The scientific origin of designer babies - Research Paper Example

The scientific origin of designer babies: Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a scientific procedure that allows the screening of an embryo to determine desirable and non-desirable traits. The development of PGD traces back to Robert Edwards and Richard Gardner in 1967. Since then, PGD has undergone modifications to enhance compatibility with human needs. Kehoe, Chitty and Homfray in their article “Reproduction Genetics” note that various advancements of the treatments original form currently address issues such as monogenic disorders, mitochondrial disorders and Hereditary multiple exostoses (40). Ole Peter Galaasen in his article “future of designer babies” attributes the current advancements made in PGD to advancements made in molecular genetics and reproductive technology (1). The future of the designer babies in regard to the current scientific advancements seems bright. Basis of Controversies in Religion & Science: Saying that the subject of designer babies is controversial is an understatement. Even controversial scholars such as Satoshi Kanazawa have expressed their doubts over this issue. In his article “Common misconceptions about science III: Designer babies” Kanazawa states: “Even if scientists acquired perfect knowledge on the manipulations associated to the human genome, a “designer baby” requires traits comprising of heritability not less than 100% …seeing as the traits studied such as intelligence, personality and height fall short of the specified 100%, there is no guarantee of a perfect designer baby. Parents will still depend on a natural course of genetic “events” and simply put their faith on probability” (2). This shows that genetic selection from a scientific realm perspective has its huddles. Most traits parents would like to modify in their offspring such as intelligence are subject to the influence of multiple of genes. Subjecting the practice further to the scrutiny of politics, and religion cripples it even more. Kanazawa is of the opinion that the uproar that looms over the idea of designer babies is curiously blown out of proportion. He believes that through natural selection, an idea originally coined by Charles Darwin; humans have been for centuries creating designer babies. The above perspective in regard to genetically modifies and selected babies assert the shortcomings of the idea. However, holding all factors constant, that is, assuming genetic modification is a success; implications have to be looked into. Scholars are at war with themselves in regard to the political, religious and scientific debates sparked by designer babies. Zahedi and Larijani in their article “Medical Genetic Ethics: Islamic Views and Considerations in Iran” point out that Islam as much as other religion appreciates the benefits of technological and scientific advancements. Legal and health issues aside, what do scriptures and doctrines dictate? To this question Zahedi and Larijani assert that the issue of reproduction remains a sacred one. All scientific advancements in regard to reproduction are subject to rigorous religious scrutiny (1). They point out social and medical ethical issues such as fairness of use of genetic information acquired for medical trials (50). They further indicate the fear of the current medical trials aimed at the betterment of human life’s turning hazardous. In particular, they mention cloning stating “Cloning is subject to substantial prohibition due to the majority of Muslim reference decrees” (51). Kunich, an avid supporter of cloning, makes reference to religious decrees as superstition used to instigate fear: “Bad facts make bad law! If there ever was a classic example of this it is the human cloning turmoil, in which science and fact so often overwhelmed by superstition and fear” (137). Kunich reflects upon the negative debates against cloning and to extent designer babies as offensive ideas. He argues that laws against cloning do not derive from facts but rather on unsupported hearsay and speculations. Speculations about the dangers of designer babies are, therefore, not enough to disapprove the fact proven benefits. Religion derives from doctrines largely based on humanitarianism principles. This from a non-religious affiliate’s perspective finding cures for diseases is an act of goodness, being helpful is an act of charity as prescribed in religions such as Christianity and Islam. Scholars accuse religious leaders of hypocrisy. Barker in his “reviews of politics, religion, literature and morals” states that “…theologians are all dishonest in their recourse to new interpretations of the bible with a view to bring its teachings into harmony with science…” (594). Even religious leaders seek medical assistance. In view of this, its perplexing how they draw the line on what medical procedure are religiously permissible and which ones are not. Politics: The aspect of cloning brings in the most controversial spectators and contributors to the designer baby issue, politicians. Sonia M. Suter in her publication, “A Brave New World of Designer Babies” tries to explore the differences in political opinions on designer babies by examining historical events. The government’s support of the Eugenetics movement affected the freedom of the feeble minded (906) and specifications of immigration acts (907). This was navigation intended towards preservation and betterment of the American offspring such that it is not “contaminated” by biologically inferior genes (908). This principle was a driving force behind the Nazis regime. Decades later, the issue of genetically modified and selected babies replaces Eugenetics to take centre stage. Several critics have questioned the effects of embracing this scientific advancement. Franklin and Roberts have the view that too much genetic selection modification and selection will lead to spiritual damage, lose of humanity and may be manipulated by individual for evil intention (19&25). Much as Suter refers to designer babies as positive neoeugenics she expresses the fear of procedures such as gene therapy and transfer (if successful) may form a basis for the re-emergence of classical Eugenetics (932). The result of which “will exert a coercive effect on individuals’ reproductive choices” (936). Even the media has given their opinion to this regard, for instance the thriller Splice (2011), reflects genetic modification in a negative light. Politics and religion define the social environments on human beings. This means that religious and political ideologies interact to help individuals make opinions regarding an issue. It is clear that most political opinions are self serving and, therefore, change with the needs of a reigning political ideology. Does the Embryo have rights? However, embryos in most countries receive protection from laws against interferences such as abortion, and other medical intrusions. Wellman in his publication “Medical Law And Moral Rights” supports these laws by arguing that fetal rights should extend to protecting it against the mother, father, physician, and any other party with ill intentions towards it. Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis significantly reduces the chances of a mother, for instance delivering, a baby prone to developing cancer. In instances where the parents make a decision in selecting the genes of their child there are a number of ethical issues such as, what if the child grows up to hate what they are? Do they then have legal ground to sue their parents? What are the chances that the chosen genes are worse than the ones nature intended the child to posses? Galaasen highlights some of the benefits of designer babies. His most notable assertion is that of detecting genetic incurable illnesses before the baby conception and subsequent birth. The aim of this is to avoid the “unnecessary” emotional turmoil associated with terminating undesirable offspring, and economic burden that comes with raising children with incurable conditions. He then goes on to explore the challenges of this presumably brilliant idea. The first ethical issue he explores is one in relation to a parent’s choice. As influential persons publicly proclaim their stand on the matter, it seems the ordinary parent has no say. Galaasen points out that the parents’ procreative liberty is a factor to consider especially when making laws against or for this scientific practice (2). After all, for the designer baby to be successful scientists need to investigate the couples intending to get the baby. In enacting abortion laws, experts had to examine a lot of data. This data derive from, culture religion and politics. The debates in this regard focused on the aspects of the rights bestowed by law on an embryo. In the U.S parents can choose the sex of their unborn child. However, as reported by Blazer in “Ethics, The Embryo--scientific Discovery and Medical”, The Council of Europe only allows medical techniques to choose a child’s sex if the fetus is at risk of genetically hereditary disease (192). Conclusion: Whether genetic selection of the features of unborn children is legal or illegal as a controversy, does not stand on its own. There are other factors to consider such as politics, religion and science. The crucial aspect in this debate is who is representing the embryo without a selfish underlying motive. In the event that scientists get the go ahead to produce designer babies, it will result in heightened animosity between religion and science. People will inevitably ignore the feeling of the child not considering its feelings. The American constitution protects the rights of unborn children through anti-euthanizing laws and restrictions on abortion privileges. A time will come when the same government that approves designer babies will protect unborn babies from “designer” procedures. Works Cited: Barker, Joseph. Barkers' review of politics, religion, literature and morals. Journal of education, science, and co-operation: Sept. 8, 1861-Aug. 1,17 Michigan: Barker and co, 2009. Blazer, Shraga. Ethics, The Embryo--scientific Discovery and Medical. Basel: Karger Publishers, 2005. Farzaneh Zahedi, Bargher Larijani. Medical Genetic Ethics: Islamic Views and Considerations in Iran. Tehran: Tehran University, 2006. Galaasen, Ole Peter. "The Future of Designer Babies." Plausible Futures Newsletter (2007). Kanazawa, Satoshi. "Common misconceptions about science III: Designer babies." The Scientific Fundamentalist (2009). Kunich, John. The Naked Clone: How Cloning Bans Threaten Our Personal Rights. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Sarah Franklin, Celia Roberts. Born and Made: An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Sean Kehoe, Lyn Chitty, Tessa Homfray. Reproductive Genetics. London: RCOG Publication, 2009. Suter, Sonia M. "A Brave New World of Designer Babies?" BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL (2007): 898-968. Wellman, Carl. Medical Law And Moral Rights. New York: Springer, 2005. Barker, J. (2009, september 7). Barkers' review of politics, literature, religion, and morals, and journal of education, science, and co-operation. Retrieved from google books: http://www.books.google.com Blazer, S. (2005). Ethics, The Embryo--scientific Discovery and Medical. Retrieved from google books: http://www.books.google.com Farzaneh Zahedi, B. L. (2006). Medical Genetic Ethics: Islamic Views and Considerations in Iran. Retrieved from http://journals.tums.ac.ir Fundamentalist, T. S. ( 2009, March 8). Common misconceptions about science III: Designer babies. Retrieved from The Scientific Fundamentalist: http://www.psychologytoday.com Galaasen, O. P. (2007, April 7). The Future of Designer Babies. Retrieved from Plausible Futures Newsletter: http://www.plausiblefutures.wordpress.com Kunich, J. C. (2004, January 6). The Naked Clone: How Cloning Bans Threaten Our Personal Rights. Retrieved from Harvard Journal of Law & Technology: http://www.jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles Sarah Franklin, C. R. (2007, August 7). Born and Made:. Retrieved from http://www.press.princeton.edu Sean Kehoe, L. C. (2009). Reproductive Genetics. Retrieved from google books: http://www. books.google.com Suter, S. M. (2005, Feb 22). A BRAVE NEW WORLD OF DESIGNER BABIES. Retrieved from Berkeley Technology Law Journal: http://www.btlj.org/data/articles Wellmn, C. (2005). Medical Law And Moral Rights. Retrieved from Google Books: http://www.books.google.com Read More