When a pregnant parent is asked about the identity of their unborn child, they will often say that it does not matter except that the baby is healthy. Unsaid for fear of taboo, the covert preferences and biases of a parent may cause disappointment when brought into fruition. The infant may be the ‘wrong’ sex, ‘wrong’ ability, ‘wrong’ appearance; there is no guarantee that even the primary request (for a healthy child) is fulfilled. Until recently, a distraught parent could do little but abort the pregnancy or live with their imperfection. Now, there is potential for every child to be ‘perfect’ – a ‘designer baby’.
Human augmentation and enhancement have existed from the earliest civilisations and continue to develop at an astounding rate. In its simplest form, human augmentation is defined as “technologies that enhance human productivity or capability, or that somehow add to the human body”. Currently, the most efficient method for this is the CRISPR gene method. Cas9 (an enzyme produced by the CRISPR system) fuses onto the DNA of an organism and cuts the targeted gene, either shutting it off or activating it. What seems like a very clinical, scientific process actually has many ethical considerations – human augmentation, despite its seeming benefits, is fraught with adverse possibilities.
First and foremost, genetic editing has immense medical potential to forestall disease and disability. Unlike current treatments, such as PGD and IVF, CRISPR can remedy embryos with parents homozygous for a faulty gene (where both parents have this faulty gene). Besides preventing hereditary problems, genetic editing could also have other medical benefits, like dictating a universal blood type. Furthermore, as genetic editing has proven potential in the medical scope, treating patients with it should be a moral imperative. Doctors, under the Hippocratic Oath, are required to “treat the ill to the best of one’s abilities”. Therefore, not using genetic editing could be negligence.
Despite the plethora of medical benefits, there is also danger. Off-target effects, where the DNA is edited incorrectly or in the wrong place, could have detrimental (conceivably lethal!) effects on the embryo. Additionally, genetic mosaicism (where only some cells carry the edit) could occur. This results in various conditions, like Mosaic Down Syndrome.
From an ethical and moral standpoint, there are many implications of genetic enhancement. Primarily, they regard the question “What is the perfect child?”. Likely, the average answers would perpetuate racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist and other prejudicial beliefs. Moreover, genetic editing suggests that a child perceived as imperfect is not worthy of living; in some cases, this would be active discrimination. The selection of humans, even when not done by genetic editing, has led to appalling consequences. For instance, the Nazi eugenics program attempted to remove various races and disabilities from the gene pool. A modern example of this abhorrent human selection is female foeticide – parents abort female embryos because they are not considered to be meriting of life. This practice is cemented into many cultures already – like in India. The provision of gene editing could exacerbate this discrimination.
Additionally, if gene editing did enable discrimination, not only would it be morally egregious, but society could become precariously unbalanced. To demonstrate, if the population becomes entirely male, it will be harder to conceive children – will all embryos be lab-grown? Similarly, if every person is of a scholarly disposition, who would do vital unskilled labour? If everyone had the same intelligence and intellectual interest, then surely professional selection and examinations would have to be purely based on experience – bolstering a class system? Furthermore, it is likely, in the emergence of commercial genetic editing, that it will be expensive; only the wealthy receiving a ‘designer baby’. Therefore, a class system defined by the quality of the engineered genome could emerge. This could have disastrous, dystopian-esque effects in increasing the development gap (among many other consequences!) On the other hand, there would potentially be less discrimination as everyone is the same. Also, a society of like-minded individuals could lead to more overall satisfaction and global progression.
In summation, prenatal genetic editing has an ambiguous potential. Its success, however, will be decided by how we choose to use it. Genetic enhancement could either perpetuate the pervasive idea of what is ‘normal’- inciting discrimination- or create a safe, healthy society. Overall, genetic editing needs a rigorous legal and ethical examination to avoid the pitfalls – it could be a slippery slope in the pursuit of a designer baby.
