Genetically Modifying Our Children: How Far is too Far?
Genetic Modification: Into the Limelight
Just a couple months ago, the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna for their work in developing CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR is a revolutionary gene editing technology that can change the DNA of organisms in order to allow a directed change in physical
characteristics of an embryo; and while it’s an amazing feat of science, it has reignited the debate on the morality of genetically modified babies.
Some proponents of gene editing cite its usefulness in preventing disease and suffering, leading to a better overall life for edited babies. Others opposed to it warn that editing genomes can lead to harsh divides, discrimination, and even eugenics.
The Principle of Procreative Beneficence
Some proponents of genome editing advocate for a moral principle called the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PPB). The PPB states that parents are morally obligated to select the child with the opportunity for the best possible life.
This seems like an intuitive principle. I mean, parents are expected to make choices that influence the wellbeing of their children all of the time. They choose what to feed their children, what to let their children watch on TV, and even how to teach them right from wrong. If we expect parents to decide all these things, why do we shy away from allowing them to use gene-editing to make the best baby possible?
Long story short, there are many reasons why those opposed to the PPB hold their views, but what I want to focus on is the implications of the PPB for the LGBTQIA+ community.
The PPB has been criticized for its possibility to discriminate against people with disability, placing those with disability in a world in which their traits are actively being selected against. I believe this has the same implications for those in the LGBTQIA+ community.
Suppose science finds a gene (or set of genes more likely) that is responsible for homosexuality. The CRISPR/Cas9 technology would theoretically make it possible to eradicate homosexuality.
Now I personally do not wish to have been born straight; and I am sure I don’t have to convince many of you to hold the same belief. I believe that my sexual identity plays a significant role in my values, beliefs, and personality. However, educating ourselves on why a principle like the PPB would want to select against people in our community can be effective in broadening our worldview and help us better explain to others why their reasoning for accepting the PPB is flawed.
A principle such as the PPB may suggest there is moral reason to select against homosexuality. Looking at statistics, it may seem that there is a lot of logic to back up that claim too.
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, LGBTQIA+ youth are statistically significantly more impacted by issues of homelessness, drug abuse, and access to adequate healthcare, so according to the PPB, creating a child without these problems would be morally correct (Williams).
It is interesting to note that all of the problems that arise from identifying as queer are inherently linked to society and the culture we have created. All of the problems like increased risk of homelessness, lack of access to healthcare, and lack of acceptance in general are byproducts of living in a society that has historically oppressed queer people.
Instead of striving to reduce the number of queer people born to protect them from the harms of this world. The world should instead focus on changing the system; changing the culture that has allowed the harm of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Although there are some seemingly logical reasons for using the PPB to select against traits like homosexuality, below I will also explain 3 serious reasons as to why the selection against a population of people does more harm than good.
Eugenics
This is obviously problematic for a number of reasons, the main one being the erasure of a whole group of people. From the holocaust to the genocide of Native Americans; time and time again, history has shown us that destroying a group of people is wrong. The PPB would effectively do this for many minority groups and the cruelty of erasing a whole group of people is not lost when it is happening before birth.
Culture
Selecting against homosexuality, or sexual and gender identities in the LGBTQIA+ community also has serious implications when looking at cultural impacts. The LGBTQIA+ community has influenced popular culture and worldview in countless ways. From the impact on dancing and music courtesy of the ballroom scene; to the influence on fashion from the drag world, the LGBTQIA+ community has been instrumental in shaping culture to what it is today, and getting rid of that in the name of morals would have detrimental effects on the intangible things that keep this world vibrant like art and music.
Damage to Real People
If the PPB were to be implemented today, the selection against LGBTQIA+ identities would undoubtedly send a signal to real people in the LGBTQIA+ community that their lives are less preferable to others. This is problematic because we would be choosing non-existent lives of children over the mental health and well being of people that are alive today.
Takeaway: Science is Intrinsically Political
From the three reasons outlined above, one thing is clear: science can be used in sinister ways to propagate harmful stereotypes and damage vulnerable communities. The purpose of this article is NOT to say that science is bad. It is not to say that some things should not be invented. Rather, the example of CRISPR and the PPB and its relevance to the LGBTQIA+ community is to illustrate the importance of speculating on the possible uses and outcomes of new technologies.
By speculating on the impact that science can have on culture, community, and other real people, we can be better prepared for the real outcomes when they inevitably happen. This creates an intersection of science, morals, ethics, politics, and policy that has been underexplored in the past. It’s an interesting developing field and I cannot wait to see where it takes us.
Sources Cited in this Article:
LGBT Demographic Data Interactive. (January 2019).
Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.
