TOPIC GUIDE: Designer Babies
"Human genetic engineering is a step too far"
PUBLISHED: 01 May 2007
AUTHOR: James Gledhill
Share this Topic Guide:
INTRODUCTION
Human genetic engineering provokes strong reactions. Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, recently warned: ‘In a world first, the Government has said it will allow scientists to begin developing the technology for genetic modification of human beings, although creation of actual GM babies will be prohibited for the moment. We believe the public will be horrified’ [Ref: Telegraph]. The government move comes in the context of an overhaul of legislation on assisted reproduction and embryology designed to take account of the latest scientific developments [Ref: Guardian]. The spectre of eugenics haunts the designer babies debate. As one journalist puts it, the idea of designer babies tends to prompt comparisons with the Nazis, the hatcheries in Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World and the biological underclass of the science fiction movie Gattaca [Ref: Times Online]. While there are real concerns about what the future might hold, the debate requires separating fact from science fiction. The argument of supporters of genetic engineering is that fears are often exaggerated. Rather than crossing a significant ethical threshold, they say we’ll benefit from a continued improvement in our ability to overcome disease and improve people’s lives. Deciding who is right first requires understanding what scientists are capable of doing today. Then future possibilities need to be assessed. Finally, we’ll be in a position to assess what poses the greatest danger: that we take a step too far or that we fail to take the necessary steps towards further scientific developments.
DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
What is a designer baby?
In debates about pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) the term ‘designer baby’ refers to a baby whose genetic make-up has been selected as a way of avoiding genetic defects or to ensure the presence of a particular gene. The development of genetic engineering raises the possibility of designer babies in a more radical sense, babies whose genetic make-up has been modified and not just selected. This would involve modifying the DNA of an embryo created by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and then introducing it into a womb. Currently this is both scientifically impossible and illegal. However, the emotive power of the term ‘designer baby’ derives largely from the idea that the use of existing technologies like PGD is part of a slippery slope towards morally objectionable human genetic engineering. Ethical debate has focused on whether such technologies risk turning children into commodities to be picked off the shelf, or even designed to order, or whether parents and scientists can be trusted to use these developments in ways that improve human life.
What can science do at the moment?
PGD involves genetic testing of embryos so that only embryos with desired characteristics are placed in the womb. Such screening is used where there is a likelihood of genetic abnormalities being present that might lead to a serious medical condition or disability, or miscarriage. These inherited conditions include cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and, more recently, Alzheimer’s [Ref: Times Online], eye cancer [Ref: Times Online] and breast cancer [Ref: Times Online]. This increasing range of application has proven controversial, particularly as the permission given for the use of PGD to prevent a severe squint shows that a serious condition need not be a life-threatening one [Ref: BBC News]. Supporters see this as bringing increasing medical benefits, but opponents say it contributes to a demand for the ‘perfect’ baby. Screening can also be used for tissue typing that allows a suitable donor to be found for a sibling with a life-threatening illness, a so-called saviour sibling [Ref: BBC News]. Prominent cases are those of Charlie Whitaker [Ref: BBC News] and Zain Hashmi [Ref: BBC News]. Critics say babies are being used for ‘spare parts’ – seen as a means to an end rather than valuable in themselves. Supporters question whether such parental choices really damage the resulting child.
What might science be able to do in the future?
Current law allows therapeutic cloning [Ref: Guardian] where scientists create human embryos and study them for up to 14 days in an attempt to derive stem cells [Ref: BBC News]. So far this has not proven possible, and claims of success made by a Korean scientist were found to have been faked [Ref: BBC News]. Reproductive cloning, where a cloned embryo is allowed to grow into a baby, is banned. However, some scientists – including Professor Ian Wilmut who cloned Dolly the sheep – have backed the limited use of reproductive cloning as a future way of combating genetic disease [Ref: BBC News]. This would involve germline genetic engineering, or genetic modification that is inheritable [Ref: Genetics and Society].
Is there a danger of a slippery slope?
Both sides in the debate agree it’s hard to draw a line between therapies that use genetic technologies to prevent disease and its use for human enhancement. However, they draw different conclusions from this. Those opposed to designer babies foresee a slippery slope towards parents pursuing beauty or intelligence through the manipulation or insertion of genes. Those in favour of continued scientific development remain sceptical that such scenarios will occur, seeing such fears as a distraction from pursuing current benefits. However, a minority of so-called transhumanists think radical human enhancement is feasible and desirable.
ESSENTIAL READING
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
If you’re after a designer super-baby, you can forget it
Mark Henderson April 2007
Richard Nicholson Human Genetics Alert Statements February 2007
Michael Antoniou Human Genetics Alert Statements February 2007
The threat of human genetic engineering
David King Human Genetics Alert February 2007
Designer babies: Ethical considerations
Nicholas Agar ActionBioscience.org April 2006
There is no stop button in the race for human re-engineering
Madeleine Bunting Guardian January 2006
Mary Riddell Observer August 2005
Stephen Pinker Guardian June 2003
Inheritable Genetic Modification (IGM): Basic science
Center for Genetics and Society May 2003
Inheritable Genetic Modification (IGM): Arguments pro and con
Center for Genetics and Society May 2003
Random genes vs. designer kids
Bill McKibben vs. Ronald Bailey Reason May 2003
Ellie Lee Spiked April 2003
Is freedom just another word for random genes?
Ronald Bailey Reason April 2003
Melanie Phillips Daily Mail August 2002
Designer babies and other fairy tales
Maureen Freely New Statesman March 2002
FOR
Richard Nicholson Human Genetics Alert Statements February 2007
Michael Antoniou Human Genetics Alert Statements February 2007
The threat of human genetic engineering
David King Human Genetics Alert February 2007
There is no stop button in the race for human re-engineering
Madeleine Bunting Guardian January 2006
Melanie Phillips Daily Mail August 2002
AGAINST
If you’re after a designer super-baby, you can forget it
Mark Henderson April 2007
Mary Riddell Observer August 2005
Stephen Pinker Guardian June 2003
Ellie Lee Spiked April 2003
IN DEPTH
Keeping the research in an embryonic state
John Gillot Spiked March 2007
Is there a case for modifying genes?
Roger Highfield Daily Telegraph August 2005
Shannon Brownlee Washington Monthly March 2002
KEY TERMS
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
BACKGROUNDERS
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
Guardian Special Report January 2009
David Batty Guardian Unlimited May 2007
Human tissues and embryos (draft) bill
Department of Health May 2007
BBC News July 2006
BBC News May 2006
Genetic engineering advantages and disadvantages
Biology-Online.org April 2006
Take a piece of deer scrotum . . .
David Quammen The Times June 2005
BBC News February 2005
Simon Jeffery and Jane Perrone Guardian Unlimited February 2005
Citizens’ jury on designer babies
Wales Gene Park September 2004
Alison Murdoch vs. David King BBC News June 2004
The politics of genetically engineered humans
Richard Hayes Loka Institute May 2000
Human germline engineering: Best hope or worst fear?
UCLA Program on Medicine Technology and Society January 1999
Embracing change with all four arms: A post-humanist defense of genetic engineering
J Hughes Changesurfer.com January 1996
ORGANISATIONS
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
bioindustry.org
Citizens’ jury on designer babies
Wales Gene Park September 2004
Embracing change with all four arms: A post-humanist defense of genetic engineering
J Hughes Changesurfer.com January 1996
Genetic engineering advantages and disadvantages
Biology-Online.org April 2006
genewatch.org
Alison Murdoch vs. David King BBC News June 2004
sanger.ac.uk
Human germline engineering: Best hope or worst fear?
UCLA Program on Medicine Technology and Society January 1999
Human tissues and embryos (draft) bill
Department of Health May 2007
nuffieldbioethics.org
Simon Jeffery and Jane Perrone Guardian Unlimited February 2005
BBC News May 2006
David Batty Guardian Unlimited May 2007
BBC News February 2005
BBC News July 2006
Take a piece of deer scrotum . . .
David Quammen The Times June 2005
Guardian Special Report January 2009
The politics of genetically engineered humans
Richard Hayes Loka Institute May 2000
IN THE NEWS
Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate.
Guardian Unlimited May 2007
Embryos to be screened for squint
BBC News May 2007
First designer babies to beat breast cancer
The Times April 2007
Designer baby to beat risk of Alzheimer’s
The Sunday Times April 2007
Pope speaks out against ‘designer babies’
Reuters February 2007
BBC News January 2007
Ethical row erupts over designer babies breakthrough
Daily Mail June 2006
Cloning ‘could beat gene disease’
BBC News June 2006
Watchdog backs more embryo checks
The Times May 2006
First baby in Britain designed cancer-free
The Times May 2006
Watchdog backs more embryo checks
BBC News May 2006
Concern over ‘spare part’ babies
BBC News January 2006
Chromosome transplant in mice could provide clue to Down’s syndrome illnesses
Guardian September 2005
Law lords back ‘designer babies’
SocietyGuardian.co.uk April 2005
Babies with three parents ahead
Observer October 2004
The Times July 2004
Dolly expert backs baby cloning
Daily Telegraph February 2004
‘Designer baby’ born to UK couple
BBC News June 2003
BBC News April 2003
BBC News
AUDIO/VISUAL
This site contains links to websites operated by parties other than Debating Matters. Although we make every effort to ensure links are current, they will sometimes break after Topic Guide publication. If a link does not work, then the publication reference and date should enable you to find an alternate link. If you find a broken link do please send it to the webmaster for review.
TOPIC GUIDE MENU
Select the relevant option
Related topic guides