of safety takes a secondary role to that of humanity, because it is thought that the ethical issue of safety can eventually be resolved by innovation and so should not be focused on due to its fallibility. The so-called [[Transhumanism#Dehumanization_.28Frankenstein_argument.29|''Frankenstein'' argument]] asserts that genetically engineering designer babies would compel us to think of each other as products or devices rather than people, and the scientists move on to primates because their DNA is the most similar to humans. |
Genetic modification can be used to alter anything from gender to disease, and eventually appearance, personality, and even IQ. Another controversy facing the advancement of genetic modification technology is the price of such procedures and its ability to create a gap in society. Altering embryos is fairly recent technology and as it develops is a very costly procedure. With only the wealthy being able to pay for the modification that will eliminate disease for their children and eventually choose to treat people with disabilities or diseases and those used to [[human enhancement|enhance healthy people]]. They are particularly wary of this technology’s ability to lead to a [[new eugenics]] where individuals are "bred" or designed to suit social preferences such as above average height, certain hair color, increased intelligence, or greater memory. Not only is the prospect of future generations of "better people" a metaphysical concern, but apprehension also arises from the possibility that such groups of people might become prejudiced against one another due to a feeling of lost common humanity with non-enhanced or differently-enhanced groups. Within journalistic coverage of the issue, as well as within the analysis of [[techno-progressivism#Contrasting stance|bioconservative]] critics, the issue of safety takes a secondary role to that of humanity, because it is thought that the ethical issue of safety can eventually be resolved by innovation and so should not be focused on due to its fallibility. The so-called [[Transhumanism#Dehumanization_.28Frankenstein_argument.29|''Frankenstein'' argument]] asserts that genetically engineering designer babies would compel us to think of each other as products or devices rather than people, and the scientists move on to primates because their DNA is the most similar to humans. |
||
Revision as of 19:02, 18 November 2010
The colloquial term "designer baby" refers to a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilisation to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.[1] The term is derived by comparison with "designer clothing". It implies the ultimate commodification of children and is therefore usually used pejoratively to signal opposition to such use of reprogenetics.[2]
Ethics
Objections to the idea of designer babies include the termination of embryos and how many disapprove of methods such as these under moral and religious grounds. For example, a group who believes in pro-life would not approve of the termination of preborn embryos. Also, the social standards go much further. It can be projected that we will breed a race of super humans who look down on those humans without genetic enhancements. Assuming genetic enhancement becomes readily available will it be incredibly expensive? In this instance only the wealthy would be protected from inherited diseases and disabilities, and the discrimination against those with disabilities would greatly rise. Lastly, humans have never experienced the effects of genetic structure alteration. The results could have dire consequences and possibly damage the gene pool.[3]
Genetic modification can be used to alter anything from gender to disease, and eventually appearance, personality, and even IQ. Another controversy facing the advancement of genetic modification technology is the price of such procedures and its ability to create a gap in society. Altering embryos is fairly recent technology and as it develops is a very costly procedure. With only the wealthy being able to pay for the modification that will eliminate disease for their children and eventually choose to treat people with disabilities or diseases and those used to enhance healthy people. They are particularly wary of this technology’s ability to lead to a new eugenics where individuals are "bred" or designed to suit social preferences such as above average height, certain hair color, increased intelligence, or greater memory. Not only is the prospect of future generations of "better people" a metaphysical concern, but apprehension also arises from the possibility that such groups of people might become prejudiced against one another due to a feeling of lost common humanity with non-enhanced or differently-enhanced groups. Within journalistic coverage of the issue, as well as within the analysis of bioconservative critics, the issue of safety takes a secondary role to that of humanity, because it is thought that the ethical issue of safety can eventually be resolved by innovation and so should not be focused on due to its fallibility. The so-called Frankenstein argument asserts that genetically engineering designer babies would compel us to think of each other as products or devices rather than people, and the scientists move on to primates because their DNA is the most similar to humans.
The genetic modification of humans can pose an ethical debate about the rights of the baby. One side of this issue is that the fetus should be free to not be genetically modified. Once the genetic modification of the fetus takes place then the baby is changed forever, there is no chance that the genetic modification completed prior to birth could ever be reversed. The opposing view to this is that the parents are the ones with the rights to their unborn child, so they should be able to have the option to alter their genetic code.
Despite the pejorative nature of the term "designer baby", a minority of bioethicists consider the notion of a designer baby, once the reprogenetic technology is shown to be safe, to be a responsible and justifiable application of parental procreative liberty. The usage of genetic engineering (amongst other techniques) on one's children is said to be defensible as procreative beneficence, the moral obligation of parents to try to give their children the healthiest, happiest lives possible. Some futurists claim that it would put the human species on a path to participant evolution.[4][5]
Popular culture
Films
Novels
Animation
Television
- Tales from the Darkside (a two-part episode)
- Several episodes of Private Practice have dealt with genetic engineering and related topics.
References
- ^ Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations - Nicholas Agar - An ActionBioscience.org original article
- ^ McGee, Glenn (2000). The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8344-3.
- ^ Stephen L. Baird, Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options.(April 2007), available through Technology Teacher Magazine. prononced ( shmegma)
- ^ Silver, Lee M. (1998). Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-380-79243-5.
- ^ Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4198-1.
External links
- Bonsor, Kevin. Howstuffworks: How Designer Children Will Work
- Strongin, Laurie Saving Henry, a non-fiction account of Strongin's pioneering use of IVF and PGD to have a healthy child whose cord blood could save the life of her son Henry