Build-A-Baby

Designer Babies: It’s a concept that holds so much more significance than its catchy name implies. With the technological Big Boom that our world is facing today, these two words have so much more meaning than many people would ever have thought possible. Rather than referring to Versace diaper bags or Chanel strollers as one might think, the words have come to mean handcrafted and genetically altered human beings. It may be that the meticulously designed and highly coveted items of the future will be humans rather than handbags. The possibilities that accompany such a technological capability are stunning and frighteningly vast in far too many risky ways. Such an unfamiliar type of alteration to the human race opens up an infinite number of doors for never before encountered dilemmas, both moral and scientific. Although genetic engineering can be beneficial in preventing and eliminating genetic diseases, it is a practice whose potential for unexpected and extreme results is too dangerous to make continued experimentation worthwhile.

There are several aspects of genetic engineering that make it almost irresistibly tempting. The most prominent of the benefits is the ability to eliminate a child being born with either a genetic disease or a greater disposition to one. To save a family from the heartbreak of having a child who will never be able to lead a successfully independent life would be wonderful. To prevent them from having to tell their child that they will almost certainly face early Alzheimer’s at 40, or that they will likely be forced to deal with cancer during the course of their lifetime, seems as though it would be the ultimate scientific achievement.

However, a careful inspection of the possibilities of such a power and a further look down the road taint this appeal severely and show the darker side of opening Pandora’s Box. One of the greatest reasons to pause and reconsider such a step is the fact that it poses innumerable moral dilemmas. People must consider the long term effects of creating humans “superior” to natural individuals. Increased and excessive discrimination will become commonplace as certain traits that emerge as the more desirable features now become accessible by choice. If we are a world that already judges based upon circumstances completely beyond our control, it is frightening to think what extreme divides will split the human race when ideal traits can be selected by the more privileged.

The practice of molding our future children also diminishes and undermines one of the most important aspects of parenthood: unconditional love. One of the most important roles that a parent plays in a child’s life is providing them with a steady and unwavering acceptance and love that can be found nowhere else. Selecting the traits of a child implies that if they were born any “worse” they would not be loved equally. This kind of conditional love will shake a child’s self-worth and potentially lead to a shift in society’s concept of self-esteem as a whole.

The greatest moral dilemma that follows genetic engineering, however, is the question of whether humans deserve the responsibility of eliminating that which they find to be undesirable. It is our nature to want to make life as pleasant as possible, but do we have the right to discard that which we find distasteful for what we perceive to be the better option? Perfection does not exist for good reason. It does not lend itself to happiness but rather shallow complacency. It is overcoming and embracing what we initially perceive to be misfortunes that allows us to appreciate true joy. The manufactured humans that Huxley creates in his novel Brave New World exemplify the tragedy of complacency. When the “savage,” John, witnesses the empty contentedness of the conditioned Buxley, he sees wastefulness in this state: “’You’re more like you were at Malpais,’ he said, when Bernard had told him his plaintive story… ‘Because I’m unhappy again; that’s why.’ ‘Well, I’d rather be unhappy than have the sort of false, lying happiness you were having here,” (179). Although we may be ridding ourselves of difficult pain and suffering, we don’t know what positive things can eventually be born from that pain.

Genetic selection of children is equally unpredictable and ominous in scientific terms. One of the greatest benefits to pursuing this science is the possibility of eliminating many diseases. Ironically, disease may become an even greater problem following the beginning of its elimination. Instead of being exterminated, diseases will only become more concentrated in the lower classes. Only the wealthy will be able to ensure their health, leaving the poor equally sick. As disease becomes less prominent in the upper class, it is unlikely that an interest in finding a cure will remain. We will end up with an extreme divide between the upper and lower class and little chance of finding a solution for those in need.

The process of germline engineering also is particularly hazardous in regards to science because of its possibilities for recureence. With this process, there is the potential for humans to indefinitely alter mankind. (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm#GEHB) This sort of mindset is frighteningly similar to eugenics, not to mention biologically dangerous. In attempting to instill what we believe to be the most beneficial traits we could unknowingly destroy others that are detrimental to the race as a whole. Evolution requires randomness and necessitates a series of trials and errors to produce growth. When we begin to alter this random process we may very well be halting our progress as a species. Furthermore, removing “mistakes” from the human race will remove a great deal of its genius. History has shown us many remarkable pioneers whose accomplishments likely stemmed from their flaws. Beethoven, Einstein, and VanGogh would never have had a chance to contribute to our collective culture if perfection were necessary for life. Eliminating flaws from our race will only stunt growth and cause us to plateau as a society.

It is a driving desire to prevent pain in our lives and the lives of others that makes the exploration of genetic engineering appealing at a very strong level. Both morally and biologically, however, it is a power too risky for humans to control. The ability to eliminate disease will escalate into the specific formation of children. As author Gibbs writes, “Couples can screen out embryos for cystic fibrosis and cancer risk. Should they also be allowed to screen for blond, for smart, for straight or gay? We are on a road toward reproduction that doesn’t require eggs and sperm at all. This is a moral wilderness, full of hope and traps.” It is a complicated and emotionally charged conflict that we are beginning to enter. Despite our dearest wishes to create the best life for ourselves, however, we must realize that the responsibility of such a power is far too great and the possibilities far too unknown to consider genetic engineering to of benefit to mankind.