Should Sperm Banks Be Allowed To Turn Away Donors To Make ‘Better Babies’?

Human genetic studies have paved the way for unwanted hereditary disorders to be suppressed or removed, but sperm banks have taken it to another level. Learn why it’s better to limit the influence sperm banks have over donors and prospective parents.

Advancements in technology and genetics have allowed couples, who have trouble conceiving a child because of reproductive and other disabilities, to successfully procreate through artificial means.

This has, however, raised concerns over the probability of related institutions, such as sperm banks, to perform a misguided practice of eugenics.

While scientific and health researches work toward negative eugenics, cases of conception via sperm donation and sperm banks see a tendency toward producing “designer babies,” and this alone is a cause of concern not only for the scientific community but also for humanity.

It is one thing to ensure that a child is free from genetic disorders but another to “design” a child with “ideal” qualities even before the embryonic stage.

In October 2015, the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) began to prepare the licensing of qualified sperm banks to perform mitochondrial replacement therapy to prevent women who have the genetic disease to pass it on to their offspring.

This practice, however, was banned by the United States Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) back in 2002 because of the risks it carried. Approval in the UK thus proved alarming despite the many discussions prior to endorsement.

What Do Sperm Banks Have To Do With The Issue?

In 2014, the London Sperm Bank turned away prospective donor Fred Fisher, an Oxford graduate, because of his dyslexia. Fisher was informed that it was HFEA policy to turn away donors with genetic problems. However, HFEA denied that dyslexia is included in its list considering it’s not even a genetic disorder.

Sperm banks offer the probability of successful conception and a myriad of options to prospective parents over the traits they deem “ideal” for their child to acquire. This thinking may inevitably lead to the question of positive eugenics. When, in the past, donor recipients would only have to “tailor” infants to mirror their own heredity, now they are given wider choices, allowing them to choose sperm from donors with higher I.Q. or better athletic abilities.

It sounds simple enough, but when you take a step back, sperm banks really do have the capacity to practice positive eugenics and, unless strictly regulated, it may be bad news for the human race.

Just What Is The Big Issue?

Everything stems from eugenics, which is the study of “editing” genetics aimed at improving the quality of humans as a species.

There are two ways the study could proceed: first is negative eugenics, which refers to the practice of influencing genetic material to remove or suppress genetic defects, thereby improving the quality of human life.

Another is positive eugenics, which is aimed at “designing” humans to have “better” qualities by combining only the desirable traits.

In some cases, the aim of eugenics is noble, considering how it hopes to rid babies of genetic diseases that could keep them from reaching their full potential. However, even scientists agree that altering genetics could lead to unwanted and unforeseen side effects.

Is Altering Genetics Bad?

Human genetics has a natural way of compromising for a person’s lack. For instance, people who have lost vision could have a sharper sense of hearing; people with dyslexia could have improved lateral thinking and spatial reasoning skills. Should humans perform the altering, there is a possibility that nature could take drastic action because of the artificial change — and that may just prove irreversible.

“In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations … It would be difficult to control exactly how many cells are modified. Increasing the dose of nuclease used would increase the likelihood that the mutated gene will be corrected, but also raise the risk of cuts being made elsewhere in the genome,” a group of geneticists wrote.

Should Sperm Banks Be Allowed To Turn Away Donors?

Yes and no.

To be sure, the HFEA has clear regulations on what is acceptable and what should be avoided, and those are the regulations that sperm banks should adhere to. But no one should play god on their own terms for parents who want “better” offspring.

So-called “designer babies” could become just another commodity on the market.

Photo : PublicDomainPictures | Pixabay

Originally published at www.techtimes.com on January 2, 2016.