The Call For Ban On ‘Designer Babies’

IN a world of entrenched relativistic values and unbridled consumerism, the call made the other day by a group of United States scientists and activists for a global ban on genetic modification of human embryos, is a salutary development and a forceful voice against a portentous abuse of technology. That these scientists and activists have cited the irreversible negative impact of this biomedical technology on humanity is also a step forward in the profound appreciation of the dignity of the human person.

Shortly before a meeting of scientists, convened by the United States National Academy of Science in Washington to discuss the ethical and policy issues surrounding the technology, the Centre for Genetics and Society (CGS) and the activist group Friends of the Earth, issued a report decrying a technological innovation, CRISPR/Cas9, for its possibility of strategically editing out aspects of the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA), thereby leading to genetic modification. In their joint open letter to the conference, they argued that although gene editing has therapeutic promise for the treatment of impaired tissues in a fully formed human beings, like new technologies, it could also pose great harm.

They observed that: “The implementation of heritable human genetic modification – often referred to as the creation of ‘genetically modified human’ or ‘designer babies’ – could irrevocably alter the nature of human species and society”; and further argued that: “Once the process (of gene modification) begins, there will be no going back. This is a line we must not cross.”

Notwithstanding the fears of contra gene modification activists, advocates of the technology posit that gene editing is the first step to scientifically prevent heritable diseases, apart from its benefits for genetic enhancements for great intelligence or athletic ability. What this means is that, with CRISPR/Cas9, affluent persons or a set of privileged group or nation could erase and add traits in the genes of offspring to have whatever qualities they so desire. This is akin to the ‘delete and insert’ that is done when editing an article. Thus genes of offspring could be modified for aesthetic qualities, social utilitarian purposes to the disadvantage of others.

Fundamentally, the position of advocates of this new technology rests on materialistic, pragmatic, relativistic and utilitarian principles. Moreover, this position also rests on rights arguments that ascribe autonomy of generating children to the parents. Thus parents can do whatever they want to their offspring and have a right to decide the way their offspring should be generated.

Whilst such principles seem lofty for a postmodern world of differences, they either overlook some important aspects of human beings relating to values and spirituality, or promote fleeting, short-term hedonistic satisfaction, which may not be competent guide for culture.

Just as gene modification has prospect for scientifically preventing heritable diseases, likewise does it harbour a high probability for unforeseen health risks and congenital problems from gene tinkering. Beside this health risk, a more profound reason why genetic modification of embryos is abhorrent has to do with the indignity to which the human species is being deliberately subjected. The quest for ‘designer babies’ through gene modification is a nauseous reminder of the brutal trend of gadgetry and quick fixes that characterise today’s consumerist culture, wherein people seek short cuts and ignoble means to arrive at good ends. Within the context of this kind of culture, children are desired as ready-made gadgets to suit one’s tastes and serve one’s purpose. In other words, a child tends to be regarded as a product, thereby reinforcing the idea of a laboratory conception that does not conform to the human way of procreating.

This position has the tendency of changing the nature of bringing to birth of a new child, from being an act of “generation” to that of “production.” Thus as one research argues: “Laboratory conception does not only treat the child as a product, but it can affect the way society comes to view a child; that is, as a product or even a personal possession or entitlement over which we must exercise quality control rather than as a gift.”

The dehumanising nature of gene modification, with its disregard for the dignity in human procreation, is exposed by the moral difference between the laboratory tinkering fostered by CRISPR/Cas9 and procreation. Whilst in procreation couples engage in a responsible conjugal act that results in an offspring that is not made by them, in the laboratory genetic editing, an offspring which might have been fertilised in vitro, is the product of some quality control effected by medical scientists in the same manner manufactured goods are subjected to pass standardisation tests. In the light of reasonable pro life thinking, this way of bringing children into existence is not only dehumanising, but it also does not conform to the dignity deserving of human persons.

This paper support is a culture of life fostered by a civilization of love and respect for human dignity. Although it is recognised that given the evolving state of human intelligence, the gift of science is unstoppable; yet, this capacity for continuous intellectual progress must not lead man to his damnation. Just as science is a product of human intelligence, likewise is man’s faculty for goodness, rightness and excellence of character a product of human intelligence. Both must be harnessed, balanced and exercised for man’s continued beneficial existence and promotion of a culture of life and love.