Comments on: Designer Babies

By: khepi

khepi — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:15:52 +0000

People picking the sex of their babies and possible genetic engineering of the future would be an expensive option open only to the wealthy; people picking the sex of their babies might be desirable if it was wholesale and everyone preferred one sex; it would lead to reducing the world’s population. The bulk of the world’s population lives in incredible poverty. The bulk of the population would not be doing any of those things.

By: The Rogues Gallery » Blog Archive » Designer Baby Hubub

The Rogues Gallery » Blog Archive » Designer Baby Hubub — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:24:36 +0000

[...] for genetic diseases. More recently, it’s been used to predict gender with 100% accuracy. It works by harmlessly taking a redundant cell from a 3 day old fertilized human embryo and performing [...]

By: Darren

Darren — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:49:43 +0000

I’ve heard two arguments that at least pass the “smell test” — that is, they seem to have some basis in reality.

One is a concern that parents being able to select a large number of characteristics might be bad for our species’s genetic diversity. I’m not really qualified to evaluate the merits of the argument, but it seems like something that’s worthwhile to research and model.

The other argument is social. If these technologies are only available to the wealthy, then certain phenotype traits could someday “mark” people as wealthy children. Some people are concerned with the implications of that.

However, I think most people who are opposed to this type of “fiddling” are having a visceral reaction. For some, it smacks of the eugenics programs espoused by various fascist regimes in the past century; for others, it’s a sense that science might be “playing God”.

By: mdcaton

mdcaton — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:59:39 +0000

What’s also bad is this new “designer baby” scare has given ammunition to the social conservatives of the world to introduce bills further restricting abortion – here’s one in Oklahoma:

http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/03/oklahoma-legislature-protecting-you.html

By: Calli Arcale

Calli Arcale — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:30:05 +0000

When my dad was still delivering babies (he gradually shifted out of that work, letting the younger doctors take the inevitable middle-of-the-night marathon labor calls), he had a gimmick he’d use. Early in the pregnancy, he’d tell the expectant couple that he predicted it’d be a boy (or a girl). He’d then write the opposite sex down on a piece of paper. Then, when the child was born, he could claim victory either way.

Of course, since he’s fond of skepticism, he’d immediately explain how he predicted their baby’s sex so accurately. Mostly so the patient would get the joke, I think.

By: eiskrystal

eiskrystal — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:19:15 +0000

I remember reading about an old con where fortune tellers would tell you the sex of your baby in advance, and if they were wrong you could get your money back…

I wonder what the payment to return fee ratio is for not getting the blue eyed child you asked for.

By: RickK

RickK — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:44:51 +0000

Nobody has mentioned “Gattaca” yet. That movie explores many potential social effects of “designer babies”.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:41:03 +0000

It is so early in the process and there are so many unknown variables I personally am not going to expend much thought or worry on the moral issues, but I *do* enjoy the delicious irony of science becoming, in essence, an intelligent designer. Ho ho!

I will say this about the rich/poor dichotomy as it relates to child rearing, and bear in mind I have nine children… I don’t care how much money a parent has, it is no substitute for the love of parents, and this barest of necessities of parenting may not be bought or designed at any price.

A second thought is this – being blond and blue-eyed seems to be considered ‘better’ than brown & brown or the ginger & green of the doctor in the article, but these comparisons are relative to the data set. I’m sure blond & blue-eyed is a little less desirous in, say, Sweden or northern Italy where these traits are common. My point is that sooner or later, if enough parents choose blond & blue-eyed, it will eventually become so common as to make brown haired and brown eyed exotic. Though the time frame would be measured generationally, these rather shallow choices would probably take on a pendulum effect over time.

By: weing

weing — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:42:58 +0000

I have a problem with picking out genes for our progeny. That may be fine and dandy for a world that is unchanging. But does it prepare them for the random events that we are prone to. I prefer to inject variations brought on by randomness. Who knows, the traits that are not selected by us may be favorable to their survival in a different environment?

By: DarwynJackson

DarwynJackson — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:38:10 +0000

Fifi,
Well, I already stated that many goods and services are more available to the wealthy. I was not neglecting medical attention in this regard. I’m also not expressing any disapproval of this fact. To say rich people can buy more stuff is really just defining the word rich. Of course, rich people give their kids better nourishment, education an so forth, but this seems a little more extreme.

If we agree that the U.S isn’t an egalitarian society (like all others), then we should really have apprehensions about a system which exacerbates a preexisting state of inequity. Having a class of rich tall people with fair skin seems just slightly worse than our current condition.

Again, I am not against trait selection in the least. I just think it would be advisable to allow all people, through some government program, the option to select against stupidity, congenital heart malformations, immune deficiencies and so on…