Science and technology are continuously advancing at an exponential rate, one that most of us are struggling to keep up with. Genetic engineering and genetic modification have always been subjects under great scrutiny, due to the ethical issues that accompany the scientific growth and progression. It started over a decade ago with the world’s first cloned mammal, Dolly the Scottish sheep. A year later came Lucy the Canadian mouse, who was the first mammal with artificially implanted genes. The unique aspect of Lucy was that the artificial genes could be inherited by her offspring, a phenomenon proving scientists may eventually be able to manipulate the human genes.
Many years and many discoveries later, we arrive at yet another controversial issue; that of Designer Babies. According to www.bionetonline.org, a designer baby is 'a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics'. Currently there are only two types of advanced reproductive technologies that are legal; the first involves sex determination, where you can choose to have either a boy or a girl, and the second technique screens the embryos for a genetic disease, where only the healthy embryos will be implanted back into the mothers womb.
IVF initially only assisted the infertile to procreate, but now it potentially allows the parents to determine the genetic make up of their offspring. This is done through a process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In PDG an embryo is created by IVF and then a single cell is removed. After the embryo is grown to an eight cell stage it is genetically tested for defects and/or for the sex of the baby. The parents then decide whether to implant the embryo in the mothers’ womb or to discard it.
Although currently PGD does not involve the genetic modification of human embryos, it does not mean that it is risk free. Some researchers fear that the removal of one or two cells from eight cell embryos might have unknown problems for the well-being of the people created by PGD. Defenders of PGD respond that the cells of eight-cell embryos are still capable of forming all the cells of the human body, despite the removal of cells at such an early stage. Even with all the conducted research, it is still too early to tell who is right in this dispute due to the fact that the technology has only been in use for under a decade. It is also only a matter of time before it is possible to genetically modify a human embryo as researchers have gained much knowledge of the human genome.
So where does all this scientific technology stand? How far can we go in orchestrating reproduction? We are running an endless race with no finish line in sight. Due to this, we need to pause and think about the moral and ethical limits. And to find an answer, other questions must be addressed:
- Is there a moral or ethical difference between using genetic technologies to prevent disease and to enhance human capacities?
- Should parents encourage genetic enhancement for their future children?
- What effect will all this have on society?
Is there a distinction between treating or preventing disease and enhancing traits? It is difficult to find definitions of disease suitable to serve as a moral guideline for genetic technologies. A disease is a condition that is abnormal and harmful to society. The problem with this definition of disease is that it is not specific enough. Illnesses such as cancer and multiple sclerosis fall into the broad and accepted definition, but what about homosexuality? There are certain societies and cultures that perceive homosexuality as an illness and a defect, a trait that is harmful to society. Scientists are inclined to believe that homosexuality arises from a combination of factors such as genetic and environmental. Currently there are no documented discoveries that support this inclination. However, if it were to be discovered that there is a malfunction in the brain that leads to homosexuality, does that deny them the right to exist?
There are debates that preventing a disease is the same as enhancing human capacities. If you can prevent a person from developing a disease, you improve their health which in turn could possibly extend their life span. Others argue that they are not the same due to the fact that improving your IQ is not preventing a disease; it is in fact enhancing the capacity of human beings.
In addition to that, the more liberal frame of thought is that parents manipulate the surroundings and environment of their children everyday to lead to an enhanced life. They send them to good schools, they prevent them from the influence of negative company and they introduce them to religion. All this is done with the aim to shape them according to what the parents deem right. On the other hand, there are people who argue against all this innovation saying that there is a significant difference between upbringing and genetic enhancement. hey believe that such enhancements are unnatural and would lead to the loss of humanity in future generations.
If genetics progresses in this manner, life will change and people will change. It has already begun. The balance in the world is being disrupted and nature is being tampered with. In some countries it is legal to choose the sex of your child. It is a relatively easy process, as the Y chromosomes are smaller than the X chromosomes and they carry less DNA. They are stained with a nontoxic light-sensitive dye, allowing scientists to sort sperm by sex. This type of freedom is guaranteed to disrupt nature’s course of action and this is because there are many countries and societies where the life of a boy is regarded to be of higher value.
Due to all these factors, there is a growing anxiety concerning innovation and people’s ability to cope with it. People are generally opposed to change but when it concerns science, many view it only from one side of the fence. It seems the undefined line of bioethics keeps getting distorted and less clear. We are now allowed to choose the sex of our child. How long will it be before we can determine and select their height, weight, eye colour, and hair colour? Is that ethically wrong too? Why are we allowed to choose the sex of our child, but not the eye colour? NY Times states that 'by around 2010 parents will be able to genetically ensure their babies won't grow up to be fat or alcoholic, and by 2050 arrange to insert an extra gene into single-cell embryos within 24 hours of conception to make babies resistant to AIDS'. There was a time when we questioned the ethics of surrogacy as well as sperm donors. Sperm banks created a huge controversy as it was said that it was equivalent to ‘shopping’ for the correct DNA. As time went by, the shock of these innovations subsided and eventually society accepted them. It is very possible that with time people will be open to the idea of designer babies along with many other scientific discoveries.
It is however, important to understand the affect all this has on society and humanity. We are the ones to shape the future of the coming generations, and although science opens up doors that many of us never thought to exist, we are responsible for the butterly effect that follows. Designer babies are one of the many concepts which have progressed from theory to reality. We now have to understand where it will lead to and where we should draw the line of scientific implementation.
No comments:
Post a Comment