Researchers at Cornell Medical Center in New York have genetically modified a human embryo (additional coverage from The New York Times). While the embryo was not viable due to a chromosomal imbalance, the work has drawn fire from watchdog groups concerned about “designer babies.” I found a quote from Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., particularly interesting:
“We’re not even close to having that technology in hand to be able to do it right,” she said, and it would be ethically unacceptable to try it when it’s unsafe.
That’s a bit of a myopic statement. She seems to be saying that we’ll never develop the techniques because it’s unethical to use them if they’re unsafe, but they can’t be made safe without testing them. The very existence of the story, however, shows that at least one ethics committee in this country approved of using unproven techniques on non-viable embryos. That’s one avenue to perfecting the necessary tools, and there may be others.
Successful germline genetic engineering—”designer babies,” in other words—could also be developed in a country or society that doesn’t share Western civilization’s compunctions about ethics or embryos. Under this scenario, a couple that wanted to tinker with their child’s DNA who need to travel abroad to have the procedure performed. Then the gap between rich and poor would become one of not just status and money but also genetics.
Regardless of how or where the technology is developed, the first use will be to treat or prevent certain genetic disorders. This has already been demonstrated in the UK, where scientists combined genetic material from three parents to correct a deficiency in an embryo. But imagine if a simple procedure could correct Down’s syndrome or eliminate risk factors for autism. How could you deny that to a parent who only wants a healthy child? On the other hand, who is going to pay for it? The fertility industry is largely unregulated and not covered by insurance, so again, we end up with a manifest genetic divide between socioeconomic classes.
Once germline genetic engineering has become acceptable for treating or preventing disorders, it’s only a matter of time before it’s used to enhance performance. Historically, this has happened with steroids and human growth hormone. Now, an amputee has been allowed to qualify for the Olympics, even though he was previously forbidden because his prosthetics might give him an unnatural advantage.
The ethics of human genetic engineering will indubitably shift over time as the technology is developed and matures and as people gain more exposure to it. It’s nonetheless important that we consider the ethics now. That way, we can try to avoid a genetic gap between rich and poor, or at least actively decide that we can live with such a situation rather than having it develop without much debate. But it’s also important to think about the place for genetic enhancements. In a reasonably free society, it’s impossible to totally repress any technology. Do we want a genetic engineering scandal to rock baseball in fifty years? Or should there be separate leagues for “genemods” and “normies?” On a more serious level, do we need to guard against designer babies or do we just need to get ready for made-to-order genomes?
