Modified Life: the Potential of Designer Babies

on September 12, 2015

An August 22 article in The Economist describes the potential for germline engineering – the reproductive technology geared toward editing DNA in human embryos. The technology, known as CRISPR-Cas9 or simply CRISPR, uses RNA to snip unwanted genome from a DNA sequence and edit in good mitochondrial DNA (mDNA). Initially developed for the purposes of preventing diseases and crippling genetic defects, it is inevitable that CRISPR can be used in the future to tailor a child’s genetic sequence in the form of complementary modifications not essential to improving the embryo’s health.

When is germline engineering a boon to humanity and when is it an unethical attempt to “play God”? Although “designer babies” have not yet emerged as a medical practice, ethicists and religious leaders are already asking the necessary questions regarding the legitimacy of the process.

One concern is the fact that traits edited into an embryo’s DNA can be passed on. As there is not yet enough information to know the long-term repercussions of germline engineering, such interference with life could be disastrous.

A factor especially concerning to some is that the DNA-modified baby has three “parents” – the sperm and egg from the father and mother, as well as mitochondria from the egg of a third donor. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) of the United Kingdom, however, has attempted to mollify the negative gut reaction by pointing out that there is little difference between donation of healthy mitochondria to an egg that may not have it, and organ or blood donation. Moreover, the change in mitochondria works on such a low cellular level that it does not produce changes in the personality or physical characteristics of the child.

Although it has not yet made a statement on designer babies, the Roman Catholic Church has been deeply suspicious of reproductive technology that fails to acknowledge the person as sacred. Examples of reproductive technology denounced by the Church includes in vitro fertilization, which results in a few fetuses developing at the price of many embryos being destroyed; and prenatal diagnosis, which screens an embryo for the purposes of discovering any unwanted traits and can result in the embryo being discarded.

In Donum Vitae (1987) and Dignitas Personae (2008), the Roman Catholic Church equivocates reproductive technology for the purpose of judging whether a fetus is fit to live or not with the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century. As far as concerns neglecting to use this morally dubious technology at the price of prolonged suffering for some, the Catholic Church responds in Dignitas Personae:

“These [those suffering in body or in spirit] give meaning to moments of sickness and to the experience of death, which indeed are part of human life and are present in the story of every person, opening that story to the mystery of the Resurrection.”

Orthodox Christian doctrine teaches that choosing to suffer rather than use evil means to pursue good ends is the more humane way to live. Medicine is a necessary and Christian practice insofar as it is concerned with the protection of life, the ministering of mercy, and the promotion of well-being. The medical practice fails when it ceases to be used as a tool to restore and protect human flourishing, and is instead employed to discriminate between the weak and the strong.

  1. Comment by Swarrior on September 13, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    This is the inevitable result of the liberal sponsored sexual revolution/gay marriage movement. Support for “gay marriage” necessarily also demands support for the commodification of human reproduction , for reducing the creation of human beings to nothing but a mere economic transaction for profit.

    “Gay marriage” = state sponsored motherlessness and fatherlessness . “Gay marriage” = statist effort to assume control over the reproductive capacities of the population , bypassing the natural interpersonal relations of said population. “Gay marriage” = subversion of the family in society , an effort to speed along the complete atomization of the human person. “Gay marriage” = legal and cultural rationale for rapid expansion and normalization of radical new genetic engineering practices , commodification of human reproduction , and state endorsed quasi -eugenic control of human reproduction. “gay marriage” = support for intentionally denying an innocent human being their mother (or father), as a prerequisite condition of the child’s very existence.

    “gay marriage” is literally anti-human.
    ‘gay marriage’ represents the triumph of the strong over the weak.

    I find it ironic that libs demand gender diversity in corporate institutions , educational institutions , government institutions , but yet when it comes to the most important societal institution , marriage , libs declare that gender diversity is irrelevant . That motherhood is irrelevant and that fatherhood is irrelevant to what it means to be a human being.

  2. Comment by S.M. Stirling on September 15, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    When a technology is available, people will use it if they really want to — hence 90%+ of fetuses with Down’s syndrome being aborted.

    Good luck trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom.

  3. Comment by Brad White on September 15, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    Why not use this technology to prevent Down’s Syndrome in the first place?

  4. Comment by jbspry on September 15, 2015 at 7:38 pm

    Golly!
    What could be more desirable than an entire planet populated by genetically designed humanoids who look like Brad and Angelina, hold doctorates in gender studies or post-modernist literature and operate sustainable fair-trade art galleries?
    I mean, who needs anything else?

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.