Designer Babies

[_Sophia]

One implication of what I wrote in my two previous posts (that differences in traits mostly come from gene expression variations and not from sequence diversity itself) is the fact that to a great extend we can affect our physical traits by affecting the mechanisms regulating gene expression in our body through for example healthy diet and lifestyle. Regulation itself does have a genetic component (“good genes” may mean the right amount of regulatory elements) but there is a significant environmental component to it as well.

It is amazing just how much in control of our biology we can be. Truly self-made.

[_Sophia]

My take away is that thinking of genes as switches that can be clipped in and spliced out to design for traits is being oversimplistic. How would you integrate this information into the implications for “designer babies”?

Manipulation would mean manipulation of regulatory elements to either increase or decrease gene expression. For example high inteligence maybe someday linked to high expression of genes X,Y,X with low expression of gene A. We all do have all 4 genes in our genetic makeup already. What you have to do is fine tune their expression level to what is necessary.

QUOTE(~Sophia~ @ Mar 9 2007, 12:23 AM) The presence of wide-spread irrationality in a society would be a concern of mine when it comes to cherry picking genetic traits.

Can you expand on this thought. I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

When I was writing that I was thinking of, for example, a religious fanatic selecting some irrational traits for irrational reasons in their child, which would not benefit the kid but actually hinder his life.

[Galileo_Blogs]

Quite interesting comments, especially from Sophia and Kendall.

I can’t add to the discussion of the science of genetic selection, but as for the morality of it, I see no problem with it. I agree with the comments that adding positive genetic features such as height, intelligence, etc., is really akin to removing negative genetic features, such as genetic predispositions to disease. Why wouldn’t a parent want to have the best possible child, both for the child’s sake and his own? Why shouldn’t that include giving that child greater intelligence or more beautiful physical features as much as removing from him the gene for Down’s syndrome or multiple sclerosis?

As for the potential of genetic selection causing some sort of genetic risk to mankind, an imagined potential risk is not the same thing as an actual risk. Imagining potential harms is exactly the tactic of those who would regulate all human innovations so that, unless something is expressly permitted by the regulator, it is forbidden. What if that new drug has an unknown problem? What if that financial innovation destabilizes the system? What if…

Any new idea or technology or medical procedure that is good should be tried. If it turns out that there is an unforeseen negative consequence of deploying it, deal with it at that time. The self-interest of the entrepreneur, innovator, inventor and his financial backers and customers ensures that the outcome of these innovations is beneficial the vast majority of the time. That is why, even though some businesses fail, new drugs harm, bridges collapse, etc., our standard of living keeps rising so dramatically as all these new ideas are put into action.

The bottom line is that it is rational to presume that an innovation will be beneficial unless there is concrete, specific evidence that it will not be.

[Moebius]

Let me add two more sets of questions, more clearly this time:

1. Is it moral to genetically engineer a child BEYOND what you and your partner can possibly conceive? And at what point does that child stop being your own biologically? Does it matter?

2. Is it moral to create, through genetic engineering, superior bodily features or even completely different organs that doesn’t presently exist in the human population? If yes, would there be a limit to how much improvement you can do? At some point does the child cease to be human, whatever your definition of humanity may be?

[miseleigh]

At least for the first one, a ‘no’ answer would also imply that it’s immoral to adopt, since they’re not your ‘real’ children. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the child is (or could be) biologically yours.

As for two, I don’t see why not… the species barrier is viable offspring, so as long as my kid could reproduce with gills, hell, let him have gills. At least I would never have to worry about drowning. The reproduction argument isn’t much of a barrier anyway, since we’d be able to engineer his kids, and their kids… Would they be human? Maybe not, but they’d still be rational animals. I would be careful about making my kid look different from other people, so he doesn’t get ridiculed or beat up or something, but gills would rock, and webbed toes to go with them, and built-in sunscreen, and whatever else we could dream up. The morality of it, for me anyway, seems to equate to living with intelligent, rights-respecting extra-terrestrials, or artificially intelligent robots.

Edit: Note: I am not Objectivist, I am just a student of Oism, so don’t take my word for it.

[KendallJ]

I’m with miseleigh on this one (and two).

Why is the barrier necessary? I can think of all sort of “Is it moral to X beyond your capabilities?” sorts of questions when it comes to raising children. (e.g. is it moral to educate your children beyond what you and your wife can earn? - assuming you magically come into the means). Why wouldn’t it be?

[DavidOdden]

1. Is it moral to genetically engineer a child BEYOND what you and your partner can possibly conceive? And at what point does that child stop being your own biologically? Does it matter?

I don’t understand the question. Are you asking whether it is moral for two people to use technological methods to create a pregnancy that can’t arise by the old-fashioned method, such as in vitro fertilization? I cannot imagine why it would not be. Are you asking whether it would be moral to change the genetic material before conception so that the resulting child would, I dunno, have blond hair when both parents have black hair? Sure, why not?

[KendallJ]

Ladies and Gentlemen…

Some examples of designer babies. Wolf babies that is.

1. First up, since Megan wanted webbed feet, we have this little guy. No gills, but does have webbed feet, a water resistant coat and soft mouth for retrieving water fowl.

2. Next up the “roto-rooters” of the designer baby world. These guys will be tenacious hunters, and have no fear of small tight spaces, and specifically love to dig. If you have a vermin problem, these are your ticket.

3. The all-terrain, “low-temperature model”. When grown these guys will have the ability to survive in snow and temperatures easily dipping down to 40 below.

4. This little guy. I have no idea what he’s good for, but he’ll probably not break 5 lbs. ever.

5. These guys will have a natural ability to herd flock animals.

6. This guy will probably top 200 lbs and drool alot. If you want your walls slimed, he’s the one.

Not to be too tongue in cheek, and I realize there is a difference ethically between children and “designer wolves”, but the fact is that these animals have been genetically engineered by man to the point that they don’t even resemble their original anscestor, in either appearance or in behavior. yes, their behaviors can be seen to be similar and once one knows they all derived from similar animals, one can see how their behaviors might be derivatives of each other, but frankly they are entirely different. But because we only see the final result, it seems perfectly normal to us.

Oh, and this guy. You can’t have him. He’s mine.

[Galileo_Blogs]

Those are well-designed babies, indeed, Kendall. I say, humans should design their babies, thereby directing man-made “evolution” that will take humans to an even higher level. For example, increase the number of spindle neurons (see this thread) to make man conceptualize better, make him taller, more beautiful and more disease-resistant.

I agree with a comment made in a prior post that human reproductive choices are acts of genetic selection. Why not make those selections in the lab dish? In the lab genetic preferences can be precisely targeted, not just generalities such as “wide hips, big eyes and a hell of a mind.”

One of my favorite shows as a child was The Six Million Dollar Man. In the opening sequence, the astronaut-hero Steve Austin suffers a plane crash, and then the doctors operate on him, implanting cutting edge bionic technology into his body. As the narrator says:

“Steve Austin: astronaut. A man barely alive. We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better…stronger…faster.”

You see him lifting cars with his bionic arm, leaping to the tops of buildings and running faster than cars.

Of course, I always wondered why his bionic arm never pulled out of his shoulder socket, since only his arm was bionic, not the rest of his body. ??

But if we can genetically engineer a man “better than he was before, better, stronger, faster,” I say, “Why not?”