Jesus Soto Enriquez
Professor James Palazzolo
English 102
9 September 2018
Imagine being able to design your baby however you want from head to toe completely up to you hight, sex, or even removing genetic diseases. Well, this exists today it's called designer babies, "CRISPER" is one of the many methods used to edit the DNA of living organisms to give or take undesired genes. The first ever designer baby Adam Nash was born in Colorado in the year 2000 his genes where modify to help him and his anemic sister Molly. Normally Adams chances of inheriting anemia where almost certain luckily because of genetic Engineering he will live without the disease and he is able to save her sister Molly with a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, many types of Genetic Engineering are hindered as they could be used to improve the human race yet people see it as humans trying to play god, it's said to be socially dangerous, and unethical for children.
So the question arises if we should prevent Genetic Engineering of Humans due to it being unethical to the child itself considering it as picking a product. Many people such as Michael Poore a book writer believes that allowing genetic engineering on humans would be unethical as we "choose [our] children in much the same way [we] shop for a computer."(Poore) attempting to demonstrate the loveless relationship between the child and the parents that it would cause. Furthermore, it is also stated that allowing for Designer Babies would cause a situation where "the freedom of the child to choose a profession of his choice in the future, will also be severely diminished."(Thadani) again reinforcing that parents will treat the child as simple products giving them long legs only to become a basketball player.
Despite the belief that genetic engineering would make bad ethics, many well-educated people point out that parents would not treat their children as mere consumer product. For example, Lee M. Silver is a biologist professor at Princeton University who like me know that "Parents will still be parents, and they'll want to do everything they can to ensure that their children are happy"(as cited by David). Mr.Lee demonstrates that just because we buy our children a better life such as nice clothing it does not change the fact that he/she is a child, not a product and we would treat them as such. Moreover, David Masci is a senior writer/researcher where he specializes in religion and science has also stated that "We can trust people to make the best decisions for themselves and their children, just like they do now."(David) he further confirms that parents will always love their child as we always will and have.
Another Dilemma that raises questions is the thought of only the rich being able to afford genetic modifications segregating our society more than it is. To demonstrate, Jenifer V. Turriziani is currently a lawyer in New York, NY who has stated that if Designer Babies were allowed "it would create a division between those that can afford the service and those that cannot".(Turriziani) She attempts to elaborate in her article that the favorable genetics would be so expensive that only the rich could afford them. This Idea is further elaborated by Robert Wachbroct a research scholar who states that "We'd be adding biological disadvantages to the social and economic ones that we already have to deal with,"(as cited by David) clearly he sees a type of segregation where the rich are now smarter and better leaving the poor at an even bigger disadvantage for work and salary.
Despite the controversy, it's been shown by facts that Designer Babies would be available to everyone eventually as it becomes innovated. To illustrate, Freeman Dyson is a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who stated that most "important technologies, such as telephones, automobiles, television and computers, began as expensive toys for the rich and afterwards became cheap enough for ordinary people"(as cited by Dinesh) signifying that the same will happen to Genetic Engineering as time continues. To rest assure Jonathan Schiff is a Medical Doctor demonstrates a graph in his article showing the rapid decrease in price for Genetic Genomes he then states that "modifying the genes of an embryo will be affordable processes for the entire population within a few years".(Schiff) Thus, it would seem that in the beginning only the rich would be able to afford Designer Babies just like phones, but soon enough everyone could purchase better genes eliminating any disadvantages.
Lastly is said that we just mere humans and should not do the job of god attempting genetically modify humans. For instance, Gareth Jones is a professor at the University of Otago and author of many books between Science and Christianity in which he states that "the present human form is divinely ordained and should not be modified in any manner"(Jones) essentially he believes that God should be the only one allowed to modify life in any way. Additionally, Ronald Bailey award-winning science correspondent stated that people "always say that it's against human nature or mother nature"(as cited by David). Ronald points out that many believe in nature doing the job yet nature itself seems wildly random and problematic at times.
Moreover, it is also stated that Mother Nature or God often make mistakes thus it's important to help ourselves if possible. To demonstrate, Mr.Lee again from Princeton University points out the fact that it seems "Mother nature doesn't know what she's doing. That's why kids are born with terrible diseases."(as cited by David) if we have had less genetic diseases it would be easier to leave it to nature but that's not the current situation. Personally, I can speak on what it feels like to have a Painful Genetic Diseases called Scoliosis which is a curvature and twist of the back. If Genetic Engineering was much cheaper allowed this unpleasant condition and many more could be eradicated which "More than 20% of infant deaths are caused by birth defects or genetic conditions"(Netwellness). Unfortunately, the development of Genetic Engineering is heavily hindered due to the current look that many people have on it, thus the United States and many other countries prevent the use on humans.
In Conclusion, it's important to put our beliefs aside in order to help improve our society as a whole. However many beliefs prevent our advancements in Genetic Engineering due to the fears of what it could bring. Such fears include the thought of Genetic Segregation leaving the poor at a disadvantage, people also fear that it's disrespecting God or fear that Mother nature may punish us, many also fear that it would devalue our children to just products. Possibly in the future, it could be clearer the benefit that Genetic Engineering could bring to everyone on earth that it can be revolutionized.
Cite
Poore, Michael. "The Designer Baby Business Violates Christian Principles." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Originally published as "Baby Shopping: The Clash of Worldviews in Bioethics
Thadani, Rahul. "The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Originally published as "Designer Babies Debate"
Masci, David. Designer humans. CQ Researcher, 11, 425-440. Retrieved from library.cqpress
Turriziani, Jenifer V. "Designer Babies: The Need for Regulation on the Quest For Perfection." Seton Hall University
Schiff, Jonathan. "No Need to Worry: The Future Implications of Genetic Engineering." Michigan State University
Jones, Gareth. "So-Called Designer Baby Technology Can Exemplify Christian Principles." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context
Netwellness. "Inherited Disorders and Birth Defects."
Dinesh D'Souza. The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence. Simon and Schuster.
Professor James Palazzolo
English 102
9 September 2018
Designer Babies
Imagine being able to design your baby however you want from head to toe completely up to you hight, sex, or even removing genetic diseases. Well, this exists today it's called designer babies, "CRISPER" is one of the many methods used to edit the DNA of living organisms to give or take undesired genes. The first ever designer baby Adam Nash was born in Colorado in the year 2000 his genes where modify to help him and his anemic sister Molly. Normally Adams chances of inheriting anemia where almost certain luckily because of genetic Engineering he will live without the disease and he is able to save her sister Molly with a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, many types of Genetic Engineering are hindered as they could be used to improve the human race yet people see it as humans trying to play god, it's said to be socially dangerous, and unethical for children.
So the question arises if we should prevent Genetic Engineering of Humans due to it being unethical to the child itself considering it as picking a product. Many people such as Michael Poore a book writer believes that allowing genetic engineering on humans would be unethical as we "choose [our] children in much the same way [we] shop for a computer."(Poore) attempting to demonstrate the loveless relationship between the child and the parents that it would cause. Furthermore, it is also stated that allowing for Designer Babies would cause a situation where "the freedom of the child to choose a profession of his choice in the future, will also be severely diminished."(Thadani) again reinforcing that parents will treat the child as simple products giving them long legs only to become a basketball player.
Despite the belief that genetic engineering would make bad ethics, many well-educated people point out that parents would not treat their children as mere consumer product. For example, Lee M. Silver is a biologist professor at Princeton University who like me know that "Parents will still be parents, and they'll want to do everything they can to ensure that their children are happy"(as cited by David). Mr.Lee demonstrates that just because we buy our children a better life such as nice clothing it does not change the fact that he/she is a child, not a product and we would treat them as such. Moreover, David Masci is a senior writer/researcher where he specializes in religion and science has also stated that "We can trust people to make the best decisions for themselves and their children, just like they do now."(David) he further confirms that parents will always love their child as we always will and have.
Another Dilemma that raises questions is the thought of only the rich being able to afford genetic modifications segregating our society more than it is. To demonstrate, Jenifer V. Turriziani is currently a lawyer in New York, NY who has stated that if Designer Babies were allowed "it would create a division between those that can afford the service and those that cannot".(Turriziani) She attempts to elaborate in her article that the favorable genetics would be so expensive that only the rich could afford them. This Idea is further elaborated by Robert Wachbroct a research scholar who states that "We'd be adding biological disadvantages to the social and economic ones that we already have to deal with,"(as cited by David) clearly he sees a type of segregation where the rich are now smarter and better leaving the poor at an even bigger disadvantage for work and salary.
Despite the controversy, it's been shown by facts that Designer Babies would be available to everyone eventually as it becomes innovated. To illustrate, Freeman Dyson is a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who stated that most "important technologies, such as telephones, automobiles, television and computers, began as expensive toys for the rich and afterwards became cheap enough for ordinary people"(as cited by Dinesh) signifying that the same will happen to Genetic Engineering as time continues. To rest assure Jonathan Schiff is a Medical Doctor demonstrates a graph in his article showing the rapid decrease in price for Genetic Genomes he then states that "modifying the genes of an embryo will be affordable processes for the entire population within a few years".(Schiff) Thus, it would seem that in the beginning only the rich would be able to afford Designer Babies just like phones, but soon enough everyone could purchase better genes eliminating any disadvantages.
Lastly is said that we just mere humans and should not do the job of god attempting genetically modify humans. For instance, Gareth Jones is a professor at the University of Otago and author of many books between Science and Christianity in which he states that "the present human form is divinely ordained and should not be modified in any manner"(Jones) essentially he believes that God should be the only one allowed to modify life in any way. Additionally, Ronald Bailey award-winning science correspondent stated that people "always say that it's against human nature or mother nature"(as cited by David). Ronald points out that many believe in nature doing the job yet nature itself seems wildly random and problematic at times.
Moreover, it is also stated that Mother Nature or God often make mistakes thus it's important to help ourselves if possible. To demonstrate, Mr.Lee again from Princeton University points out the fact that it seems "Mother nature doesn't know what she's doing. That's why kids are born with terrible diseases."(as cited by David) if we have had less genetic diseases it would be easier to leave it to nature but that's not the current situation. Personally, I can speak on what it feels like to have a Painful Genetic Diseases called Scoliosis which is a curvature and twist of the back. If Genetic Engineering was much cheaper allowed this unpleasant condition and many more could be eradicated which "More than 20% of infant deaths are caused by birth defects or genetic conditions"(Netwellness). Unfortunately, the development of Genetic Engineering is heavily hindered due to the current look that many people have on it, thus the United States and many other countries prevent the use on humans.
In Conclusion, it's important to put our beliefs aside in order to help improve our society as a whole. However many beliefs prevent our advancements in Genetic Engineering due to the fears of what it could bring. Such fears include the thought of Genetic Segregation leaving the poor at a disadvantage, people also fear that it's disrespecting God or fear that Mother nature may punish us, many also fear that it would devalue our children to just products. Possibly in the future, it could be clearer the benefit that Genetic Engineering could bring to everyone on earth that it can be revolutionized.
Cite
Poore, Michael. "The Designer Baby Business Violates Christian Principles." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Originally published as "Baby Shopping: The Clash of Worldviews in Bioethics
Thadani, Rahul. "The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Originally published as "Designer Babies Debate"
Masci, David. Designer humans. CQ Researcher, 11, 425-440. Retrieved from library.cqpress
Turriziani, Jenifer V. "Designer Babies: The Need for Regulation on the Quest For Perfection." Seton Hall University
Schiff, Jonathan. "No Need to Worry: The Future Implications of Genetic Engineering." Michigan State University
Jones, Gareth. "So-Called Designer Baby Technology Can Exemplify Christian Principles." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context
Netwellness. "Inherited Disorders and Birth Defects."
Dinesh D'Souza. The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence. Simon and Schuster.
