I've been looking into this issue and i' starting to wonder is it really that bad.
I understand the moral implications and fears about this issue but i do however have to stress on the fact that there could be major benefits in researching human genes with the purpose of creating a person with reduced risk of disabilities and we might even eliminate hereditary conditions.

I do see that the term designer babies can and probably will devalue what it means to be human. I'm really on the fence because the moral issue is not something that can be easily dismissed like an argument from an anti gay protester.

This issue almost reminds me of Gundam Seed and Blood+.
In blood+ a question was asked along the lines of 'we work on cattle so they can produce more milk we work on crops so the can grow faster so what is wrong with doing the same to humans in order to unleash their potential?'

Is it really a bad thing?
Should we leave it to nature? (keeping in mind that nature can be pretty cruel and unforgiving)
if such a service was available would you use it?
How far do you want to see it go?
do you want it to go as far as being able to choose your child's eye colour.



________________
.
http://westsiders2.deviantart.com/

We can make anime characters in real life. I'm all for it!

In all seriousness, I stand on the "give it a try" side. The human species... We're an impatient race. Although this topic will take tons and tons of heat in the decade(s) to come, why shouldn't we further our progression? Look at it this way. To grow on land and survive to procreate, cats were given longer claws. Dogs were given sharper teeth and monkeys were given hand-feet and tails. it is because of those traits that they were able to adapt and survive.Humans were given a larger brain, and thus, more knowledge.We should be able to use those adaptions (our knowledge) to survive, adapt, and procreate. Although we're deciding it for ourselves, it's really in nature's hands. We're more or less manipulating nature to have a better chance at survival. If it exists, it will most likely can be used. Isn't using nature part of nature? So really, it's not unnatural at all. It's really just enhanced nature. Also, it doesn't devalue being human at all. Humans are not determined by our chances of getting sick. Humans are determined by their emotions, their mistakes, their experiences. The moral side of this... Is there really one? Sure you will probably lose a good hundred of lives in the development process for designer babies, but the flipside is that you can give good health to almost anyone else in the world. In this case, pros outweigh the cons, I would say it's a little immoral to be throwing a hundred or so lives away every day, but isn't that what we do anyways when a baby dies in some third world country we've never heard of? My hands hurt, but I honestly could go over this a bit more. I'm going to stop right here. -pushes end rant button-

If you don't really think deeply about the ethics involved, "designer babies" can be very interesting to science. It could show us how far "nature" and "nurture" affect humans. Wouldn't it be neat if you could just walk up to a desk and fill out a form to create your perfect child. And it would be possible to not eliminate any risks of disease. Honestly, I think that it would be possible to create a child completely indistinguishable from a "normal" one. It makes me kind of ecstatic that science may be able to create mental conditions and diseases using this research.

Don't fix what isn't broken, but if it is to weed out a hereditary sickness, sure.
Most parents would probably prefer their kids to be theirs in every sense, thus
most probably wouldn't resort to genetic engineering.

Think about this : The child is still YOURS. The child is merely the best of you and your spouse.

People use fiction to shape their moral opinions. People like to use Gattaca or Seed in examples against it.

Genetic manipulation to weed out hereditary diseases, birth defects or to increase human ability should be welcomed not shunned. If I could have a kid that was designed to be healthy, I'd have zero issues of this.

Silly invalid, you can't be part of our society.

The best as defined by who? Personality, temperament and disposition are very subjective, important for success in life, hard to pin to a single genetic sequence, and are one of the main things that current human mating process selects for. These would likely be screwed up if parents are persuaded by a gattaca quote.

Beauty is also subjective, and I wouldn't trust a technician not to min/max my child into a troglodyte.

Edit: I also think that designer baby procedures would have a slow adoption rate among the general public outside of removing major health risks, and unless every designer baby is a success in every way, would probably remain fringe.

________________
This signature was recovered from Hades to serve in my rotting armies.

I'm sorry GreenToes, but I can't agree with your point of view at all. I don't think we should create designer babies. I know that it will be impossible to completely prevent genetically altered humans unless we stop researching on human genetics entirely, which I am against. However, I believe that we do need public, well-considered regulations for all life sciences at least, not only because of moral issues but also from a biological standpoint.

First of all, your point that humans possess the knowledge and the ability to use certain adaptations in order to is deficient as we are far from understanding the human organism. I'm from the life sciences' department, and I can assure you, the more we research, the less we seem to know for sure. Living beings are emergent creatures, so even by studying every detail to the fullest, you can hardly predict how things will work out because they interact with countless other elements. Organisms are made of more than the sum of their single traits.

Assuming we were able to grasp how our species works, we'd still be unable to change our bodies the way we wanted to. It goes for both your idea of genetic alteration and westsiders2's neuro-enhancement. Almost any mechanism fulfils more than one function. A well-known example would be the sickle cell anaemia. It is a hereditary flaw which leads to death in its extreme form. The lighter variant still reduces the amount and thus, the efficiency of your red blood cells for transporting oxygen among other effects; it limits your physical abilities.
Normally, you would expect people who carry these mutated genes to have a lower fitness in comparison to others, right? However, a side-effect of this mutation causes these anaemics to be resistent to malaria. Therefore, you will find large shares of the population with sickle cell anaemia in tropical regions.

This phenomenon is not an unusual case. Almost all of our genes work this way. It is one of the main reasons for genetic variation. Consequently, we are inapt to judge which traits would be for the "better" of humanity and which would bring forth harm. Now, add the unpredictability of evolution and other long-term changes in our environment, and imagine scientists or worse your average citizens, as they try to modulate other human beings to their individual or socially-induced ideas of perfection. It would be a horrid prospect, wouldn't it?

On top of all these uncertainties, people are easily influenced by social trends ("The majority agrees, so it can't be that wrong"), and parents-to-be would soon choose to alternate their children in a socially conforming manner like farmers who overbreed their stock ("I have to adapt in order to stay competitive"). Unknowingly, they would take certain genetic variations out of the gene pool and make way for diseases or parasites who would be able to spread and adapt perfectly to our all too similar and helpless population. They would wipe us out quite effortlessly.


As harsh as my post may be, I hope you will understand that it is not meant to be offensive in any way or directed against you as a person, GreenToes. I just tend to get very passionate when it comes to my beliefs.

To westsiders2: If you're really interested in the ethical conflicts that I neglected in my post, you could watch some socio-citically orientated films on this topic (e.g. GATTACA by Andrew Niccol) or read some scientifically-motivated literature (e.g. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, a classic, or Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl, a more recent one, not as immediate as the classic though).


Last edited by Tripitaka at 11:32 pm, Sep 17 2014

________________
"Stories are what death thinks he puts an end to.
He can't understand that they end in him, but they don't end with him."
- Ursula K. Le Guin, Gifts

To be savoured:
- Blood Alone by TAKANO Masayuki
- Otoyomegatari by MORI Kaoru
- Gangsta. by Kohske
- Seishun Kouryakuhon by AKIZUKI Sorata

If I found out that my parents had ordered me to fit certain specifications, I think I'd be scared. What if I ended up not fulfilling them? What if they asked for a child with, say, good teeth, or a low propensity for mental disorders, but then I had those very problems? I would be terrified that they would abandon me, because I didn't match their idea of a perfect child.

I think love means to accept a person for who they are. And engineering a person beforehand to fit your idea of perfection, is saying that you don't expect them to naturally be good enough for you to love. That's how I'd see it, anyway.

I feel that I am the only person here who sees genetically modified humans as useful to test upon. If we were to create them without disease, then we could create them with one, too. By knowing that the child already has the disease or risk of having it, it would be possible to study them and signs of the disease's onset.

-cracks knuckle-
Here we go.
No, just kidding. You're entitled to your own train of thought, as is anyone else. I'm perfectly okay with understanding that. I'm just a bum in science. I'm an engineering guy.
Sure, there are many different variables that affect evolution speed and form, but it's importent to remember that designer babies would be humans as well. They're far from perfect. Hell, there is no perfect human. A designer baby is really just a human trying to cap his potential by making whatever he thinks is perfect, which, in the long run, is still an imperfect being. It's true we have a long way to go in terms of knowledge. As you said before, "...the more we research, the less we seem to know for sure." But isn't that what makes the pursuit of knowledge so vexing and exciting?
Nice attitude you have there, and don't worry, I'm hard to offend. *holds up fist* Sticks and stones... Hurt like hell. But words... Also hurt like hell, but not as much.



That's like saying, "let's inject HIV into this newborn baby!" Most babies have undeveloped immune systems, genetically altered or not. As I said in my post before : A designer baby is still a human. Don't treat it like some lab rat. It has a mother, it has a father. It has just as many rights as a regular baby. It has the potential to do something great. What you're saying here borders along abortion, and I just can't side with that. Sure I said something about killing a hundred babies, but that was for development. This on the other hand, is taking the life of an innocent baby so you can understand and study a disease, and nothing about prevention. *rubs fingers on each other* Shaaaaame.



Last edited by GreenToes at 8:12 pm, Jun 28 2013

I came across this topic some years ago, and my initial reaction was to support the idea but after further proofing and a deeper analysis at the situation. Its not a good idea and not because of ethics.

One, it costs a significant amount of money to do this, people with money would be able to get the best designer babies. Yes, you guessed it...Upper class and lower class will be created in a generation or two down the line after its fully operational.

the separation will slowly happen and the rich will keep the good genes eventually zoning out the lowly genes to the other end of society. Obviously there will be exceptions but for the most part, would you like being judged for not being pretty enough?

Designer babies is bad, but not because of ethics...because of human nature and prejudice.

-----------------

In terms of human progression, it would be a backwater step. An unenlightened move as we should value mental fortitude above genetic posterior fortitude. Think about it carefully...Every human has the capability to become great, look at stephen hawkings for example.

-----
Also the desease angle is a different angle, that falls under clones not designer babies. Separate matters, one focuses on getting the best genes, the other focuses on curing diseases through human testing. Designer babies is just a collection of peoples genes that are considered the best not genetically engineered ones. Clones, would combat disease and thats whole different ball game of experimentation.

Just a lack of information i think.

Last edited by fr33noob at 8:40 pm, Jun 28 2013

________________

I believe in letting people do as they wish, as do I myself. Sometimes, of course, what I wish to do is kill them and they do not wish to die. This gives life interest.

To GreenToes: I voiced my opinion this politely because many people tend to overheat and they get easily offended while discussing controversial topics. But it's good to know that you're one of the broader-minded guys out there


Maybe I didn't make myself clear concerning this point, but to me designer babies are and will always be humans before anyone or anything else. I'm well-aware of the discrepancy when we talk about approving or condemning the creation of designer babies when these people, breathing, thinking, emotionally sensitive beings, will be living among us one day (there have been single cases of designer babies during the last decade). It is a tightrope walk to find the "right" tone to deal with this matter.
By the way, Jodie Picoult's My Sister's Keeper depicts the personal and moral dilemma of such a designer baby quite sensitively.


It is dangerous to think along these lines because to justify killing once will make it nearly impossible to prohibit the second time. Even if it may be an unintentional side-effect, by accepting the possibility of causing the death of someone who is unable to consent at all like babies, you will have subconsciously decided to sacrifice a life for the sake of scientific progress. How is this any better than killing through human experiments?



I share your view on the social risks of legalising the creation of designer babies. That's why I recommend GATTACA to anyone interested in the ethical side of this problem.


Human flaws when making a personally tinted decision (influenced by prejudiced views) are an ethical problem. I have to deal with the ethics of human genetics as they will be relevant for my future profession, and I can assure you that social issues are definitely part of it. Ethics do not only deal with personal matters, but they also consider a society's or a nation's dilemmas.


I think you got the concepts wrong:

Designer babies are defined as humans who were born with certain genes purposely selected or modified to suit their parents'/ creators' demands. A humans designed by other human beings. If they are genetically altered or not is irrelevant.

Clones are artificially created, genetically identical duplicates of a person. They might be designer babies in most cases, but they are not genetically altered by definition.

As you can see, preventing or exterminating diseases has nothing to do with designer babies or clones in the first place. It is true, though that a lot of parents have a health-related purpose in mind, be it the exclusion of disability or the guaranty to have an organ donor at hand when you need one.


Last edited by Tripitaka at 11:36 pm, Sep 17 2014

________________
"Stories are what death thinks he puts an end to.
He can't understand that they end in him, but they don't end with him."
- Ursula K. Le Guin, Gifts

To be savoured:
- Blood Alone by TAKANO Masayuki
- Otoyomegatari by MORI Kaoru
- Gangsta. by Kohske
- Seishun Kouryakuhon by AKIZUKI Sorata

I see what you mean, but more or less what i was talking about how clones are made and their purpose originally.
What, i meant is that, as it stands...designer babies are mostly just a mixture of genes of separate people, not really genetically modified genes. We don't have the technology as far as i know to modify or create specific genes as they are so complex.

Cloning idea was more to do with combating diseases, generally because the initial idea was to use them as testing material, i may have made a mistake but as it stands, the same human flaws will remain apart from the obvious birth defects in designer babies such as anemia. However allergies, will still remain as the immunity system is not so much to do with genes. Spoke to my biology masters sister and its more about a trial and error system in your body. It won't give HIV immunity ether. Just genetic supremacy in terms of what we consider superior, which is ALL subjective. Like hitler's idea of a superhuman race, blue eyes, blond hair.

Well, i thought ethics was more to do with the moral side, but if you were to scrutinise it...perhaps a knock on effect that happens because of natural human behaviour can be an ethics issue but not initially, which is what i meant.

Its a thin line, because ethics really depends on your views of how things should be. Since there is no obvious moral issue, it become a thin line.

Last edited by fr33noob at 8:37 am, Jun 29 2013

________________

I believe in letting people do as they wish, as do I myself. Sometimes, of course, what I wish to do is kill them and they do not wish to die. This gives life interest.