Designer Babies
Children have inquisitive minds and the younger they are, the more curious they are. Studies show that four-year-old children can ask up to 300 questions a day. But one question in particular summons unparalleled awkwardness in parents: “Where do babies come from?” If the stork story doesn’t work, some parents say, “Listen, Johnny, we made you and your sister out of Play-Doh on a rainy Sunday afternoon.” More honest moms and dads point at mom’s tummy and say, “you came from your mother’s womb”. But soon the answer could be: “We ordered you online from a designer baby store.”
Building a baby could soon be as easy as building a teddy bear.
Imagine a future where prospective parents could easily select certain traits and abilities in their children. As genetic engineering technologies improve, designing a baby could become as easy as building a teddy bear in a toyshop. Supporters of this idea believe that these kinds of technologies will reduce disease and be hugely beneficial for society. Opponents argue that genetic screening is a slippery slope towards a world where parents would not only have the ability to prevent diseases in their offspring but also pick out the child’s height, eye colour, and athletic ability, for example, potentially leading towards a race of super-humans, or at least a lot of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie lookalikes.
Where are we now?
In 2003, scientists sequenced the human genome, uncovering about 20,000 genes. Since then, research has revealed how these genes are controlled and what they do. Dr. Eric Green, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, explains this with a GPS analogy “It is nice to have a highway map, but you really want to know where the shopping centers, gas stations, parks, and restaurants are.” In other words, we know a lot about the type of different genes in our DNA, but we know surprisingly little about what they do and which ones are responsible for diseases and other particular traits. Nevertheless, new (and old) techniques are allowing scientists to modify these genes, providing important insights into their functions.
Indeed, in-vitro fertilization (IVF), resulted in the first successful “test-tube baby” in the 1970s, meaning geneticists were able to fertilize an egg with sperm outside of the body. Although genes are not modified through this technique, this method plays a key role in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This means that a sample of fertilized eggs can now be screened for genes that cause disease. PGD functions a lot like a metal detector at the airport, alerting staff to potentially dangerous items. In the case of embryos, if major deleterious genes are detected, the embryo is discarded.
CRISPR is a new technology that allows geneticists to modify the genome through direct introduction or removal of genes. Instead of discarding the embryo with damaged genes, we can directly and precisely modify them. However, the use of such technology is hotly debated. Some critics think it could lead to a future dystopia of super humans, restricted to only those individuals who can afford it; however, CRISPR is revolutionary in this perspective because it allows DNA to be modified cheaply.
Currently, there is no consistency among world governments regarding policies on the concept of “designer babies.” In 2004, Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, forbidding all human cloning and the pre-screening of embryos. In contrast, other countries are allowing pre-screening of the embryo for diseases: In 2015, the UK even passed a law allowing for 3-parent babies, which essentially fuses the DNA from three people to help prevent rare mitochondrial diseases passed on from mother to child. In fertilization, the egg only receives mitochondria from the mother. So if the mother’s mitochondria are damaged, you’re out of luck and could end up with terrible diseases associated with mutations in mitochondrial DNA. Fortunately, scientists have developed a modified version of IVF whereby the “healthy” mitochondria from a donor’s egg are swapped with those from a “diseased” mother’s egg. The mother’s egg is then fertilized with the father’s sperm, resulting in a ‘3-parent’ embryo.
Should it be done?
Julian Savulescu, an ethics professor from University of Oxford, believes that genes should be manipulated to a certain degree. He argues: “As a species, we have a moral obligation to enhance ourselves… We have limitations in terms of aging, we have cognitive limitations, various physical limitations… in many cases we have a moral obligation to overcome those limitations.” The questions then become, where do we draw the line? Who draws that line? The government? Geneticists? Or should it be left to the parents?
Not long ago, the US government approved a patent filed by 23andMe, a consumer biotechnology company. This patent gives 23andMe exclusive rights for creating a “calculator” for prospective parents to pick and choose traits for their offspring. Parents could select their child’s eye and hair colour, muscle composition, risk of diseases, and more. 23andMe would sequence an individual’s genome, run it against a database, and find a mate that would be able to create a baby with the requested traits. Although 23andMe has an approved patent, it does not grant them the permission to establish such a service. The patent protects their intellectual property of the concept. However, the public has deemed this “ethically and socially treacherous.” After backlash, the company has stated they do not intend on pursuing such services and never “[had] plans to do so.” As public criticism amplifies in United States and Canada, other countries are furthering the concept of designer babies.
Pre-implantation diagnosis not only screens for deleterious genes, but it can be used to identify the gender of the future child. In some cultures, such as in China and portions of India, many families prefer male children. Geneticists fear that if parents had the choice, many would choose to control the gender of the baby, thus, skewing the male-to-female ratio. In China, there is already a bias towards males over females mainly because males are expected to take care of their elderly parent. Since China has a one-child policy and since the Chinese culture promotes the birth of males, parents have the option of sex-selective abortions. Moreover, if these countries controlled other attributes, such as athleticism or intelligence, it could result in super-humans with potential benefits of improving the economy. For example, international companies may want to relocate their efforts to hire employees that offer the greatest talent. This has the potential to create an elitist population that results in a divide between countries at a macro-level. It has been reported that the world’s largest genetic institute, the Beijing Genetics Institute (BGI), China, already has samples from of over 2,000 high IQ individuals. Scientists at this institution hope to compare their genes to those of “average” people to determine what sets the smart ones apart. Once they better understand which “intelligence genes” to look for, they could allow parents to pick embryos with high IQs.
On that note, it would also create a divide between the rich and poor. The cost of developing a ‘designer baby’ today starts at $20,000 USD but as the technology progresses, the price is likely toeventually become financially viable to a larger segment of the population. Additionally, others argue that if international policies and regulations between countries are not created for, or against, the use of these kinds of technologies, prospective parents could outsource the “design” of their babies to other countries. Imagine having babies “made in China.”
Like it or not, here they come.
Genetically enhanced designer babies are perhaps inevitable in the coming decades. Some countries already allow pre-screening of embryos for diseases while others do not. The question is, where do we draw the line? The eradication of disease? Healthier, happier children? Or a global arms race for a superior population with enhanced physic and intelligence? One thing we can be sure of is that regulations and laws will likely undergo significant flux as genetic technologies evolve.
Karan Kumar is an Honors of Business Administration candidate at the Ivey Business School at Western University. In addition to loving science, he is also passionate about technology and is constantly learning about new developments. He hopes to launch his career in either consulting or marketing. This essay is the product of a science-writing internship in David Smith’s Lab at Western.
