Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Many people are born with qualities that help them compete better in society: beauty, intelligence, spectacular appearance, or physical strength. Hence, it seems that something not previously subject will soon become available – to “design” people even before they were born and set the necessary qualities if they are not given by nature, predetermining the essential opportunities in life. Now that the human genome has been decoded and scientists have learned how to edit it, it seems that humanity is getting closer to developing the trend of creating “designer children.” At the same time, according to the student, there are many questions about this phenomenon, which has both advantages and disadvantages. For instance, genetics does not answer many questions, and epigenetics is actually at the initial stage of development. Every experiment with the birth of a child with a modified genome is a significant risk; in the long term, it may become a problem for such children, their descendants, and possibly, the entire human species (Lavazza, 2019). Designer babies are a future people should not want or have in terms of embryo protection and the social consequences of the new eugenics.
The Scientific Background to the Issue
Is the future of humanity really behind designer children? – one of the questions on which the scientific background of the problem is based. One should emphasize that the topic of the creation of designer children is controversial, and every scientist and researcher treats it differently. In general, modern technologies, scientific progress, and humankind’s achievements allow one to “design” a child based on the wishes and needs of parents for their future child (Handyside, 2018). However, the effectiveness of genome editing has yet to be definitively demonstrated, and the risk of inappropriate editing remains a barrier to clinical use (Handyside, 2018). Designer children are imperfect and may have health problems due to external factors (Ranpara, 2020). In connection with these and many other aspects, scientists have a question about the expediency of the idea of interference in human nature and whether it is essential. Designer children, in some situations, may seem excellent and even life-saving. Nevertheless, there is concern among the population and the scientific community regarding the morality and ethics of the process.
Gene editing techniques are still considered experimental procedures, and further research is needed to assess their effectiveness and safety in the long term. These methods may cause other undesirable genetic modifications that may pass into future generations. A gene change can be inaccurate in many cases, which can cause severe problems in the future. This becomes more difficult when one gene is responsible for several traits or when several genes affect one trait. Gene editing techniques such as CRISPR make people believe that designer babies are no longer part of science fiction. However, it is essential to understand the social, scientific, and ethical issues associated with editing embryos before implantation. International organizations and countries call for debate and equal participation to introduce strict rules, ensure transparency in clinical work and conduct further studies to assess the safety and long-term effects of such methods.
Ethical Perspective
The prospect of producing genetically enhanced or designer babies continues to be surrounded by controversy. There must be a consensus on the ethical side of creating designer babies. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) has outlined several ethical issues related to human genome editing. Decision-making on behalf of future generations: Bioethicists believe that allowing parents to choose their children’s traits without their consent or knowledge violates the child’s right to live independently (Baylis, 2019). Moreover, one should remember the problems of cosmetics and professional development deployment. There are concerns that the method of creating designer children can be used to improve human skills, talents, abilities, and appearance instead of using technology to prevent or treat diseases.
However, it should be understood and recognized that at all times, morality and ethics become the main obstacles to scientific and technological progress. The development of humankind largely depends on the opinion of specialists who assess the ethics of using new technologies, including in the field of genetic engineering. Nevertheless, the given phenomenon helps free the child from a hereditary disease and choose the most healthy and “smart” embryo from several options. In that case, it is unlikely that one of the parents will refuse this, guided by ethical issues.
The technology of genetic modification to create designer babies is still in the early development stage, which means that it is still at the experimental stage and needs more time to progress. This method is also not one hundred percent safe, and although the designer children live a happy and healthy life, much needs to be done. Since the process is still undergoing experimental research, scientists cannot yet say with certainty how the designer child will affect the family tree in the future. In addition, genetics is not always error-free, which means that it is likely that some kind of error may manifest itself in the future.
Social Perspective
The creation of designer children is due mainly to the expansion of social inequality. Access to germline editing can widen the social gap if the methods are available only to those individuals or countries that can afford it. This can create differences in which some carry the burden of genetic diseases because they cannot afford treatment or are in a different culture or geography. This social issue relies on the idea that gene editing will be an expensive service, which denotes that wealthy individuals can only afford it (Morrison & de Saille, 2019). As a result, people with middle or low-income levels will be deprived of the opportunity to create designer babies. This state of affairs will contribute to the existing socioeconomic gap that is currently found among various social groups.
Furthermore, from a social point of view, the creation of designer children can lead to the emergence of a superior race. It will treat ordinary people with superiority, inevitably leading to a dystopian world and, consequently, to a catastrophe. The creation of such a race of superior and genetically modified people will also significantly impact the entire human gene pool, and many of the essential human characteristics may be at risk of destruction. Instead of the human brain and body developing through mutation and natural selection, science and technology will take on this responsibility.
One should highlight that how societies are structured is the result of various evolutionary processes that occur during long periods of time. The existing institutions and relationships among various individuals and groups rely on mutually understanding rules and principles. However, the introduction of an unprecedented opportunity, designer children, can bring significant changes to the existing norms. Morrison and de Saille (2019) stipulate that this technological possibility can significantly rebalance the previously established social order. It is challenging to predict the precise consequences of this issue because positive and negative outcomes can arise. What is known for sure is that society should be aware of this possible course of action prior to making the ability to design people available for the community.
Political Perspective
One should additionally highlight that a few significant political issues are associated with the topic of designer babies. Today, there is no public consensus regarding whether this biotechnology should be allowed and developed. Morrison and de Saille (2019) emphasize that public consensus is required because its absence can result in various challenges for societies. For example, since some social groups have different opinions regarding designer children, political forces can use this fact for their purposes. If politicians start including this biotechnology in their campaigns and debates, they will promote specific public opinions in society to achieve their own goals. Thus, the inclusion of this issue in political discussion is not likely to contribute to a better understanding of the concept.
The political perspective additionally draws attention to the fact that the issue of genome editing requires specific regulatory attention. According to Wang and Yang (2019), “clear and strict laws need to be passed, implemented, and enforced at an international level” (p. 4). This quotation demonstrates that the given biotechnology provides people with almost unlimited opportunities. That is why it is necessary to establish clear and understandable rules regarding who and when may edit human genes. A reasonable suggestion implies that if this opportunity is granted to everyone without any limitation, chaos and dystopia can emerge.
In addition to that, the selected biotechnology can make a difference in geopolitics. For instance, if one country masters this opportunity, it can consider other nations inferior. Some political leaders can rely on genome editing to create physically and mentally better soldiers, which can result in a threat to the world. Khan (2019) supports this idea and adds that if genome-editing tools are in the wrong hands, they can become an effective weapon leading to abuse of power on an international scale. This information denotes that the selected technology is subject to numerous political issues that can result in significant challenges for individual nations and the world.
Discussion
The following important conclusions should be drawn based on many ethical principles and concepts. Firstly, in the process of genetic modification, thanks to which a designer child appears, the parent chooses only “good” qualities and excludes “bad” ones. Opponents of the concept of designer babies believe that such selectivity is almost the same as abortion. Secondly, there may be cases when parents decide on a designer child only for the sake of using stem cells that they use for themselves or for sale. After the birth of such a child, the parents extract the necessary cells and abandon the baby, condemning them to adoption at best.
When parents start the process of creating a designer child, they change the life and mentality of a living person forever without asking him for permission. They can make this decision even with the best intentions and a spiritual impulse, but in the end, they change a person’s fate forever, leaving them no choice. In order to achieve these goals, this child will be used as a tool or object of scientific experiment but will not be considered a person.
Today, there is a sufficient number of relevant and reliable studies on the specific topic. However, the ambiguity and polarity of opinions regarding issues about designer babies, as well as the categorical nature of many judgments, are indicative these days. According to Morrison and de Saille (2019), the phenomenon of the birth of children from embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 is controversial and requires consensus on further actions to avoid collisions between the public and biotechnology. Wang and Yang (2019) believe that gene editing on the human germline is a highly irresponsible matter from a scientific and ethical point of view. This moment represents a gross violation of generally accepted norms and trends, as well as the consensus reached by the international scientific community.
With the help of CRISPR, parents can endow their children with certain qualities. Nevertheless, many ethical questions continue to arise when applying CRISPR techniques, and most authors have published works on the topic, focusing on this idea. Hence, Roth (2019) explained that genetic modification of the DNA of human embryos is currently unethical and prohibited in the United States and other countries since the consequences of interventions are unknown and potentially dangerous. Furthermore, issues related to this topic should be resolved exclusively in a collective way since, in reality, scientists are responsible for social consequences. The practice of genome editing should be allowed if it leads humanity to a more just and equitable world (Baylis, 2019). Consequently, the topic of designer children is relatively new, and scientists are gradually enriching and expanding it. There are many books and scientific research that will help better comprehend the essence and specifics of the questions about the topic.
In addition, it is worth mentioning that the given biotechnology is subject to various social and political issues. They result in the fact that the implementation of the genome-editing opportunity brings a few phenomena or processes that can negatively impact various people, social groups, and entire nations. These findings demonstrate that the concept of designer babies should be carefully implemented to minimize potential harmful outcomes. However, it is impossible to ignore that the selected biotechnology implies some essential advantages. That is why opposing viewpoints exist regarding whether genome-editing tools should be allowed.
It is possible to rely on the above evidence to offer an overall argument regarding the idea of designer children. Since multiple drawbacks exist, there is no doubt that this biotechnology should not be blindly introduced. It has already been stipulated that a public consensus is needed to make a decision regarding this sensitive and important topic. However, this consensus is difficult to reach because the discussion focuses on the outcomes that are or are not going to occur in the future.
In any case, it is good that the scientific argument regarding the issue takes place and that various individuals, experts, and organizations are involved. In this process, it is essential to raise appropriate and meaningful questions. Firstly, the stakeholders should determine whether the given biotechnology should be allowed. Greely (2021) indicates that possible options are to ban this opportunity entirely or prohibit its use until it is proven safe. The two variants are unanimous in acknowledging that genome editing should not be widely applied based on its current level of development. Rigorous methods should be used to confirm that the given biotechnology is safe for people and society.
If appropriate studies appear and prove the safety of designer babies, the following question should be posed. Greely (2021) highlights that it is necessary to determine whether this opportunity will imply any limitations or be offered to everyone without any barriers. It seems that a suitable approach will be to list specific cases when genome editing may be used. This strategy implies that scientists and researchers should establish reasonable and understandable rules to regulate the use of genome-editing technologies. The best option might be to allow designing children based on medical necessity. In other words, making this biotechnology available for everyone is unreasonable because uncontrolled use can result in many disadvantages.
Conclusion
In conclusion, “designer children” is a good idea from the point of view of scientific progress, but it is primarily associated with many ethical, social, and political problems, presenting several risks to future generations. Manipulating human genes to create children with improved mental and physical abilities, the so-called “designer children” commissioned by parents, is a vast and real threat. Potential negative consequences can affect modified individuals, their families, societies, and the world. Indeed, discussions about genetic “improvements” of a person turn into an arena of acute and irreconcilable ideological clashes with a pronounced socio-philosophical context. That is why numerous philosophers, scientists, and international organizations participate in the acute argument regarding the future of the selected biotechnology. They do their best to analyze the possible pros and cons and ensure that possible harmful impacts are minimized. In this discussion, the stakeholders raise important questions, and the obtained answers are expected to contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon under discussion. There is insufficient evidence to claim that genome editing is a completely safe practice that should be implemented.
After all, no matter how technologically advanced a person is, they always face the problem of choice, the solution of which depends on whether they will remain a person or not. However, one should remember that despite the development of this topic, emphasis should be placed on the need to continue to study the trends in the development of a wide range of socio-humanitarian problems. They arise in connection with the plans of genetic “improvement” of an individual, and pay attention to the review of what has been done to date by researchers in different world countries.
References
Baylis, F. (2019). Altered inheritance: CRISPR and the ethics of human genome editing. Cambridge & Boston: Harvard University Press.
Greely, H. T. (2021). Standords’ Hank Greely on CRISPR people and designer babies. Stanford Law School. Web.
Handyside, A. H. (2018). ‘Designer babies’ almost thirty years on. Reproduction, 156(1), 75-79. Web.
Khan, S. H. (2019). Genome-editing technologies: Concept, pros, and cons of various genome-editing techniques and bioethical concerns for clinical application. Molecular Therapy-Nucleic Acids, 16, 326-334. Web.
Lavazza, A. (2019). Parental selective reproduction: Genome-editing and maternal behavior as a potential concern. Front. Genet., 10(532), 1-5. Web.
Morrison, M., & de Saille, S. (2019). CRISPR in context: Towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1-9. Web.
Roth, S. C. (2019). What is genomic medicine? Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 107(3), 442-448. Web.
Ranpara, M. (2020). Designer babies. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 11(1), 147-148. Web.
Wang, H., & Yang, H. (2019). Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong. PLoS Biology, 17(4), 1-5. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.