Genetically engineering babies

Excerpted from "Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor," The Telegraph. August 16, 2012--Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children." The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and others". The academic, who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in an article in the latest edition of Reader's Digest.

He explained that we are now in the middle of a genetic revolution and that although screening, for all but a few conditions, remains illegal it should be welcomed. He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on personality – with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics. By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out. In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future. So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality. Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.

Rational design is just a natural extension of this, he said. He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favor when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children. "We’re routinely screening embryos and fetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down’s syndrome, and there’s little public outcry," he said. "What’s more, few people protested at the decisions in the mid- 2000s to allow couples to test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes, and this pushes us a lot close to creating designer humans." Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance. Click here to read full story.

CMDA Member, Moral Revolution Board member and “Ask the Doc” blogger Andre' Van Mol, MD: "Eugenics/master races are false promises that consistently lead to cruelty. Genes determine predisposition, not destiny. Heritability is not inevitability. Genotype is not fixed to a single phenotype. Genetic contributions to behavior are best categorized as small by those who deal in this field.¹ The professor’s premise is replete with logical fallacies and misunderstanding of behavioral genetics, yet he is willing to 'screen out' pre-born children based on it. Notice, 'screen out,' not treat. Eugenics usually means genocide.

"So what happens when the currently or allegedly 'undesirable' genes turn out later to have had some considerable 'up' side, even a group survival advantage? Bummer for us. We already abort 90 percent of Down Syndrome children.² Are we kinder and gentler for it? Does compassion spring forth from abolition of imperfection? And what happens when your or my imperfection is next on the chopping block? Second bummer.

"A previous article in the press spoke glowingly of prenatal screening possibilities for 3,500 problems.³ Notice once again, they don't mean screening to treat, but screening to terminate. A Dutch palliative care specialist Dr Ben Zylicz noted that once you allow physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia, you eliminate the motivation to solve difficult problems, and then learning stops.⁴ Why bother when the 'problem' is 'solved' for $50 worth of termination medicine? Likewise, selecting out supposedly inferior preborn children won't do much to spur perinatology, neonatology and pediatrics on to greatness in working out difficult problems. This is the road to nowhere."
_____________________________________
1. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S.J. (2011b). Some thoughts on essence placeholders, interactionism, and heritability: Reply to Haslam (2011) and Turkheimer (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 829-833.
2. Mansfield, C, et al. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review.Prenat Diagn. 1999 Sep;19(9):808-12.
3. Adams, A. Unborn babies could be tested for 3,500 genetic faults. www.telegraph.co.uk. 06 Jun 2012.
4. Hugh, M. “Better palliative care could cut euthanasia” Hugh Matthews, BMJ 1998;317:1613 (12 December) News.

A History of Eugenics
Eugenics Through Abortion
CMDA Ethics Statement: Eugenics and Enhancement