A New Era: Designer Babies

Part two: Major contemporary concerns and sociological analysis


Today, with the technological capabilities possessed by those doctors whom are able and willing to perform such a procedure, and the parents assuming they can afford it, can fulfill their desires for healthy and gender designed babies. However, how far can this trickle down into our society? Fostering a notion that supports a belief that only perfect designed babies should live, sort of bucks heads with those organizations and people who support those with disabilities. It also perpetuates the standards of perfection set by our society. Some people also fear what this concept is presenting to the youth in our society today. With such a strain to have the perfect image and body this could negatively affect young minds by giving them the idea that a certain hair or eye color, as well as a body type is more desired than others. Another negative concern focuses around the topic of animal testing. Germline engineering is now common in animal laboratories. At best it is an imprecise technology and requires hundreds of attempts before a viable engineered animal is produced. The biggest and most controversial concern surrounding this idea of “designer babies” is the moral and ethical dilemma it faces. The option to select the genetic makeup of your baby has posed concern about the future and the affects it will have on cultural heritage. The way of making a designer baby will not be attractive to prospective parents who place value on a genetic connection with their child. People also supporting the strength of family roots fear that traditional family traits and characteristics may forever get lost. The process of sex selection has raised concerns about sex discrimination. In societies such as China and India they value boys more than girls. They are already out of balance, and a technology like this could tip their scales even further. According to a recent study, China’s birth limits have created a dangerous gender gap. A skewed birth rate in China will leave nearly twenty-four million men single and without spouses by 2020. In America, surveys show that an equal number of parents desire boys as much as girls. However, the same poles report that Americans believe an ideal family has a boy as its eldest, to have as the protector of the younger children. Boys often end up being more assertive and dominant than girls do, as do most firstborns. Tilting the population towards doubling the amount of dominant firstborns could in return make it harder to get rid of gender-role stereotypes in our society. Backlash from the religious community is another negative aspect facing genetic screening. In February of last year, the New York news quoted the Pope, who condemned this screening to be an “obsessive search for the perfect child.” The Roman Catholic Church objects to applications of PGD claiming “they invariably involve the destruction of blastocysts.” Meaning the differentiation of cells has occurred.


On the other side, there is a positive light being shed on the evolution of this technology. Screening for genetic abnormalities is a strong argument for those supporting the idea of designer babies. As mentioned before, with the ability to weed out any undesirable traits doctors can remove potential genes carrying diseases and disabilities inherited by the parents. More recently, a January 2009 study by researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center found that an overwhelming 75% of parents would be in favor of trait selection using PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) as long as that trait is the absence of mental retardation. Furthermore, 54% said they would screen their embryos for deafness, 56% for blindness, 52% for heart disease, and 51% for cancer. Only 10% would be willing to select embryos for better athletic ability, and 12.6% would select for greater intelligence. 52.2% of respondents said that there were no conditions for which genetic testing should never be offered, indicating widespread support for PGD, as long as it’s for averting disease and not engineering human enhancement.