This picture tells the story of Jamie Whitaker, born to save his four-year-old brother, Charlie’s life. Charlie, who was suffering from anaemia, had only one cure: a transplant of perfectly matched stem cells. When James Whitaker was born, Charlie was given the possibility of living past the age of 30, his expected year of death (BBC News).

For this to be possible, genetic engineers would’ve used a technique called in vitro fertilization (IVF) to fertilize egg cells outside the womb. Then, they would use Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), whereby scientists test an embryo three days old for possible genetic diseases. Any embryo that’s confirmed to be disease-free is then implanted into the mother’s womb (Wall Street Journal). However, in certain cases such as in the Whitakers’ case, scientists would not only try to select embryos that are disease-free, they would also try to select those with other preferable traits, such as an embryo that is of a perfect tissue-match for Charlie Whitaker.

Recently, scientists have been doing the latter…but for a different purpose: to make sure embryos will have certain physical characteristics, such as in the following picture:

So, considering everything, is this technology ethical?

My answer to this question…is no. Even if it’s for a good purpose, creating embryos unnaturally, choosing only preferred embryos, and letting the other embryos die shouldn’t be a possibility – think about the hundreds of lives lost! Consider also the “designer” baby’s future. The child is already given the expectation of being a certain way by his or her parents before they’re even born, especially because they spent thousands on this technology. The cost of making a genetically-modified baby is also an issue that needs to be addressed. It costs around $3,500-$64,800 in Canada to perform IVF alone (IVF Canada). This therefore means that if this trend of bioengineered babies were to continue, there would be an even wider gap between the rich and the poor – with the rich having the “perfect” kids, while the poor will have the not-so-“perfect” kids.

We then question the ethical implications these scientists had in creating this technology. Is this one of those creations that claim to have many positive effects, but really, is bad for you? The following video shows “genetically-engineered pets”, created to show the negative effects of bioengineering, and how many scientists develop this technology in order to earn a profit. (More info here):


Moreover, “designer babies”, even if using it to make disease-free babies, would limit the biodiversity of the human race, and in the long run would make us more susceptible to the diseases that we’re so willing to get rid of. We also can’t forget that tampering with genetics and embryos could result in making even bigger mistakes, such as a mutation. With all the negative effects, it seems as though the idea of “designer babies” is really not beneficial, and maybe, this is just one of those things where we should just let nature run its course, and not let technology interfere.

Word Count: 500
Comments:
Robert Ramassar, RE: Please Make me a Perfect Baby
Mary Laxamana, RE: Designing Babies!?
Sources:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4965-five-designer-babies-created-for-stem-cells.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3854-banned-designer-baby-is-born-in-uk.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3002610.stm
http://www.ivfcanada.com/services/fees/general_fee_schedule.cfm
posted by Rowena @ 1:05 PM