DESIGNER BABIES: Technological Control of Human Evolution
by Caroline Anne C. Miranda
2005-0110
A few more years
and The Jetsons will become universal,
The Simpsons will be a thing of the past,
and The Flinstones
will only serve as a reminder of how it was when all else
was an abject failure.
The passing of time has certainly brought mankind more than its apparent loss in years but it has likewise earned civilization a right into the era’s best possibilities. Matters that were dreamt of yesterday are laboriously and religiously being accomplished today which may very well be the bits and pieces making up the reality of tomorrow. Development has been a constant factor that evidences the evolution of time. Transformations and variations consistently define the perspective of the epoch. It may appear then that man’s quest to continually better himself and its corresponding upshot invariably characterizes the particularity of the age.
Man’s innate need to enhance his environment and improve his way of life enables him to properly adapt into his natural habitat. True enough that this said temperament has caused him to find unique ways and advance new means in order to appropriately survive his world. That is, the cavemen of yesteryears were able to sharpen crudely formed rocks to help them in their hunt for food when the wild animals proved a trifle too quick for their own two feet. Nomadic tribes traveled from one place to another as soon as they exhaust their source of nourishment and sustenance. The feudal lords were able to improvise a crop rotation system when a singular annual harvest appeared to be insufficient. Land owners were able to craft farming devices that made plowing less strenuous. Even liege lords were able to fashion metal fillings into medieval weapons that became the soul of artistic artillery when it became necessary to defend their holdings from the threat of foreign clans.
It would appear that this particular propensity of man is nothing but a natural tendency born out of his survival instinct. However, gone are the days when man is in need to protect his head from the sleet and the sun. Gone are the times when he had to protect himself from being preyed upon by the wandering beasts of the jungle. Gone are the instances when man had to device a way for him to reach one edge of the world to the other. The need to know how to establish a proper state is made available. The miracle of life has been uncovered. The best trade secrets have been exposed and abused in bilateral trade agreements. Even the need for man to see the world from the moon’s perspective has been exhausted. Yet this propensity to overcome whatever is now limited is far from being spent. Man continues to strive for what can only be taken today, as nothing more but an absolute impossibility.
One of the subjects considered by many as being way too out of the ordinary is genetic engineering. Though society in large cannot fathom the need to venture into such endeavor, there is still a substantial portion of the science industry that pursues said undertaking. Since the said issue receives quite a cold shoulder from a great share of humanity, scientists around the world have taken it upon themselves to make these skeptics into ultimate believers.
Genetic engineering (genetic modification/manipulation and gene splicing) refer to the direct manipulation of an organism’s genes through the use of molecular cloning and transformation to alter the structure and characteristics of genes.1 Genetic modification/manipulation (GM) allows the ability to propagate and grow in bulk a line of genetically identical organisms, all containing the same artificially recombinant molecule. This entails that any genetic segment as well as the gene product encoded by it can therefore potentially be amplified.2 Due to these, the process has also been termed molecular cloning or gene cloning.
The process essentially has five (5) steps – the isolation of the genes of interest, the insertion of the genes into a transfer vector, the transfer of the vector to the organism to be modified, the subsequent transformation of the cells of the organism, and the selection of the genetically modified organism (GMO) from those that have not been successfully modified.
For the past twenty years, genetic engineering has been taken as a revolution in the biological sciences. But even up to now, there still remains a large area left unexhausted by research and study. There is still a great deal more that needs to be discovered in terms of genetic engineering in humans and most agriculturally and scientifically important animals and plants.
Scientists nowadays are focusing their study on human genetic engineering (HGE) as a way to aid the treatment of certain diseases. Human genetic engineering has been defined as the modification of the genotype of an individual person, with the aim of determining the phenotype of a newborn or changing the existing phenotype of a child or adult.3
Human genetic engineering may be classified into two types. The first type would involve somatic modifications (SCM) which would entail the addition of genes to cells other than egg or sperm cells. This is the medical treatment of a disease by repairing or replacing defective genes or introducing therapeutic genes to fight the disease. This means that when an individual is labored with an illness or a certain disease caused by a defective gene, in order to treat the said disorder, a healthy gene will be added to the affected cells. That is, a corrective gene would be inserted into the malfunctioning organ. This particular type of manipulation seeks to modify the genetic makeup of certain somatic cells that comprise the organs and tissues of a single person.4 This type of HGE is also referred to as gene therapy.
Over time, certain auto-immune diseases and heart disease have been treated with gene therapy. Many diseases, such as Huntington’s disease, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), and cystic fibrosis are caused by a defective gene. The hope is that soon, through genetic engineering, a cure can be found for these diseases by inserting a corrected gene, modifying the defective gene, or even performing genetic surgery. Eventually the hope is to completely eliminate certain genetic diseases as well as treat non-genetic diseases with an appropriate gene therapy.5 Somatic modifications are accomplished after birth. This modification in the genes would not be hereditary unless the sex cells also engineered.
The germline engineering (GLM), on the other hand, would modify the genes in eggs, sperm, or very early embryos. This particular type of engineering is inheritable that the modified genes would also appear in all the subjects succeeding generations. This type of modification manipulates the sex cells which passes the parental genes to the succeeding generations during conception. This is claimed to be easier to accomplish since the changes would be made after the egg and the sperm have melded but just before the first division. In this way, the gene will be expressed throughout all the subsequent generations.
The two types of HGE have been characterized as effectuating two distinct consequences.6 Somatic modifications made after birth is said to be negative genetic engineering as it removes genetic disorders, while germline engineering is depicted as positive genetic engineering as it enhances human genome.
Currently, genetic engineering is only applied to non-reproductive cells (gene therapy) in order to treat diseases in a single patient, rather than in all their descendants. Scientists are primarily focused on developing certain genetic tests to be able to properly diagnose or predict whether a patient is likely to manifest or is prone to carry a particular sort of hereditary condition. This particular type of modification is said to prevent diseases and even alter genetically-linked behavioral features and conditions.
However, the potential of genetic engineering to cure certain medical conditions opens the question of exactly what such a condition is. After all, the difference between cure and enhancement is merely one of degree. That is, theoretically speaking, while genetic engineering could be used to drastically change a person’s genomes, which could enable people to re-grow body parts and other organs, it could also be used to make another stronger, faster, or smarter. In a sense, there appears to be very little difference in applying genetic intervention in curing organ atrophy and a genetic modification in improving organ function. So where must the line be drawn?
The danger of HGE is the fact that it opens up the possibility of people to ‘play God’ and with them consciously designing humanity as they see fit. This should not be the case. Human beings are inviolable and endowed with human rights. They must be accepted as who they are. People should not be judged as lacking based on a standard created by their peers. An individual is created unique and inimitable and as such, is irreplaceable. No person should have the authority over the rest and have the sole power to determine which ones are fit and which ones are weak. No one should wield such control.
The existence of a particular human being should not be judged according to a standard set by anyone who claims a superior knowledge. Human rights are accorded to every individual so as to ordain each one with a sense of equality and level opportunity to do and live as each pleases. No one should be placed on a higher pedestal above the rest as a result of his power to establish an exact measure to assert a specific standard of normality. The basic human right of an individual to life, liberty and property presupposes the absolute enjoyment of one’s freedom from discrimination. A person is afforded with the opportunity to live his life in a manner not contrary to the established domestic laws of his country but absent the unnecessary and undue limitations and restrictions from state and his environment. Man’s movement in society should not be constricted by his personal constitution or character. A person’s health or well-being is not to be taken as the measuring stick with which to determine the kind of life that one ought to live. No one should be labeled as substandard purely on the basis of his apparent frail constitution, vulnerable physical condition or even his simple mindedness.
The onslaught of designer babies by way of genetically modifying human embryos emphasizes the issue of bio-complexity and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological evolution.
Biologist Stuart Newman claims that cloning and germline genetic engineering are not error-free, but is otherwise prone to some mistakes that are even illustrated as being inherently disruptive of embryonic development. As a result, it would create unacceptable risks to apply such processes to human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects as contained in the Declaration of Helsinki. Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.7
Moreover, HGE and even genetic tests should not be used to discriminate against people predisposed to certain conditions. Gene therapy should not cause the repression of socially undesirable physical or behavioral traits and a resurgence of eugenics or the use of genetics to enhance the human race. That is, by making many conditions seem avoidable, genetic technology may exaggerate the influence of genetic factors on the development of the human personality and encourage narrow, socially-determined standards of health and normality. This viewpoint may reinforce existing prejudices against individuals with disabilities or traits that do not satisfy the cultural ideal.8
Human genetic engineering overthrows the basic tenet espoused by the recognition of human rights and accordingly debases humanity by forcing it into human abject subjectivity, whims, and fancies. This particular scientific development accordingly corrupts the concept of cure and disease alleviation by triggering the enhancement of the human race to uncontrolled heights. Instead of embracing the humanity and individuality of a person, HGE would eventually lead into embryonic discrimination reducing reproductive rights into mere consumer rights to choose the genetic make up of a child. This situation is too ignoble to contemplate as people would begin to design and invent themselves rather than risk individuality and defects. To this, a completely new era of human history would result where people will become like any other object capable of being customized, repaired, or even destroyed.
Now, the question arises – who possesses the right to administer HGE? Do the parents of a child possess the right to engineer the genetic makeup of their child? Under the law, the parents of a child have the right to have children if they are biologically capable to do so. However, this right to bear children does not have the resultant right to use genetic engineering. Rights do not exist in a vacuum. That is, rights are socially negotiated within a context of fundamental values. The question of access to particular technologies is a matter to be settled by governmental regulation and depends on the social consequences of allowing that access. People cannot simply take advantage of a particular procedure or development just because it is available and ready. Sanction of the government is necessary as a matter of public policy.
The genetic modification of humans also poses an ethical debate about the rights of the baby. Many believe that the fetus should be free to not be genetically modified. This is due to the fact that once the genetic modification of the fetus takes place then the baby is changed forever, there is no chance that the genetic manipulation completed prior to birth could ever be reversed. But then again, there are those who argue that the parents are the ones with the rights to their unborn child, so they should be able to have the option to alter their baby if they choose to.9 This ethical debate about genetic modification and the rights of a fetus is similar to the debate about abortion and if the parents or the unborn child has the rights to decide the future of the fetus.10
Princeton molecular biologist Lee M. Silver believes that the future trend of HGE promises to revolve on the enhancement of the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of children.11 Silver claims that years from now, parents would be able to literally select the characteristics of their child from a genome catalogue. Silver also acknowledges that the costs of these technologies will limit their full use to only a very small fraction of the elite, so that over time, society will segregate into the ‘GenRich’ and the ‘Naturals’.
Silver classified the GenRich as a group of individuals accounting to only about 10 percent of the population characterized as carrying synthetic genes that were created in the laboratory. Silver further mentioned that all aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry will be controlled by members of the GenRich class. The Naturals on the other hand, work as low-paid service providers or as laborers, and their children go to public schools. Silver argued that if the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue, the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed.
This arrival of a new breed of human species is not a topic that is far from becoming a reality. After all, this genetic cleansing may still be argued as falling well within the bounds of medical cure, health restoration and the well-being of an individual. As Silver has mentioned, the advent of HGE may cause more societal distortion than genetic enhancement or cure. After all, access to such technology will most definitely be limited to that portion of society with a greater spending power. Those individuals belonging to the middle to low classes would have to contend themselves with the regular process of conception and pray for the best. As such, the said genetic engineering will not be available to everyone and will only allow the most privileged to engineer themselves or their children to have special capabilities. This could only lead to what some may call a genetic aristocracy. Numerous enhancements via genetic engineering have been proposed, including increased memory, intelligence, and less need for sleep, in addition to some peoples’ desires to alter their physical appearance. The advantages created by genetic engineering could lead to new forms of inequality between those with genetic enhancements and those without while also exacerbating current inequalities between the rich and poor.
There have also been concerns that the ability to produce detailed genetic information on people could give too much power to the people who possess that knowledge. Many scientists and even government officials from countries around the world do not have laws protecting citizens against the misuse of genetic information. That is, in the absence of effective legal remedies, genetic testing may be used to bar people from employment, education or even insurance coverage. Existing laws may not be adequate to protect an individual’s privacy. This means that while the individual may be protected from having to provide potentially damaging genetic information, such information may still be obtained by testing the individual’s relatives.
In the face of all the issues besetting HGE, the growing concern for the creation of a new breed of citizens is the primary subject of most debates. As pointed out by Silver, a genetic aristocracy may come out of a possible utilization of new tools of genetic engineering to create a superior race of human beings. This is most especially possible given that there are no absolute boundaries set up by concrete laws that define and delineate the proper subject of HGE. The possibilities are endless. That is, without a redirection of the world view of the culture, there will be a growing propensity to want to take over the evolution of the human species. After all, man’s greatest propensity is dead set on survival.
The advent of HGE has also brought about the privatization of human rights issues by placing the power to violate such rights in the hands of the private sector. In this particular concern, human rights violations are not addressed to the government but to the biotech companies that are constantly developing these technologies. It would appear that these private companies are able to exploit their advantage and consequently amass a kind of power that is almost paramount to state power. After all, their expertise on the matter and the speed of technological advancement makes them almost beyond the reach of the law. This particular hold that the biotech companies must be taken into consideration under international human rights standards.
Governments of the international arena must take steps in order to bring HGE under the ambit of their authority. Even societal action is necessary in order to bring about a substantial pressure to the governments into taking a more active stance on this matter.12 Laws, both national and global, must be enacted banning reproductive human cloning and inheritable human genetic modification. A more effective and accountable regulation of all other human technologies must be established in order to safeguard the world from possible effects of these scientific developments. A framework needs to be established to allow humanity as a whole to assess the need for regulation and control of such technologies. Further, individual countries need to be able to proscribe applications of these technologies that they find unacceptable.
Genetic technology magnifies human rights violations conceptually: it shifts power from few hands to many, raises stakes from an individual to a collective level and affects the health of families for centuries to come.
It would appear that society’s continued disregard for what is obviously a threat to the world’s existence only legitimizes the possible injustice and inequality brought about by HGE. Banking on the ability to alter a child’s genetic makeup resulting to modifies appearance and ability encourages a consumerist mentality toward all human life. Encouraging designer babies is a way of life that threatens the very fabric of human kind’s humanity and perpetuates a standard of perfection set by a market system that caters to political, economic, and cultural elites. Channeling hopes for human betterment into preoccupation with genetic fixes shrinks our already withered commitments to improving social conditions and enriching cultural and community life. After all, designer babies have no other use in a perfectly human and genuine reality other than attempt to alter the course of human evolution.
Endnotes
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering [↩]
- Sci-Tech Encyclopedia – Genetic Engineering. Energy Act Implications: How New Federal Responsibilities Will Reshape Energy Industry. (www.icfi.com/energyact) [↩]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_engineering#cite_note-0 [↩]
- Hayes, Richard. In the Pipeline: Genetically Modified Humans? Multinational Monitor Biotech Future. January/February 2000. Volume 21, Number and 2. (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/mmGMhumans.html) [↩]
- Bohlin, Ray. Human Genetic Engineering. Probe Ministries. [↩]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_engineering#cite_note-0 [↩]
- http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Transhumanism_Criticisms [↩]
- Munayer, Maha F. Genetic Technology: Constructing a New Language for International Human Rights. New Frontiers in Human Rights Law. [↩]
- Stock, Gregory and John Campbell. Engineering the Human Germline: An Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass To Our Children. New York: Oxford University Press. 2000. [↩]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_engineering [↩]
- Silver, Lee M. Re-making Eden: How Cloning And Beyond Will Change the Human Family. New York: Avon Books. 1998. [↩]
- http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i2/munayy42.htm [↩]
