Is It Ethical to Genetically Engineer Babies for Designer Purposes’ Essay Example

healthy ones into the mother's womb. Advances in our knowledge of the human genome and gene modification have made it possible to replace faulty DNA sections with healthy ones, potentially treating inherited diseases in embryos.

Germ line therapy or germ line editing is a procedure that is carried out on an egg, sperm, or a small fertilized embryo. While it has been successfully conducted on animal embryos, performing this technique on humans is presently against the law. Nevertheless, modifying faulty genes in the cells of a grown child or an adult, which is referred to as body gene therapy, is legal and can be employed for treating conditions like cystic fibrosis. In vitro fertilization (IVF), with its modern reproductive techniques, enables doctors to select the gender of the embryo via two distinct methods.

The text explains two methods for selecting sperm to fertilize eggs. The initial method involves segregating the father's sperm and opting for either 'male' or 'female' sperm to fertilize the egg. The second technique, known as Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), is employed to assess embryos for genetic disorders. In the course of in vitro fertilization (IVF), when the sperm and egg are merged in a laboratory, one cell is extracted from the developing embryo after a few days and scrutinized to ascertain its gender or detect any abnormal genes.

Despite the surprising lack of impact on embryo development when only one cell is removed, it should be noted that genetic screening techniques like sperm selection and PGD effectively prevent different genetic diseases. However, these techniques have also sparked ethical debates. Scientists are continuously enhancing their knowledge of genetic mechanisms and gene interaction dynamics. In the

future, PGD will allow for a broader range of illnesses to be screened and selected.

In the future, it may be possible to create 'designer babies' by selecting specific features such as height, eye color, facial appearance, intelligence, and personality. The ability to genetically modify humans for improved well-being and treatment of debilitating illnesses is becoming a reality. Recent advancements in genetics also allow individuals to manipulate their own genetic makeup to enhance muscles, height, and intelligence. They can also choose the sex, hair color, and personality of their children, ultimately creating flawless "super humans." However, there are significant ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering. Some argue that potential risks to human safety are concerning and that the technology is likely to be misused for non-medical purposes like enhancing athletic performance. Others believe altering a baby's genetic traits threatens our humanity itself.

Ethicists argue that the concept of parenthood is undermined by genetic engineering, as it reduces children to commodities and possessions. They also believe that advancements in genetics are not socially necessary and will only widen the gap between the rich and poor. The question remains whether humans should have the choice for genetic modification or if parents should be able to manipulate their children's traits. There is also debate on whether current research in human genomics should be permanently prohibited and what alternative options exist. Ultimately, the authority for decision-making in these matters is uncertain as no one knows the consequences of altering God's creation.

A thorough examination of research reveals that biological entities are composed of multiple cells, each containing a nucleus housing DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA).

DNA, the hereditary material found in plants, animals, and bacteria, carries

vital information about an organism's structure and function. Genes, composed of DNA sequences, play a pivotal role in determining traits such as growth and size. Additionally, they facilitate the passing on of characteristics from one generation to the next. The manipulation of these inheritable traits is achieved through genetic engineering. Over time, humans have acknowledged that selectively breeding animals with desired traits can lead to offspring possessing favorable attributes - a principle that also applies to agricultural seed selection.

In 1863, an Austrian scientist named Mendel made a groundbreaking discovery regarding traits being passed down through genes. This discovery laid the foundation for genetics and modern practices like "Artificial Selection". True Genetic Engineering involves introducing DNA directly into cells. A significant milestone in Human Genetic Engineering happened in 1988 with the initiation of the Human Genome Project by Congress. This project aimed to map and organize the genetic code of humans and other species.

There are three commonly used methods for introducing a foreign gene into a plant or animal: Plasmid, Vector, and Biolistic. The plasmid method is frequently employed to modify the genome of bacteria. This involves treating both the bacterium and the selected gene with the same restriction enzyme, which creates sticky ends on both the bacterial DNA and the gene's DNA. These sticky ends can then be joined together. Scientists choose bacteria that have incorporated the new gene and use these bacteria to introduce the gene into plants or mammals.

Using viral vectors to transport DNA to the host is how vectorization is accomplished. This method, similar to the plasmid method, but more effective in introducing desired traits into host cells. Once inside the host

cell, the trait carried by the viral vector will be replicated using its own genetic information. In contrast, the biolistic method is commonly employed for genetically engineering plants, specifically enhancing pesticide resistance in crops. The roots of human genetic engineering can be traced back to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in 1978, which laid the foundation for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD entails microscopic examination of embryos to detect signs of genetic disorders.

PGD can identify genetic diseases, leading to the destruction of embryos carrying those disease alleles. The ethical, moral, and religious implications are evident. Moreover, PGD allows for gender determination, enabling parents to decide whether to continue with an embryo based on the desired sex. This capability could impact the balance between males and females in society and raise concerns about controlling and limiting births.

Germline gene therapy is the most promising method for directly modifying human genes. Instead of using the current preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) technique to screen embryos for disorders, germline therapy involves introducing new genes into the cells. This allows for the introduction of desirable traits to be inherent in the embryo, similar to natural inheritance. Cloning involves creating a genetically identical copy of an organism.

Scientists planned to utilize somatic cell nuclear transfer to create the first human clone, similar to the technique employed in creating Dolly the sheep. Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves the refinement of human inheritance characteristics, as introduced by Sir Francis Galton in the 19th century.

Although the 20th century saw a focus on positive Eugenics, it also witnessed the aggressive promotion and application of negative Eugenics, which involved sterilization of those deemed unfit. This resulted in the movement

becoming associated with Hitler and the Nazi party, leading to a decline in its popularity and social acceptance.

Various methods are available for ensuring the sex of a baby, some lacking scientific evidence or novelty. One method is Sperm Sorting, where the father's sperm is divided into male and female chromosome carriers before artificially inseminating the mother with the desired gender's sperm. Another technique is In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), which utilizes advanced technology at the Las Vegas fertility group to achieve successful pregnancies. Prenatal Diagnosis also presents an option as ultrasound examinations or amniocentesis tests can determine fetal sex. However, it should be noted that under these methods, abortion remains the only means to prevent giving birth to an undesired-sexed baby.

Pre-Implantation Diagnosis, using current scientific methods, involves undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment for individuals desiring a child of their preferred gender. The process entails extracting unfertilized eggs from females and placing them in a petri dish for fertilization. Subsequently, the resulting zygotes (eight cells) are separated and subjected to analysis through Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), which is frequently employed for genetic disorder testing. However, conducting an extensive examination is necessary as only specific disorders can be tested without it. Therefore, identifying the disorder beforehand is crucial.

e. It is understood that parents can pass on disorders or diseases to their offspring. Current scientific knowledge suggests that certain genetic abnormalities can be detected, indicating the presence of a disorder and determining an embryo's gender. However, currently it is not feasible to intentionally create a customized baby. Although there are theories and experiments with animals, no one has attempted to genetically manipulate a human. Nonetheless, scientists will eventually

have the capability to produce humans with desired traits and characteristics. To accomplish this, scientists must continue studying and identifying the precise genes responsible for each individual's development and growth.

Additional work will be required to edit the DNA and guarantee that the offspring displays desired traits. Presently, it is acknowledged that human development is a highly intricate process involving complex interactions and interdependencies, rather than just manipulating one gene to alter eye color. Several countries permit sperm sorting, and prenatal diagnosis is a widely utilized medical technique that encounters less legal scrutiny. Similarly, conventional methods are typically not controlled by legislation.

The regulations for non-medical sex selection using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) vary worldwide. Although it is not illegal in countries like the USA and Australia, there are differences in how it is regulated. In the USA, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) permits physicians to offer methods of sex selection before conception under specific circumstances if they are considered safe and effective by the ASRM Ethics Committee (2001). Other countries govern PGD and sex selection through state laws, allowing them only when a genetic disorder associated with gender exists. However, these laws differ greatly between countries and remain subjects of ongoing debate and review. For instance, while Germany permits prenatal diagnosis testing for genetic diseases, it imposes its own restrictions on this matter.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a worldwide technique used in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom to assess embryos for genetic disorders or diseases. This procedure involves examining fertilized eggs, which allows for pregnancy termination if an embryo is found to have a disorder or disease. In the UK,

PGD also determines whether an embryo has a genetic disorder or disease or matches with a sibling who has such conditions. Moreover, in cases of high risk for gender-specific genetic disorders or diseases in the UK, the sex of the embryo can be tested. The pursuit of creating designer babies has been ongoing for many years.

There are several methods for sex selection, as previously mentioned, and there are even more options available. Many people are willing to share their own methods if you ask around. Choosing specific traits and features has been a practice for as long as humans have been reproducing. Subconsciously, human nature tends to select partners with attractive characteristics and desired traits for their future children. This process is not fully conscious but also not completely random. In wealthier societies, we often have fewer reservations about altering ourselves to meet societal standards and personal desires. For instance, pursuing plastic surgery if you want to become wealthy or easily obtaining mood-altering or performance-enhancing pills from the pharmacist when feeling unwell. So why is it considered odd to desire beautiful characteristics in our offspring? Why do scientific approaches to this issue generate controversy? It's important to note that most of these methods involve discarding embryos, which is a subject of debate in various areas and is further discussed elsewhere on this site.

Beside the issue of the right to life, there are other debates that arise: global and local gender imbalance, fear of a new eugenics movement, and the identification of diseases/disorders through PGD - is it all beneficial? In our society, there is a prevailing sexism where women are often valued more than men.

In 1990, Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize-winning economist, shed light on this issue. [Source: ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M]

According to a paper published by html, around 100 million women are considered 'missing'. The author of the paper claims that the majority of these women are from Asia and North Africa, and asserts that this is primarily due to a lack of essential healthcare and social support provided to girls. In addition to Sen's conclusions, others have suggested that infanticide and sex-selective abortion may also contribute to this gender imbalance. Emily Oster, an economics graduate student, has since presented findings suggesting that approximately half of the 'missing women' can be attributed to a correlation between rates of hepatitis B. There is evidence indicating that pregnant women infected with Hepatitis B have a higher likelihood of giving birth to boys, although the reason behind this remains unknown. Oster proposes that areas with a higher prevalence of Hepatitis B coincide with the regions where Sen's 'missing women' are observed. As a result, Oster suggests that this phenomenon could account for up to half of the 'missing women' identified by Sen.

Despite the staggering number of 50 million women missing, even without the use of PGD, this statistic holds significant relevance in the ongoing discussion surrounding the utilization of PGD for sex selection. It begs the question: what consequences may arise if PGD becomes a common method for choosing the sex of offspring? On the contrary, shouldn't we value individual freedoms and the right to make choices? Shouldn't our priority be to educate society and eradicate its current misogynistic mindset? Moreover, if technology were more widely accessible, a new equilibrium might eventually be

established. It is essential to remember that sex selection is not an easily obtainable solution. It entails challenging and expensive procedures, demanding a genuine determination to achieve desired outcomes. Many sources emphasizing genetic engineering and related domains highlight disease eradication as the primary objective. Undoubtedly, that is a commendable goal.

PGD is commonly utilized to identify embryos carrying a genetic disease or disorder and to discard those deemed 'unsuitable' for implantation. Additionally, prenatal testing and termination of fetuses with specific conditions are practiced. Scientists have discovered numerous genetic disorders that can be identified through these methods, leading to their widespread adoption by parents concerned about passing on genetic diseases or disorders. However, the use of this technology is not universally acclaimed. Disability rights groups and bioethicists argue against the notion of eliminating people with disabilities from society, contending that labeling them as 'abnormal' challenges the diversity of human life and diminishes compassion within society.

Many people argue that prenatal and PGD testing is seen as a form of discrimination, as it targets genetic conditions that may not produce symptoms until later in life. Some believe that people with these conditions can lead fulfilling lives with proper medical treatment. However, there are also genetic disorders that are undeniably horrific and justifiably candidates for PGD. The challenge lies in deciding the cut-off point between these extremes and understanding how societal pressures will influence such decision-making. Additionally, there are concerns about how we perceive our offspring. Will children become mere commodities designed to conform to our desires, rather than individuals in their own right? Could the use of PGD ultimately result in a race of stereotyped, flawless individuals dictated by

changing trends? The responsibility for determining what is acceptable and maintaining ethical use of this technology rests on who? These questions arise amidst a backdrop of approximately three billion chemical letters comprising nucleotide sequences that form 20,000 to 25,000 genes encoding proteins. The intricate workings of genes and their protein products remain largely unknown.

2 Despite comprising only 2% of the human genome, protein-coding genes are well-understood. The remaining DNA sequences, however, still hold many mysteries. Among them are switches that control gene activity, telomeres at the ends of chromosomes that are believed to play a role in aging, and non-functional genomic parasites that only seem to replicate themselves in our bodies. Additionally, about 40-48% of the genome is composed of repeat sequences. Even with the complete sequence of the genome, we still need to understand how this data relates to gene expression.

The sequences serve as a mere parts list for a complex machine, of which we are only just beginning to uncover its design. Scholars are increasingly recognizing the significance of genes in human society. In 1998, Diane Paul, a political scientist from the University of Massachusetts, acknowledged that she had previously referred to the belief that genes greatly influence differences in mentality and temperament as "hereditarian" or "biological determinist." These terms were used without controversy, but today they would be subject to debate. The view that was deemed unfavorable by these labels is now widely accepted by both scientists and the general public. Ultimately, our understanding continues to expand each day, and it is not far-fetched to expect that we will soon have the ability to confidently predict the genetic traits we pass on

to future generations.

Disease, in its essence, is impacted by genes. A disease can be inherited or caused by the body reacting to environmental factors like a virus. Currently, human genetic engineering is predominantly accomplished using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis or Selection, also known as PGD or PGS. The process doesn't involve actual engineering; instead, it entails extracting single cells from embryos using the same technique employed in In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). These cells are then examined to distinguish those carrying the genetic disorder from those that do not. Embryos with the genetic disorder are discarded, while those without it are reintroduced into the uterus with the hope of giving birth to a healthy baby.

Only specific genetic disorders can be tested for; there is no general testing available. If parents are concerned about their unborn child inheriting a disease or disorder, they have the option to test their embryos for that specific condition.

Some examples of disorders that can be tested for include:

• Downs Syndrome
• Tay-Sach Disease
• Sickle Cell Anaemia
• Cystic Fibrosis
• Huntington's disease

There are many other disorders that can also be tested for, and medical and scientific institutes are constantly researching and developing new tests. While this procedure is generally accepted, it has critics who argue that human life begins at conception and therefore the embryo should not be interfered with. Others believe we should not manipulate our genetic makeup as the results may be unstable and unpredictable.

This technique has another application, namely gender selection, which is a more controversial aspect. In certain cases, certain disorders or diseases are specific to a particular gender. Therefore, instead of testing for the disease

or disorder itself, the embryo's gender is tested and the 'undesirable' gender is discarded. This raises significant concerns about the ethical implications of gender selection and its potential consequences on the overall gender balance of the human population. Another recent advancement involves testing embryos for tissue compatibility.

The embryos are screened to find a match with a sibling who has a genetic disease or disorder or is at risk of developing one. The goal is to create a baby who can donate tissue to the sibling, known as Sibling Savers. This method has sparked controversy because the testing is not primarily aimed at eliminating the disease. However, it represents progress in the pursuit of treating and curing genetic diseases rather than eradicating them. It also explores the potential of using genes as remedies.

Gene Therapy involves introducing a modified gene to potentially suppress a tumor. The aim is to eliminate the disease from future generations, making it non-inheritable. This is called Human Germline Engineering, which targets the genes carried in the ova and sperm. Germline engineering and gene therapy not only have the potential to eradicate diseases but also impact longevity, capacity, adaptability, and fashion.

In 1976, researchers successfully manipulated the genes of mice to create more accurate disease models and test subjects. This was achieved by introducing new genes into the mice's embryos, resulting in permanent genetic changes. However, it wasn't until January 11, 2001, that a significant breakthrough occurred in genetic manipulation. Scientists in Oregon announced the birth of ANDi, a baby rhesus monkey with a genetically modified genome that included a jellyfish gene. With this development, human genetic research entered a new era, as

it marked the creation of a genetically modified primate, one of mankind's closest relatives.

Scientists announced in Nature that the sequencing of over 97% of the entire human genome was completed one month later, which was five years ahead of schedule. This achievement was considered a significant advancement towards comprehending human disease. With the newfound knowledge of the human genome, our task is now to discover how to manipulate and utilize it according to our desires. In early 2003, Dr. Jacques Cohen, a fertility doctor from New Jersey, disclosed the first instance of modifying the human genome.

According to Cohen, his groundbreaking infertility treatments led to the birth of two babies who had DNA from two different mothers. This marked the first instance of human germline genetic modification resulting in healthy children. Despite being subtle, these changes carried significant symbolic implications. Arthur Caplan, the director of the Centre for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, described it as a momentous ethical shift. As science continues to evolve, so does our moral comprehension and consciousness. When the term "gene therapy" initially became common in our vocabulary, most Americans celebrated its innovation, creativity, and potential for medical advancement.

However, the concept of "super humans" scares people as they realize the deep social and ethical consequences. The public is not prepared for the possibility of creating a new breed of humans with "better genes." Across the country, hundreds of citizens rallied calling for a halt in human cloning research. A Time/CNN poll discovered that over ninety percent of Americans opposed creating "genetically superior human beings."

Patients with muscular dystrophy experience muscle cell deterioration due to old age, lack of

daily physical activity, or chronic illnesses that restrict movement and impair the immune system. Traditional methods like rigorous physical therapy are not feasible for individuals of all ages.

The current drugs available mostly consist of high amounts of steroids which are used to stimulate the growth of cells. However, these drugs are not specific to muscle cells and can result in unwanted side effects such as heart disease due to excessive hormone levels. People eagerly anticipate a gene therapy that can provide relief for muscular dystrophy or reverse the inevitable muscle loss that occurs with old age. Professor H. Lee Sweeney from the University of Pennsylvania has developed a synthetic gene that, when introduced into mice muscles through injection, can prevent and even reverse the natural decline of muscle cells. A more recent development occurred in August 2004 when scientists in California announced the successful creation of "Marathon Mice," a new type of genetically-modified mice that exhibited increased muscles and endurance without the need for exercise, and remained free from obesity.

Despite the fact that the therapy has not received approval for human usage, the goal of curing muscular dystrophy is within reach. However, this therapy presents ethical implications and abundant risks to human safety based on scientific reports regarding the current state of muscle genetic enhancement. Experiments conducted on mammals have demonstrated that medical risks can be insurmountable and even severe in certain instances.

Majority of the test subjects perished due to their immune systems reacting to the introduced foreign gene. The therapy falls short in meeting the rigorous standards of human safety, effectiveness, and safeguarding. Let's imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that these health

risks can be eradicated by enhancing the procedure. But what if we employ this medical technology for non-medical purposes, like enhancing athletic performance? The extensive use of steroids in doping scandals during the Olympics implies that numerous athletes are eager to experiment with genetic muscle enhancement. Envision sprinters effortlessly completing a mile in under three minutes without any exertion.

What is truly disturbing here? It is the challenge of determining right from wrong when faced with such an ethical issue. On one hand, it represents a remarkable advancement in science and technology, viewed as a miracle by scientists and believers in this theory. On the other hand, opponents vehemently denounce it as a form of terrorism, arguing that it disrupts the natural order and defies what God has bestowed upon us. Based on interviews with my family and friends, I am inclined to agree that they consider genetically engineering babies for aesthetic purposes to be morally acceptable. Every individual is unique, and that is the essence of their specialness. In the end, beauty and intelligence are not prerequisites for survival in this world.

Logical skills are the sole requirement for survival in our world, making everything else unnecessary. Altering God's creation through genetic engineering is ethical since it does not harm the body. However, I firmly believe that creating designer babies through genetic engineering is illegal from both a religious and human rights standpoint. Why would we alter what God has given us? We cannot predict if these modified babies will be a complete failure. Ultimately, genetically engineering babies for design purposes is clearly unethical due to its illegality in various aspects.

Based on all the interviews and

evidence, the bibliography includes the following sources:

Bibliography

1. http://web.mit.edu/murj/www/v12/v12-Features/v12-f4.pdf
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering