designer babies research essay

July 12, 2021

A New Era of Designer Babies May Be Based on Overhyped Science

Genetic testing with IVF is being marketed as a means to choose a healthy embryo, despite questions about the soundness of the technology

By Laura Hercher

Christopher Burgstedt Getty Images

For better or worse, genetic testing of embryos offers a potential gateway into a new era of human control over reproduction. Couples at risk of having a child with a severe or life-limiting disease such as cystic fibrosis or Duchenne muscular dystrophy have used preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for decades to select among embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) for those that do not carry the disease-causing gene. But what new iteration of genetic testing could tempt healthy, fertile couples to reject our traditional time-tested and wildly popular process of baby making in favor of hormone shots, egg extractions and DNA analysis?

A California-based start-up called Orchid Biosciences claims it has an answer to that question. The company offers prospective parents genetic testing prior to conception to calculate risk scores estimating their own likelihood of confronting common illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, and schizophrenia and the likelihood that they will pass such risks along to a future child. Parents-to-be can then use IVF, along with Orchid’s upcoming embryo screening package, to identify the healthiest of their embryos for a pregnancy.

Orchid aims to use PGT and IVF to expand what is already a thriving marketplace in screening tests for prospective parents. Initially, the only people offered tests to prevent genetic disease in the next generation were those whose ancestry put them at higher risk for a specific condition, such as Tay-Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. The first genetic screen intended for universal use and covering a wide range of diseases was introduced by Counsyl (now part of Myriad Genetics) in 2010. Today carrier screening is a $1.7-billion industry. These tests search for genetic problems that otherwise come to light only after the birth of an affected child. But diseases caused by a single gene are rare. Most children are born healthy, and most couples who do carrier screening come away reassured.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

By contrast, Orchid’s risk assessment includes common diseases, ensuring that a high percentage of prospective parents who do this version of preconception testing will find something to worry about. Those who choose to act on their concerns will soon have the option of paying for IVF plus Orchid’s embryo-testing package. According to its promotional materials, the company will provide a scorecard intended to identify, among various embryos, the future children least likely to develop heart disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, type 1 or 2 diabetes, and five other conditions that make up Orchid’s current common disease risk portfolio.

With a marketing strategy that encourages routine use of IVF for those who can afford it, Orchid breaks new ground in introducing the first—but likely not the last—consumer-driven model of human reproduction. The ambitions of this new Silicon Valley venture into health care are backed by the imprimatur of health-tech luminaries, including 23andMe co-founder and Orchid investor Anne Wojcicki. Orchid’s first product on the market is its “Couple Report,” at a cost of  $1,100. Phase two, scheduled for launch later this year, examines embryos conceived by IVF, allowing the couple to pick and choose among potential children in a process that Orchid CEO Noor Siddiqui, speaking in an interview on the podcast Mendelspod in April, referred to as “embryo prioritization.” Siddiqui is a former Thiel Foundation Fellow whose interests lie in the use of technology in medicine. She did not respond to repeated requests for an interview from Scientific American .

Geneticists have greeted Orchid’s launch with skepticism, in large part because of objections to the company’s use of a technique called polygenic risk scores to assess an embryo’s lifetime risk of common diseases. Heart disease runs in families just like musical ability or height, but only in exceptional cases can the inherited risk be traced to a single gene. Hundreds or even thousands of genes each contribute in a small way. Polygenic risk scores attempt to sum up the overall likelihood of a particular outcome—such as getting a disease—by simply observing which patterns of variation in a genome are associated with a higher or lower probability of having the condition. In other words, this method gives us information about who might be more or less likely to get sick without explaining why. The statistical association is real but hardly definitive, and it tracks population-level trends that may not be relevant for the individual in question.

Researchers who work with polygenic risk scores are concerned about their use in this context. “We don’t know what these variants are doing biologically,” says Peter Kraft, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. “Something that’s associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer could be associated with all other kinds of things, some of which might actually increase your risk of something else. We just don’t know enough yet.”

Some version of prenatal planning as envisioned by Orchid may be possible eventually, but few experts seem to share their optimism that today is that day. A July 1 special report in the New England Journal of Medicine pointed out the inherent weakness of using polygenic risk scores to distinguish among sibling embryos—which, unlike random individuals in a population, will be identical in 50 percent of the genetic variation that is examined to generate a score. The report concluded with recommendations on how to convey any purported benefits from polygenic scores in embryo selection responsibly—and the need to emphasize the underlying uncertainties in the data. “Any one of the issues discussed in this article would be difficult to communicate accurately—even to other scientists and clinicians,” the authors noted. “Collectively, these issues constitute a formidable challenge for [companies selling these services], which must ensure that their customers understand what they are doing.” The report also called for the Federal Trade Commission to look carefully at claims made by any company using polygenic scoring to pick embryos.

Current polygenic risk scores have limited predictive strength and reflect the shortcomings of genetic databases, which are overwhelmingly Eurocentric. Alicia Martin, an instructor at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, says her research examining polygenic risk scores suggests “they don’t transfer well to other populations that have been understudied.” In fact, the National Institutes of Health announced in mid-June that it will be giving out $38 million in grants over five years to find ways to enhance disease prediction in diverse populations using polygenic risk scores. Speaking of Orchid, Martin says, “I think it is premature to try to roll this out.”

In an interview about embryo screening and ethics featured on the company’s Web site, Jonathan Anomaly, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, suggested the current biases are a problem to be solved by getting customers and doing the testing. “As I understand it,” he said, “Orchid is actively building statistical models to improve ancestry adaptation and adjustments for genetic risk scores , which will increase accessibility of the product to all individuals.”

Still, better data sets will not allay all concerns about embryo selection. The combined expense of testing and IVF means that unequal access to these technologies will continue to be an issue. In her Mendelspod interview, Siddiqui insisted, “We think that everyone who wants to have a baby should be able to, and we want our technology to be as accessible to everyone who wants it,” adding that the lack of insurance coverage for IVF is a major problem that needs to be addressed in the U.S.

But should insurance companies pay for fertile couples to embryo-shop? This issue is complicated, especially in light of the fact that polygenic risk scores can generate predictions for more than just heart disease and cancer. They can be devised for any trait with a heritable component, and existing models offer predictions for educational attainment, neuroticism and same-sex sexual behavior, all with the same caveats and limitations as Orchid’s current tests for major diseases. To be clear, tests for these behavioral traits are not part of Orchid’s current genetic panel. But when talking about tests the company does offer, Siddiqui suggested that the ultimate decision makers should be the parents-to-be. “I think at the end of the day, you have to respect patient autonomy,” she said.

Despite Orchid’s hard lean into parental free choice, bioethicists such as Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz of the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine worry that Orchid’s system of ranking embryos may unduly influence prospective parents and replace a very necessary broader societal debate on what qualifies as a good life. It is problematic for that reason, according to Lázaro-Muñoz, to have these companies “bias the conversation.”

Lurking in the background of every discussion on embryo selection and ethics is the specter of eugenics. “I think we have to be very aware of our history,” Lázaro-Muñoz says, “in terms of sterilization and state-mandated programs in the past that were aimed at ... exterminating individuals with some of these conditions.”

Clearly Orchid anticipates pushback. The company’s promotional materials include guides to fertility planning and the genetics of irritable bowel disease but also a set of talking points for  concerned relatives described as “ How to respond to your family skeptics —playing God, designer babies, and genetic enhancement.”

“Yes, we’re going there,” the guide says. Ethics? Bring it on. This is not a company in a defensive crouch. The “Our Principles” section of its Web site positions genetic testing as a human right. “From a reproductive freedom perspective, we stand for a couple’s right to have access to information that enables them to mitigate disease risk for their future child,” it says. Like other Silicon Valley health care technology pioneers, Orchid presents itself less as a product than as a social justice movement with a little commercial venture on the side, like a gift shop.

Orchid dismisses suggestions from detractors that its marketing oversells what polygenic risk scores have to offer in the context of screening embryos. “Parents are asking for this information and deserve to know it,” Siddiqui told Mendelspod, warning that those who stand in the way are “frankly being a little bit paternalistic.” And if prospective parents are not asking, Siddiqui suggested, perhaps they should be. When it comes to the next generation, “we’ve been sort of just rolling the dice,” Siddiqui said, while “the ability to actually stack the odds against disease is ... sort of a new capability that humanity has just gotten online.”

The suggestion that embryo selection is not only something people can do but something they should do raises perhaps one of the thorniest ethical issues of all. In the Mendelspod interview, Siddiqui drew a contrast between “earned” and “unearned” bad luck. “You can get hit by a car, right? That’s totally out of your control. But what is earned bad luck?” she asked before answering her own question. “I mean, that’s the idea of … you’re going base jumping constantly, and then you break your leg…. You kind of exposed yourself to higher risk there.”

Ultimately, if technology allows Orchid to offer a product that meaningfully reduces the risk of disease susceptibility in the next generation, does that mean that anyone who can’t or won’t use it deserves their bad luck? If the basic, no-frills version of human reproduction comes to be seen as a form of careless parenting, it invites a callous parsing of who does and does not deserve their fate—and, by extension, who does and does not deserve resources and support.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Med Educ J
• v.11(1); 2020 Mar

Designer babies

Manish ranpara.

1 Univerity of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Jane and Elaine are best friends preparing a dinner in the year 2100. Jane recently gave birth to Michael, a boy with an apparently predetermined future. For a few thousand dollars, Michael’s parents purchased a genetic package named “brain and brawn,” which promised Michael Herculean strength and the intellect of Minerva * . “Good looks” were purchased as an optional extra, and insurance for genetic code failure was another dent in the wallet. “It’s an investment” the sales person explained. “The returns form a perfect child will be greater than returns earned from investments in real-estate.”

In the year 2050, the pharmaceutical industry started pumping money into the genetics field after realizing that that they could no longer sell recycled minor modifications of drugs. Realizing that people were voluntarily sending genetic material to ancestral databases and getting tested for mutations of unknown clinical significance, the industry purchased genetic information from vendors and started creating the largest ever database of genetic information. A few marketing and public relation stunts later, everyone wanted a genetically engineered baby.

“It’s called engineering because you can pick and choose sweetheart! They know the genetic profile of my entire family, and apparently I am also a descendent of Genghis Khan!” exclaimed Jane, as she explained the concept to Elaine. Like a custom-built clock, Adam and I have been able to select the genes of Michael precisely. He will be tall, handsome, and intelligent. He will be perfect. Who doesn’t want to be perfect?”

Elaine was skeptical. Growing up in a small-town community with strong religious values, she had never been the party starter. She was infamous for stirring the pot during the most sensitive moments. Her opinionated criticism did make her respected, and the debates she often started made eyebrows rise, and occasionally fists. Working part-time, she struggled to make ends meet. The thought of a market existing to design babies puzzled and worried Elaine. She viewed it as selective breeding, and an act against the natural processes of God. “What is perfect?” Elaine asked. “Doesn’t it bother you that your definition of perfect has been corrupted by the mass media? How can imperfection create perfection? Do you think it is ethical to design a baby while another baby starves elsewhere?”

Sensing a debate, Jane attempted to dodge the bullet. “I respect your point of view, but I do believe that my child will be appreciative knowing that I have done what’s best for him. Think about all the babies who could be saved from life-threatening illness at birth by genetic modification. A life is priceless.” Elaine entertained the idea for a minute, and then asked if they can also prevent non-life-threatening illnesses. “Of course!” exclaimed Jane. “They can also sell a beauty package which prevents skin moles, wrinkles and excessive cellulite from developing.”

It’s 2150 and the artificial intelligence industry has finally made the epic entrance predicted by blockbuster Hollywood movies at the turn of the millennium. People now sleep with a robotic assistant that does more than turn the lights off (the selling point is that it “satisfies every need”), and mobile phones are redundant thanks to Super PA TM , a pea-sized supercomputer designed as a personal assistant living in the world wide web. All jobs are performed by robots whose sole purpose is to serve their master (rumors mention a revolution). Peter is one in a family of designer baby brothers who grew-up to be 7 feet and develop a chiseled jaw. Like most people in his generation, he laughs when his grandparents call him tall, because clearly, he is average. Three of his brothers have poor health, and a lawsuit continues with the now defunct genetic industry. The industry claims that good health for designer babies was never a guarantee because of several factors including the environment. They claim it was all in the fine print. Several lawsuits later, the genetics industry invested and transformed into the robotics industry. Peter is part of this industry and he has a vision - a vision where humans are perfect. A world where humans can run faster because of robotic legs and think quicker because of robotic brains. His friends question his ideologies, but he reassures them: “People will be tall, handsome, and intelligent. They will be perfect. Who doesn’t want to be perfect?”

Conflicts of interest: The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding: None.

* Terms and conditions apply. Read the small print with a magnifying glass for details, before you tick the box.

The Aspen Institute

©2024 The Aspen Institute. All Rights Reserved

• 0 Comments Add Your Comment

Designer Babies: Where Does Society Draw the Line?

November 10, 2014  • Alison Berkley Margo, Guest Blogger

Designer babies  — a term to describe the use of genetic selection to determine desired qualities of a child, such as eye color or even enhanced intelligence — are becoming closer to reality. With the potential to change everything from a newborn’s eye color to its health conditions (or lack thereof), where do we as a society draw the line? Should these technologies be aimed exclusively at pathogenic conditions, and if so, what are the risks and implications for future generations? 

Community members in Aspen, CO, recently took on this issue during the launch of a new four-week Aspen Community Program Series called Our Society Reimagined: Exploring New Ideas. The seminar gives participants a chance to engage in non-partisan discussion and debate regarding the future implications of technology and innovation.

The first debate focused specifically on two current genetic modification techniques: mitochondrial DNA transfer (mtDNA) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) can use PGD in order to select the healthiest embryos for implantation, therefore reducing the risk of birth defects while increasing the chances of a successful live birth pregnancy. MtDNA transfer has been recommended for people with mitochondrial diseases to be able to have their own children by combining their own nuclear DNA with mitochondrial DNA provided by a healthy donor.

“Technology can be a double-edge sword,” said Peter Frey, a retired Northwestern University professor. “Over the past two decades, the pace of technology has accelerated. New technology emerges on a daily basis, and keeping up is difficult. Our challenge is to use it to improve our lives and to minimize its negative consequences.”

Daniel Wetzel, an associate at the Rocky Mountain Institute and former formulation scientist, asked the group to consider the issue in a biologic, rather than moral or humanist context.

“We as humans have evolved the ability to change things on a radically different time scale than nature is used to,” he said. Wetzel cited the implications of past technological adaptations such as anthropogenic climate change due to the use of fossil fuels and mass extinction caused by industrial agriculture.

“We need to recognize that the societal decisions we make do not simply have moral dimensions but real biological implications as well. We design solutions to benefit humanity in the short term without considering our environment in the long term.”

Wetzel supports “smart regulation” of genetic manipulation technology use and said it is “reckless not to understand the potential of this technology,” should we be faced with a threat that could utilize it in the future.

Kat Daley, on-site host and experience manager for the luxury travel agency Cuvee, conceded to the biological context of the issue but insists it’s also an ethical, moral, religious, and financial choice as well. “Who is financing this?” Daley asked. “And what if interest runs out, and we are then left with manipulated DNA with no one to determine the long term ramifications? What about other diseases that are more prevalent killers, like cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and obesity, that could also use the funding?” 

Daley raised the issue of medical tourism as posing a challenge against regulation in a global society. She fears where this technology is headed, citing the possibility of eugenics and a culture defined by genetic engineering.

“Are we going down a path of creating our own Krypton?” she asked. “A place where babies are bred for a specific purpose?” Rather than trying to keep up with countries like China, which has identified the genes necessary to increase intelligence, Daley asked, “Why can’t we be a leader in ethics and be the ones to point out the bigger picture?”

Participants shared other perspectives and concerns, including social stratification due to the high cost of genetic technologies; undermining the human experience; medical tourism in a global environment; and more.

For better or for worse, the majority of those in attendance agreed that it is too late to change course now. But several pointed to one human trait that science cannot manipulate. “We can’t define the mystery of our personalities or explain how it is connected to our genetic makeup,” said participant Denali Barron. “You can manipulate a chromosome, but there is so much more depth and resonance to our humanity than we’re addressing.”

“You can’t eliminate the emotional side,” said participant Marcia Flaks. “To quote E.O. Wilson, ‘the instability of emotion is the essence of human character.’ Human nature may be the great regulator. It has a way of stepping in and making things better.”

Our Society Reimagined: Exploring New Ideas is part of the new four-week Aspen Community Program Series. It is designed as a forum for community members to gain insight into specific issues facing our society today, as well as research viable solutions to these issues. Visit our event calendar to learn more.

Related Posts

July 29, 2024 Grace Bowie

March 29, 2024 Rev. Dr. Audrey Price & 1 more

The best of the Institute, right in your inbox.

Sign up for our email newsletter

Ethics of Designer Babies

A designer baby is a baby genetically engineered in vitro for specially selected traits, which can vary from lowered disease-risk to gender selection. Before the advent of genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization (IVF), designer babies were primarily a science fiction concept. However, the rapid advancement of technology before and after the turn of the twenty-first century makes designer babies an increasingly real possibility. As a result, designer babies have become an important topic in bioethical debates, and in 2004 the term “designer baby” even became an official entry in the Oxford English Dictionary . Designer babies represent an area within embryology that has not yet become a practical reality, but nonetheless draws out ethical concerns about whether or not it will become necessary to implement limitations regarding designer babies in the future.

The prospect of engineering a child with specific traits is not far-fetched. IVF has become an increasingly common procedure to help couples with infertility problems conceive children, and the practice of IVF confers the ability to pre-select embryos before implantation. For example, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows viable embryos to be screened for various genetic traits, such as sex-linked diseases, before implanting them in the mother. Through PGD, physicians can select embryos that are not predisposed to certain genetic conditions. For this reason, PGD is commonly used in medicine when parents carry genes that place their children at risk for serious diseases such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. Present technological capabilities point to PGD as the likely method for selecting traits, since scientists have not established a reliable means of in vivo embryonic gene selection.

An early and well-known case of gender selection took place in 1996 when Monique and Scott Collins saw doctors at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, for in vitro fertilization. The Collins’ intended to conceive a girl, as their first two children were boys and the couple wanted a daughter in the family. This was one of the first highly publicized instances of PGD in which the selection of the embryo was not performed to address a specific medical condition, but to fulfill the parents’ desire to create a more balanced family. The Collins’ decision to have a “designer baby” by choosing the sex of their child entered the public vernacular when they were featured in Time Magazine’s 1999 article "Designer Babies". Though the Collins’ case only involved choice of gender, it raised the issues of selection for other traits such as eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height that are not generally related to the health of the child.

Prior to the Collins’ decision to choose the sex of their child, The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs released a statement in 1994 in support of using genetic selection as a means to prevent, cure or specific diseases, but that selection based on benign characteristics was not ethical. Some ethical concerns held by opponents of designer babies are related to the social implications of creating children with preferred traits. The social argument against designer babies is that if this technology becomes a realistic and accessible medical practice, then it would create a division between those that can afford the service and those that cannot. Therefore, the wealthy would be able to afford the selection of desirable traits in their offspring, while those of lower socioeconomic standing would not be able to access the same options. As a result, economic divisions may grow into genetic divisions, with social distinctions delineating enhanced individuals from unenhanced individuals. For example, the science-fiction film Gattaca explores this issue by depicting a world in which only genetically-modified individuals can engage in the upper echelon of society.

Other bioethicists have argued that parents have a right to prenatal autonomy, which grants them the right to decide the fate of their children. George Annas, chair of the Department of Health Law, Bioethics, and Human Rights at Harvard University has offered support for the idea of PGD, and the designer babies that result, as a consumer product that should be open to the forces of market regulation. Additionally, other arguments in favor of designer baby technologies suggest that parents already possess a high degree of control over the outcome of their children’s lives in the form of environmental choices, and that this should absolve some of the ethical concerns facing genetic selection. For example, parents keen on establishing musical appreciation in their children may sign them up for music classes or take them to concerts on a regular basis. These choices affect the way a child matures, much like the decision to select certain genes predisposes a child to develop in ways that the parents have predetermined are desirable.

The increased ability to control and manipulate embryos presents many possibilities for improving the health of children through prenatal diagnosis, but these possibilities are coupled with potential social repercussions that could have negative consequences in the future. Ultimately, designer babies represent great potential in the field of medicine and scientific research, but there remain many ethical questions that need to be addressed.

• Agar, Nicholas. American Institute of Biological Sciences. “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations,” http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html (Accessed October 16, 2010).
• Annas, George. “Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnostic Technology: Medical, Market, or Regulatory Model?” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 721 (1994): 262–8.
• Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. “Ethical Issues Related to Prenatal Genetic Testing,” Archives of Family Medicine 3 (1994): 633–42.
• Kitcher, Philip. “Creating Perfect People.” In Companion to Genetics , eds. Justine Burley and John Harris, 229–42. Boston: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
• Lemonick, Michael. “Designer Babies.” 153, Time Magazine, January 11, 1999.
• Morales, Tatiana. CBS News. “Choosing Your Baby’s Gender.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/06/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main528404.shtml (Accessed October 17, 2010).
• Verlinsky, Yuri. “Designing Babies: What the Future Holds,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (2005): 24–6.

How to cite

Articles rights and graphics.

Copyright Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)  

Last modified

Share this page.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Retro Report

Scientists Can Design ‘Better’ Babies. Should They?

Where the debate over ‘designer babies’ began, genetic technology is advancing, and critics are warning of a slippery slope. we spoke with the scientists working at the forefront of the research, families who have benefited from the advancements and the first-ever “test-tube” baby — now nearing age 40 — to understand the debate..

“A revolutionary technology that can edit genetic mistakes.” News that researchers modified the DNA of a human embryo has created shockwaves, reigniting a familiar refrain. “Designer babies.” “Designer babies.” “Designing babies is not allowed in America now, but it’s coming.” It’s not the first time a scientific advance involving embryos has ignited alarm. “A British medical team said today it hopes to create the world’s first test-tube baby by the end of this year.” In the 1970s, the idea of in vitro fertilization was still a dream, but fears of where it might lead were already taking hold. “This is one step toward further modes of manufacturing our children.” “People were just generally scared. They didn’t know what was going to happen. I think it was tied up with the old novel, ‘Brave New World,’ in which the babies there were gestated in what he called bottles.” “Mark Bernard G., inspected and approved.” “To create a baby in the laboratory in a petri dish was considered not just abnormal, it was considered immoral.” “Several other doctors say they are against the idea. They claim that it opens the way for mass production of babies and as they put it, ‘a nightmare of biological engineering.’” “Concerns ranged from: there’s a slippery slope here, once we start making life outside the womb, once we start making life in dishes, won’t we wind up saying that’s the best way to do it for everybody? That we are going to wind up eliminating natural reproduction.” “People said all sorts of nasty things about it. They thought they were creating designer babies. They would create monsters.” “There was fear that someday the techniques could be used to develop something other than a normal human being.” “One MP warned of the dangers of scientific breeding becoming a reality, of a revival of Adolf Hitler’s concept of a master race.” The two scientists at the forefront of the research, Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards, conducted their work in a secluded laboratory far away from the media spotlight. “They were doing things like disguising themselves and making sure that their cars were parked in a different location when they went to visit or do any of the work. It was really cloak and dagger.” After more than a decade of research, their controversial experiment became one of the biggest medical stories of the century. “The world’s first test-tube baby was born here in Britain last night.” “A pink, healthy baby girl who began life in a test tube.” “At birth, it came out crying its head off and in very good state, breathing very well.” “Louise came out, she wasn’t a Frankenbaby, she was healthy, she looked normal. The fact that the first human I.V.F. that went to term, resulted in a healthy baby, dramatically changed perspectives on I.V.F.” “We forget now because I.V.F. is commonplace, but really Louise Brown heralded hope for millions of people throughout the world.” That hope, and the media’s fascination, generated hundreds of headlines around the globe. “When I look back on the cuttings — newspaper cuttings, and films, we couldn’t come back home to Bristol for 11 to 12 days, and when we did, there were 100 journalists–plus outside our little house from all over the world. It was just madness.” “The birth of Louise Brown was a Nobel Prize-winning event, not just because of the technology, but because of the beauty of what it did for Louise Brown’s family and for thousands and thousands, now millions of couples around the world who have been able to have children.” Dr. Mark Hughes is part of the team of scientists that took I.V.F. to the next level. In the early 1990s, they pioneered a technique that allows doctors to screen embryos for potentially lethal diseases. “The idea is to make a diagnosis before a pregnancy ever begins so that couples who are at high genetic risk can avoid that disease before they ever get pregnant.” It’s called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or P.G.D., a procedure in which couples go through I.V.F., even if they don’t have fertility problems. Doctors then test the DNA of the embryos and only implant healthy ones. “We can say embryo two, five and seven don’t have this genetic condition and they’ll be safe to transfer.” “Not long after Eden was born, we knew there was something that wasn’t exactly right.” When Randy and Caroline Gold’s second child, Eden, was 18 months old, she was diagnosed with mucolipidosis Type IV, or ML-4, an incurable genetic disease with a heartbreaking prognosis. “Kids with mucolipidosis Type IV will likely never walk, they’ll never talk. They’ll go blind by the time they’re 12 years old. And they will have a very limited lifespan.” “High five on that, girlfriend. Love you.” The Golds dreamed of having a third child, but they knew that dream carried big risks. “Because Caroline and I carry the same mutation for ML-4, we have a 25 percent risk with every pregnancy that we can have a child with that disease.” The Golds turned to Mark Hughes, and, using P.G.D., he was able to identify an embryo without the ML-4 mutation. Today, Eden has a healthy little sister, named Shai. “It was an absolute miracle.” P.G.D. has helped thousands of families like the Golds, but it has also reignited a familiar debate. “Is it leading to the creation of designer babies?” “As the science advances, ethical questions about when and where to draw the line when it comes to picking and choosing only the healthiest embryos. Critics say it can become a slippery slope.” “From the very first cases of embryo testing for genetic disease, the slippery slope of designer babies was in everybody’s mind — ‘Oh, we’ll be testing for anything.’” The use of embryo screening procedures like P.G.D. has expanded. They can now test for hundreds of diseases and chromosomal abnormalities. Yet much of the media attention has focused on the doctors who push those boundaries. “This is the room where the magic begins.” “It’s called gender selection.” For over a decade, Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg has been a flash point in the debate, constantly in the news for marketing the use of P.G.D., not just for medical necessity, but to let couples choose the sex of their child. “Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg, Director of Fertility Institutes, says up to 90 percent of his patients come to him specifically because they want to decide whether they have a boy or girl.” “The technology was out there. It was being applied only to preventing diseases. Well, I’ve decided to open the door and expand it and say, listen, this is something that people are interested in, causes no harm, makes people happy. Let’s expand it.” Sex selection for non-medical reasons is illegal in many countries, but not in the United States, where some aspects of the fertility industry are loosely regulated. Many of the procedures cost upwards of $10,000. Yet Steinberg says he has no shortage of patients and is currently marketing a new cosmetic option for what he calls “21st-century parents-to-be.” “25 years ago, I predicted we would be choosing eye color. We’re able to do that now. It turns out, people want blue eyes. Not only are we able to assist with that, but we can offer them a choice of 30 shades of blue eyes.” These claims are met with great skepticism by many scientists and also raise ethical concerns. “Jeffrey Steinberg claims that he can give you a child with a particular eye color. I don’t know what he really means by that, but I think that, again, is an example of how we have to be very careful to draw lines that are clear and can be enforced.” Marcy Darnovsky runs a watchdog group that focuses on the social impact of reproductive and genetic technologies. “What counts as medical? What counts as enhancement? I mean, how could you draw a line?” Today, that question is more relevant than ever. “A medical breakthrough, or the first steps down a dangerous road?” In 2017, researchers at Oregon Health and Science University announced a groundbreaking development. “For the first time in the United States, scientists have edited the genes of human embryos.” Using a technology called Crispr, they were able to correct a defective gene that causes a potentially fatal heart disease, altering a trait that could be passed on to future generations. There was never any intention of creating a pregnancy, but like I.V.F. before it, the breakthrough was received with both excitement and alarm. “Critics worry Crispr could be used to create designer babies. Last year, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called genome editing a potential weapon of mass destruction. And Congress has banned turning gene-edited embryos into babies.” “I think a lot of the times those fears are largely overblown.” Dr. Paula Amato is a co-author of the research on editing human embryos. “When you think about the traits that people would like to enhance, things like intelligence or athleticism, we actually don’t know the genes that are responsible for those things. And it’s likely to be more than one gene. So even if you wanted to do that, at least at this point in time, it would be very difficult if not impossible to do.” But the ability to genetically modify embryos could be a new frontier, one in which it is no longer just about changing the genetic traits of an individual, but of all their descendants as well. “I think this is a slippery slope that we’re on. That doesn’t mean that we have to forgo everything along the way. It does mean that we have to make sure we have brakes and we have to make sure we have stopping points.” “All new technologies need to be carefully and properly assessed. I think you can’t have the Wild West. On the other hand, I think you can get yourself into a fear situation where you become paralyzed and can’t do anything.” “When any medical advance is made, any medical advance is made, there is first of all one success. Somebody had to be first. And then there are others.” “There’s six million of us, babies been born through I.V.F., which is fantastic. And I’m actually quite proud to say that it started with me.”

By Clyde Haberman

• June 10, 2018

For nine frustrating years, Lesley and John Brown tried to conceive a child but failed because of her blocked fallopian tubes. Then in late 1977, this English couple put their hopes in the hands of two men of science. Thus began their leap into the unknown, and into history.

On July 25, 1978, the Browns got what they had long wished for with the arrival of a daughter, Louise , a baby like no other the world had seen. She came into being through a process of in vitro fertilization developed by Robert G. Edwards and Patrick Steptoe. Her father’s sperm was mixed with her mother’s egg in a petri dish, and the resulting embryo was then implanted into the womb for normal development.

Louise was widely, glibly and incorrectly called a “test-tube baby.” The label was enough to throw millions of people into a moral panic, for it filled them with visions of Dr. Frankenstein playing God and throwing the natural order of the universe out of kilter. The reality proved far more benign, maybe best captured by Grace MacDonald , a Scottish woman who in January 1979 gave birth to the second in vitro baby, a boy named Alastair. Nothing unethical was at work, she told the BBC in 2003. “It’s just nature being given a helping hand.”

In this installment of its video documentaries, Retro Report explores how major news stories of the past shape current events by harking back to Louise Brown’s birth. If anything, more modern developments in genetics have raised the moral, ethical and political stakes. But the fundamental questions are essentially what they were in the 1970s with the advent of in vitro fertilization:

Are these welcome advances that can only benefit civilization? Or are they incursions into an unholy realm, one of “designer babies,” with potentially frightening consequences?

In vitro fertilization, or I.V.F., is by now broadly accepted, though it still has objectors, including the Roman Catholic Church. Worldwide, the procedure has produced an estimated six million babies, and is believed to account for 3 percent of all live births in some developed countries. Designer-baby fears have proved in the main to be “overblown,” said Dr. Paula Amato, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. “We have not seen it with I.V.F. in general,” she told Retro Report. “We have not seen it with P.G.D.”

P.G.D. is shorthand for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, developed more than two decades ago and an offshoot of in vitro fertilization. Couples with family histories of serious diseases — cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs and Down syndrome are among the more common — can have their lab-created embryos tested for the probability of passing the flaws to their offspring. Technology in effect gives them a measure of control over their genetic fate. An embryo that looks O.K. under a microscope can be implanted in the mother’s uterus for normal development. (Typically, the others are discarded, itself a morally fraught practice for some people).

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Designer Babies

• First Online: 27 May 2021

Cite this chapter

• Henk ten Have 3 &
• Maria do Céu Patrão Neves 4  

228 Accesses

The children of parents who wish to design their offspring are called “designer babies.” The term was coined by the media to refer to genetic interventions in preimplantation human embryos in which the aim was to select or alter the traits future children would have.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Enhancement Technologies and Children

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Center for Healthcare Ethics, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Henk ten Have

University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henk ten Have .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

ten Have, H., Patrão Neves, M. (2021). Designer Babies. In: Dictionary of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54161-3_198

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54161-3_198

Published : 27 May 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-54160-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-54161-3

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Designer babies: Rogue science or future option?

By Dolli Player and Alicia Matsuura

Leer en español: Bebés a la medida: ¿Una ciencia inmoral o una solución a futuro?

In the early 2000s, genome editing seemed like the answer to parents who carried latent genes that could result in birth defects, future illnesses or poor quality of life for their potential children. But the technology was still unrefined and expensive. It seemed like it was too far off in the future — a science-fiction-inspired solution to real-world problems.

It wasn't until the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 combination in 2013 that the conversation among scientists changed from 'it's impossible' to 'should it be possible?'

Before being able to grasp the meaning of the term 'designer babies,' it's important to understand the building blocks of the system that makes it possible.

The scientific process of creating these possible 'designer babies' is called genome editing. A genome is present in every living organism, and it encodes all the messages and instructions of that organism's DNA sequence. This sequence makes up the characteristics and functions of that organism. CRISPR-cas9 and genome editing change those sequences, which in turn changes the message and the output of those cells.

In scientific terms, CRISPR, which stands for clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, is a region of DNA that contains repeated sequences of nucleotide repeaters and spacers. Those spacers are a memory bank, holding information from previous attacking DNA and adapting to recognize them in the future. By altering or adding to this 'memory bank,' scientists can alter the DNA's response to any new information it comes across.

Cas-9 is an enzyme that cuts foreign DNA. Combined with CRISPR, this enzyme can alter DNA by cutting a break in a genome's sequence and forcing it to adapt and adjust with whatever new sequence it is presented with, kind of like 'copy and paste' on a cellular level.

Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society (CGS), author, and human rights activist, is one of the leading voices in the ethical debate around 'designer babies' and genome editing.

CGS was founded in 2001 in response to a wave of discussions on human germline editing, or deliberately changing the genes passed on to children and future generations.

'While we support genetic engineering tools to treat diseases for people who are sick, we should not use those tools to try and modify the gene traits of future human beings and future generations,' Darnovsky said.

Darnovsky argues against gene trait modification for several reasons. One is the potential for harm due to technical limitations and safety concerns. Another concern is the social and ethical issues of these procedures being used only by those who can afford them.

'We live in such a competitive society with staggering levels of inequality and disparity already. I think it makes people anxious about their children's place in society,' Darnovsky. 'It makes you think. If they can get a leg up for their kid by dropping an extra $100,000 at a fertility clinic, there are people who would jump at that chance.'

Darnovsky is concerned about the future possibility of fertility clinics adopting aggressive marketing techniques to promote human germline genome editing to parents.

“It would be available to people who could afford these genetic upgrades for their own children,” Darnovsky said. “They might think, ‘If I can afford it, why shouldn’t I make my kid taller? Have lighter skin or whatever socially desired characteristic there is?”

The perceptions of biological differences and superiority or inferiority are very powerful in societies, according to Darnovsky.

“To me, that’s a key part of the historical underpinnings of racism. We have these stereotypes that are evidence free but have been very powerful and destructive,” Darnovsky said.

According to Dana Carroll, a distinguished biochemistry professor at the University of Utah, the discussions surrounding human germline editing have shifted in the past 15 months alone.

Chinese researcher He Jiankui stunned the world in November 2018 when he announced at a Hong Kong conference that he produced genetically edited babies through modifications introduced by CRISPR.

“A lot of the discussion is now focused on, was it ethical to do that? What would the standards be if you were to go back and modify embryos so children were born with different characteristics?” Carroll said.

Carroll is part of the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, which explores the possible clinical uses of human germline genome editing. The commission also published a report on the standards that should be adhered to when undergoing this process. Although the technology is not advanced enough yet, Carroll is concerned about individuals and small groups of people misusing the technology.

“It should be something that countries and societies agree would be OK to do,' Carroll said. 'There needs to be a lot of extended discussions and thinking about this in various places.”

The debate on human germline editing is still ongoing; however, great strides are being made in gene editing for curing diseases and alleviating medical conditions. The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is a stem cell agency that was created shortly after California voters approved California Proposition 71, which supports stem cell research in the state.

Jonathon Thomas serves as the Chairman of the Board for CIRM. He said the ethical considerations on genome editing have been paramount since Proposition 71. CIRM has been strict in adhering to national guidelines and ethical practices affecting the field of human genome editing.

“We’re funding studies that attempt to modify genes to cure disease,” Thomas said. “Our regulations prohibit funding for research where genetically modified embryos are implanted into a uterus for reproductive purposes.”

CIRM has funded a research project that has saved the lives of children with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), a disease that causes babies to be born without a working immune system. Children with SCID are quarantined from birth and normally don’t live for more than two years, Thomas said.

The project involved UCLA scientists who developed a technique that takes a functioning blood-forming stem cell through gene editing then places it back in the child’s bone marrow. This creates a bloodstream with normal, functioning immune elements and gives patients the ability to fight off the disease.

The project is one example of how human genome editing can change individuals' lives for the better.

“These kids who were destined to a terrible, short life, now have immune systems that work,” Thomas said. “They’re back in pre-school or elementary school, and if they get sick, it causes no problems. This is a real example of the use of gene cell therapy to drive a transformative result.”

YOUR FINAL GRADE - GUARANTEED UK Essay Experts

Disclaimer: This essay is provided as an example of work produced by students studying towards a philosophy degree, it is not illustrative of the work produced by our in-house experts. Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

The Issue Of Designer Babies

Reference this

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help! Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

Essay Writing Service

• Dissertation Writing Service

• Assignment Writing Service

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please:

Our academic writing and marking services can help you!

• Find out more about our Essay Writing Service
• Undergraduate 2:2
• 7 day delivery
• Marking Service
• Samples of our Service
• Full Service Portfolio

Related Lectures

Study for free with our range of university lecture notes!

• All Available Lectures

Freelance Writing Jobs

Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your university studies!

• Dissertation Resources at UKDiss.com
• How to Write an Essay
• Essay Buyers Guide
• Referencing Tools
• Essay Writing Guides
• Masters Writing Guides

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Designer Babies

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Narratives Follow Following
• Metaphor Follow Following
• Genetic Engineering Follow Following
• Art and Design Follow Following
• Interior Follow Following
• Interior Design (Architecture) Follow Following
• Artificial reproductive Technology Follow Following
• Designer Babies Effect on Society Follow Following
• Artificial insemination Follow Following
• In vitro diagnostics Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Designer Babies Research Paper

Show More The Problem with Designing A “Perfect” Child If you had the chance to design your own child by selecting his or her physical and mental traits, would you do it? Many are taking advantage of a new way of creating children called “designer babies”. According to accredited writer Sarah Ly, the idea of designer babies has been around for years. In 2004 the term was added into the Oxford English Dictionary. Designing a baby is done through a process called genetic engineering, which includes altering genes to change genetic diseases and traits. Advances in medicine have led scientists to discover new ways to alter genes for cosmetic purposes and these advances in genetic alteration will continue. Today, prospective parents are able to choose …show more content… Of great concern is that creating these children will create one or more societal gaps. Richard Hayes, executive director for The Center for Genetics and Society, gave his opinion on what these designer babies will do to the economy. He believes that this procedure will only be available to well-off couples and as such will merely increase inequality. This could lead to genetic elite (qtd. In Steere). As if there weren’t already problems with discrimination, the creation of designer babies will create a whole new trepidation. This entire new species of humans will be superior to the rest and it will all be because they were born into a well-off family. Melinda Moyer, accredited writer wrote, “Although 36 countries have outlawed sex selection, the practice is legal and booming in the U.S., despite the fact that the procedure can cost upwards of $18,000”. Only to families that are well off, and sometimes not even then, will the procedure be available. This procedure is simply not an option for the poor. On top of this, scientific writer, Laura Damiano, concluded in her article that this could lead to people associating disabilities with those who are less privileged, adding even more of a stereotype. In addition, if scientists are able to figure out a way to increase intelligence in embryos, this will generate yet another advantage the rich will have over the poor. Creating designer babies in regards to society is unfair and may create many more problems than it is

Related Documents

Designer Babies are infants who were genetically modified to have different traits or the elimination of certain diseases and disorders that are passed down genetically. For example, you could ask for a baby girl with brown hair, blue eyes, no risk of breast cancer, and will be an athlete and very intellectual. Although scientists are still experimenting with being able to produce a baby that specific, there are few cases of parents taking out the risk of cancer or even choosing the sex of the baby. There is a multitude of ways to create a designer baby, though the most common right now is In Vitro Fertilization and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. The beginning of the creation of making a designer baby commenced in 1968 when Edwards and Gardner performed the first ever known embryo biopsy, or what's commonly known as Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, on rabbit embryos.…

Gattaca Nature Vs Nurture

You may ask “what are designer babies?” Well, designer babies are when the parents of a baby can choose the phenotypes, also known as your traits, such as eye color, height, hair color, and many more. Although having to pick your own baby’s trait would be nice, there are indeed some ethical and moral issues when doing so. One obvious problem is the cost, the practice is not going to be cheap. As a result, not everyone is going to afford this cost which can lead to a society gap, where designer babies will be smarter and better than ordinary babies.…

In Praise Of Designer Babies Summary

Could you imagine a world where we could create a better race of humans? I think that designer babies are an efficient way to create a better society where a smarter race of humans can rule, he world and we can make the world a better place. In the article “In Praise of Designer Babies” it says “Imagine you knew that you carried a gene for a debilitating illness. But doctors could go into your egg (or your spouse's) and remove that gene, enabling you to have a baby who, whatever other problems they might encounter through their lifetime, wouldn't have to worry about the illness.…

Rdif Chips Are A Good Idea

RDIF Chips Are A Good Idea RDIF chips are a good idea in schools, because it helps teachers with attendance. The scanners sit on top of door ways counting the kids who walk into and out of he school building. It lets teachers know who is present and who is not. Kim Zetter, the author of this article, and a writer for WIRED online magazine, explains, "The server translates... digits", in the chips, "...into names and sends an attendance list to the teacher's PDA, identifying all of the students who walked through the door" (Zetter). In other words, the RDIF chips help take attendance by counting every kid who walks through the door wearing one of these badges and lets every teacher know which kids in their class came to school.…

Designer Babies In Brave New World

In today’s society people are more together than in the past but with designer babies it will create segregation, because of this “the ACOG advocates prohibiting sex selection” and may “lead to sex discrimination against women in society” (Ghose). This idea could create a great problem in society. Many kids would look at themselves as superior because they were genetically modified. While on the other hand the children who were born naturally would be seen inferior to the designer babies. Not only would the actual process be seen as superior but “The hefty cost of the procedure means that few families will have access” to being able to choose how their child will look which would “[create] a wide divide between the poor and the genetically altered wealthy” (Thadani).…

People already get left out, not counted as equal, and this would increase inequality even more. They wouldn't be treated as equals because the non designer babies won't have the same skills and improvements. Due to this evidence have collected, designer babies would create problems with…

Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis Essay

With the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, we were given the ability to identify every gene that forms the building blocks of a human being. Researchers are attempting to use these blueprints to make perfect children with the screening of embryos before they are implanted into the mother’s uterus; a procedure called Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis. This screening shows the presence of any genetic defect, including traits not related to the embryos health. Today screenings are being used to identify genetic defects that prevent women from having healthy children, however lately individuals are interested in using this screening to manufacture a child that will be born with what they would consider the superior genes. Although people are in favor of using the screenings to identify the genetic defects, according to a paper published in June 2006 by Kathy L. Hudson of the Genetic and Public Policy Center, 72% disapprove of the Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis that’s used to create designer babies.…

Negative Effects Of Designer Babies

Designer Babies Upon the completion of mapping the human genome in 2003, a whole new side of genetic understanding had opened up; better understanding of genetic diseases, how genes affect personality, and with that, the genetic altering of babies. This new concept of “designer babies” has caused great controversy and many of its harmful effects have gone unrecognized. This form of genetic altering research should not be continued because designer babies create more adverse effects on society than it benefits. They negatively impact our society by causing social segregation, increasing mortality, and by creating detrimental physical and psychological effects on the baby. To begin, one of the main reasons why designer babies negatively…

Argumentative Essay On Designer Babies

These articles are showing how designer babies is very important for our future. Parents can have the next Einstein, or the next Michael…

Persuasive Essay On Designer Babies

The biggest concern is what designer babies have to offer in today’s modern society, giving rise to the real question in all this: Are there social barriers that could be created by designer babies? And any sane man would answer “Y.E.S.” and I would make it easier for those people by justifying their educated guess by giving the significance of this research question which will hopefully convince society not to tamper with the nature of their offspring, also to…

The Issue Of Designer Babies

The question of “designer babies” is one that is fairly recent and controversy of the topic starts from the very definition of the term. When one is presented with the term “designer babies”, Most people imagine a genetically engineered being who is less human and more technology. This false stigma mainly comes from the negative reputation of Genetically modified species such as food or animals. However, the reality is quite different, it can be argued that even choosing a fertilised cell as an embryo during IVF is a form of a designer baby. After conducting a questionnaire; 86.76% of people believed a “designer baby” was a being which was genetically engineered to have selective traits.…

Pros And Cons Of Designer Babies

Designer Babies are supposedly, “the way of the future.” With a designer baby, you get decide what you want and what you do not want. I chose to write about designer babies because there is an ethical problem with this side of genetics. You should not be able to order whatever kind of baby you feel like having.…

The Pros And Cons Of Babies

• 7 Works Cited

“Genetic engineering, if accepted, will have a negative impact on the society. It will result in increase of unreasonable fear or hatred towards foreigners or anyone who appears different. People with genetic defects will be socially rejected” (Buzzle.com, 2011, Pros para.7). The designer children will have to face the reality that they are not like every other child among them in the world and this may put a strain on both them and the other children. Designing children may also affect race and nationalities.…

While the idea of creating an artificial child may seem immoral, there are more advantages to designer babies than just eliminating disabilities. In addition to creating a fairer environment for all children, this procedure could also make them live longer with the discarding of disease causing genes. Furthermore, the newfound experience and data collected from this procedure could also help geneticists progress faster in their research in genetics. The operation could be also viewed as ethically accepted since some women take prenatal pills during pregnancy to ensure…

Parents can now decide, with a lot of money in their hands, the way their baby is going to look. However, many scientists believe that these advancements are just the beginning and that within a decade it can be possible to select for a broad range of traits from physical attributes to personality type. Jeremy Rifkin, a biotech critic states that: “It’s the ultimate shopping experience: designing your baby” (Lemonick, 1999, p. 3.) The next generations are going to be filled with these babies that are born perfectly normal, not because they were lucky, but because their parents saved all their money to create him/her.…

Related Topics

Ready to get started.

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings

Essay On Designer Babies

Can a world without diseases or imperfections exist? It can with de That world can be created with designer babies. Designer babies are babies that are genetically modified before birth. Parents can influence many things before birth by designing babies. Designer babies should be allowed because they can remove possible diseases and give parents the ability to perfect their children. Designing babies beforehand can help remove possible disorders and diseases. It can eventually save lives. Almost everyone would love to get rid of possible disorders that could torment them for their entire life before they were even born. According to Storrs, the chromosomal abnormalities that cause Down syndrome and Turner syndrome can be found and fixed. Scientists have already figured out how to do this, as stated by Regalado, "By editing the DNA of these cells or the embryo itself, it could be possible to correct disease genes and pass those genetic fixes on to future generations." The designer baby can also help other people. "A couple are to have Britain …show more content…

However even though there are many benefits to designer babies some people do not want designer babies. They believe that manipulation of embryos can hurt the baby and cause imbalances in genders in addition to the belief that designing a baby will cause the parents to love the child less. Steere says, " 'This runs many risks. It 's used in many countries to avoid the birth of female children. '" These are all valid concerns but there is no need to worry. The chances of failure is low and they can also be used to balance out gender dominance. Storrs quotes Dr. Mark Sauer on this when he said, "Despite these concerns, there is currently no evidence that it is unsafe, Sauer said. 'But when you 've got millions of babies (who were screened in this way), you get less and less concerned that you are doing harm, '". People have a right to worry but the evidence shows that designer babies won 't cause health problems or gender

Analyzing The Article 'The Life Editor' By Michael Page

Alexis Wolf Professor Julia Gousseva October 29th 2017 Critical Reading 112 Are designer babies the future? Just think about it, designing the traits of your future child to look specifically however you want. The article “The Life Editor” by Michael Page discusses the idea of scientifically modifying genes and the possibilities the methods of gene editing can hold. Page describes the new innovation called CRISPR gene editing.

Eugenics Rough Draft Essay

Research Paper Rough Draft- Eugenics The amazing thing about the world today is the rapidly changing society, and the contemporary technology. Something that scientist have been working to perfect for many years is the modernization of eugenics. It is changing the way people are born by selecting specific traits for an individual to be smarter, stronger, more attractive and many other traits. Many parents of the new generation are willing to try the science of eugenics for their child to be customized to them.

Science Vs. Progress In The Progressive Era

In today’s world, you can have your baby with blue eyes, perfect height, and how you want your baby to look when is old. Now we can even make a baby be born smart because now scientists are more specialized in genetic and how the genes work. For example, if women can’t have babies she can rent a belly from another woman so she can have the baby but the baby is going to have the DNA of the women who can’t have babies, not of the other woman. Is pretty impressive how today scientist can modify genetically the genes of babies before they are even born. Now in today’s world is almost possible to create the perfect baby if we want.

Jim Crow Schools In The Early 1900s

For the first half of the 1900s, white and black people in America were separated by law. Across the land, blacks and whites ate at separate restaurants, or in separate parts of restaurants. They bathed in separate swimming pools, and drank from separate water fountains. Separated societies The Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) wrote into law that this was acceptable. America would have two separate societies: one black and one white.

Argument Against Designer Babies

Designer babies have been the debate for a few years now, placed upon a shaky moral platform. With human science pushing the boundaries of human genetics further and further, many are questioning if designer babies have finally crossed the line in science. The problem is that people view designer babies on a moral perspective rather than a medical one. Designer babies should be tolerated because they can help parents prevent their offspring from having certain diseases and disabilities.

Designer Babies In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World

In 1932, Aldous Huxley imagined and wrote about a world where designer baby technology is prevalent in his science-fiction novel, Brave New World. The technology would not come until many years later, but his ideas still hold up today. In the book, there were different classes depending on how genetically modified one was, including Alpha or Beta (“The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology”). Outside of science fiction, though, is real science where an actual baby can be genetically modified before even being born. A designed baby is one that is purposefully shaped to be one way or another through processes including In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), where an egg is fertilized and genetically altered, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Summary: The Ethical Dilemma Of Designer Babies

As someone who believes in the good that science brings, I feel that risk designer babies bring outweigh the benefits. It will cause a divide in our society where “traditional” children will be consistently compared to genetically modified children, and it may force people to choose to Personally, I would not be comfort with participating in any assisted reproduction processes. The creation of life is sacred and should be respected and performed in the way God

Argumentative Essay: The Ethics Of Designer Babies

However, many scientists say this is already possible in a much safer and less invasive way. It is far easier to genetically screen embryos for high-risk versions of genes following in vitro fertilization and prior to implantation in the mother. Not to mention, we already practice this as a society, for example, when smart rich people marry other smart rich people, they usually produce another generation of smart rich people; which is known as assortative mating. Another example is when a mother aborts a fetus that has a genetic defect, or when IVF

Why Genetic Engineering Is Bad

As technology advances, more things become possible. One of these things is genetically modifying a baby, this is very wrong. Genetic modifying or genetic engineering is altering someone or something’s DNA. Scientists hope to cure diseases with this method but doing this can lead to some harmful effects. This process is very unethical.

Persuasive Speech On Designer Babies

but what about the child. How do you think that they would feel about it. Knowing that they aren’t who they actually thought they are. Wow that would be hard to life like that. Studies say that, “There is a debate that says that creating designer babies can lead to a gap in

Essay On The Pros And Cons Of A Designer Baby

There are so many pros and cons to go over so let’s begin with the pros. The pros of having a designer baby are that the can reduce the risk of genetic diseases. This means that the baby will have a less chance of getting diseases more than others. Also they can reduce the risk of inherited medical conditions. So whatever the generation of the parents had the baby won’t have the parent choose the baby not to have.

Persuasive Essay On Designer Babies

This procedure’s purpose is to switch out genes for more preferred ones, especially to improve the health of the child. Genetic engineering could permit selection of desired physical and pleasurable traits for non-medical reasons, which has created concern in some people. The process of switching out the genes of a fetus to install genes that are more preferred has brought up debate about whether or not parents should be able to alter their babies genes to make them more appealing to the parents interests. There are many different ways of looking at this procedure and in contrast to other scientific procedures it can be for greater good or for unnecessary enhancement that could potentially create problems in society. Designer babies aren’t morally correct or incorrect, but are in between depending on what it is being used for.

Argumentative Essay On Gene Editing

The researchers then combine the broken gene with a healthy gene. This new healthy gene is now modified and free from the mutation it had before. Although many individuals’ ethics and morals stand in the way of gene editing, this technology affects society in many different

Essay On Gene Editing

Editing of the human genome in the past has been only a sight seen in dystopia works such as Brave New World. Now, genetic enhancement is a prevalent today and people are beginning to realize the issues that can arise from creating these designer babies. Gene editing can be helpful to eradicate life changing disabilities. Yet, the term disability does not correctly label these differently abled people, as the idea of what is considered disabled has changed overtime. To fully understand the consequences and implications of genetic selection and enhancement of human embryos, society must mature and declare lines of what is and is not ethically moral.

Human Cloning Be Banned Essay

“The main arguments against genetic modification of human embryos are that it would be unsafe and unfair, and that modification would quickly go beyond efforts to reduce the incidence of inherited maladies” (Caplan). During the altering genes in the mother 's womb cause a lot of dangerous situations and

More about Essay On Designer Babies

Related topics.

• Genetic disorder

Designer Babies Essay

Baby Designer Babies

Please grab a seat, a baby trait catalog and we shall begin the process of building your perfect child. So will it be a boy or a girl? Will you go for brown hair or blonde? How about a redhead? Would you prefer a taller child? Intelligent and good with his hands? Do you want them to be a slender book worm or a muscular athlete? The sky is the limit! My friends what you have just witnessed could be a very real introduction given by a genetic counsellor or a baby designer company to their clients

Designer Babies

2014 Designer Babies Designer babies are those babies, who are produced by in-vitro fertilization, and whose genetic makeup has been selected or altered by genetic engineering to remove the particular problem, or to make sure that a specific gene with desirable features is present. It is suggested that the phrase “designer baby” was originated from the phrase “designer clothing” and it is coined by journalists and not scientists in 2004 (Agar). With the technology of producing designer babies, people

Are Designer Babies Ethical?

Designer babies are children with genetically modified makeup before birth. Parents go to a geneticist to choose to get rid of any hereditary disease that keeps passing down their family’s lineage and free them from any adversities. This can help prevent many untreatable illnesses and diseases to create perfect healthy babies however, what other genes are scientists able to alter? Is it ethical? No. and how will it affect our society and future generations.. Designer babies are created in vitro which

The Invention Of Designer Babies

potential to genetically modify embryos has created controversy whether this procedure if ‘morally correct.’ ‘Designer babies’ have been created by screening embryos for genetic diseases. However, ‘Designer babies’ has also been used to contain selected desired qualities such as eye colour, hair colour and skin complexion. The question remains, “where is the line drawn for ‘designer babies?’” In Vitro Fertilisation “In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) is a procedure in which eggs (ova) from a woman 's ovary

blond hair, artistic, female. Congratulations, you’ve just created what you think is the perfect child. However, there is one small problem with this plan; someone has already tried to create the perfect human. His name is Adolf Hitler. Designer Babies, a form of human genetic engineering, should be banned. When a human is created with a different embryo in a lab that child can feel a lost sense of identity; also, genetic engineering can lead to a loss of human diversity and an imbalance between

The Consequences Of Designer Babies

Therefore, with the creation of designer babies, it may lead to major or minor changes. What may happen in the present, may impact the future. An important concern was that “genetic screening and modification could be used as the tools of new eugenics, a popular theory during the early twentieth century that sought to remove from the population traits labeled undesirable” (Lerner, 2012, para. 10). The main purpose of designer babies was to create healthier and improved babies, but it may lead to disparity

Disadvantages Of Designer Babies

Designer babies is the use of biotechnology to choose what type of baby one wants. In both articles, they show latest research on how designer babies are becoming a reality now. Many traits could be changed in a designer baby, such as gender, appearance, intelligence, disease, and personality, but with change comes risk, resulting in good and bad. The advantages of designer babies is that it really can correct terrible genetic defects that ruin lives and some people who are not capable of having

Evolution Of Designer Babies

impossible possible. As a result, the breakthrough of designer babies has become the future of human evolution. Designer babies are “embryos created through in-vitro fertilization and selected because of the presence or absence of particular genes created by genetic interventions into pre-implantation embryos” as an attempt to influence hereditary traits the resulting babies will have (Pang and Ho, 2016, p. 59). The concept of designer babies first emerged in the late-nineteenth century, when scientist

Ethics Of Designer Babies

A designer baby is a baby genetically engineered in vitro for specially selected traits, which can vary from lowered disease-risk to gender selection. Before the advent of genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization (IVF), designer babies were primarily a science fiction concept. However, the rapid advancement of technology before and after the turn of the twenty-first century makes designer babies an increasingly real possibility. As a result, designer babies have become an important topic in

Steinbock Designer Babies

English 111 20 October 2014 “Designer Babies” Living in such a fast paced society people look at new technologies as almost being something that they are forced to try. Biological and technological advances become so over bearing that we almost can’t resist. Although Stephan L. Baird in his article Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options? And Bonnie Steinbock in her article Designer Babies: Choosing Our Children’s Genes, take issue with “designer babies”. Baird believes that this

Popular Topics

• Desiree Baby Essay
• Determinism Essay
• Deterrence Essay
• Detroit Essay
• Development Essays
• Developmental Disabilities Essay
• Developmental Psychology Essay
• Developmental Theory Essay
• Deviant Behavior Essay
• Diabetes Mellitus Essay