Real life “Gattaca”? FDA considers engineering of disease-free babies
by Kelli
Let’s back up just a second and look at what they are proposing to do — They’re proposing to try to create disease-free children by a type of genetic engineering. And the proposals aren’t actually to treat anybody; they’re to create new individuals that they hope won’t have a disease….
Trying to create and destroy and recreate genetically engineered children, essentially designer babies, is a completely unethical way to go about tackling this problem [of treating disease].
~ Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council, discussing the FDA’s consideration of technology to create three-parent babies, as quoted by One News Now, March 3
[Note: Gattaca is a 1997 sci-fi film which “presents a… vision of a future society driven by eugenics where potential children are conceived through genetic manipulation to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.”]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
a completely unethical way to go about tackling this problem [of treating disease] – is he going to tell us why?
Okay, I don’t think that genetic manipulation is inherently wrong unless it involves destroying embryos, but it makes me nervous. You realize this is only going to exist for rich people, right? Rich people are going to be able to have genetically perfect babies, and the rest of the masses are not going to have access to this disease prevention service. So, how is that going to affect research? If the only people getting genetic diseases are people who can’t afford the treatments anyway, will anyone bother researching new treatments or cures? Is this going to widen the gap between the healthy and wealthy, and the poor and sick? Is this going to cause more employment inequality? What if employers are able to figure out who was genetically manipulated to not get sick as often, will us that weren’t so lucky not be able to get jobs? What about health insurance? Will there be separate tiers for the “unmanipulated” and “manipulated” and the higher risk pools pay more insurance?
Reality I won’t dismiss the idea out of hand. and I know the questions I raised sound paranoid, but this kind of manipulation really worries me for the disadvantaged. What do you think about the issues I raised?
What’s with the renewed interest in eugenics?
I can understand why humanity always seems to find our way back to war, slavery, degradation of women, infanticide, open and promiscuous homosexuality, genocide and child abuse. These are ancient evils of the human race, which cultures always seem to fall back on when we forget our better selves.
But why eugenics? Those notions of “master race” and “super children” and “ridding humanity of those unfit to survive” should have been buried with Hitler’s Nazis.
One of the two methods to create these “three-parent” embryos involves creating a human life, destroying her, and cannibalizing her spare parts to create another human being. A human being that doesn’t exist has no disease to be cured; adoption is a better option if you can’t take the thought of your child having a mitochondrial disease.
It’s wrong Reality because it will involve taking human life, it’s wrong because it’s germline engineering, which is genetic therapy that will be passed on to all of the child’s future descendants (and thus can never really be undone), and it’s wrong because it’s conducting medical experimentation on a person without their consent. Engineered monkeys seem to be fine but engineered mice have had serious defects. Nobody can say what health effects this will have, IVF can have adverse health effects on children and this involves some more serious manipulation of the cell.
Jack, you’re not paranoid, if an abuse can be imagined, it will likely happen, the only question is how widespread it will be.
Isn’t this a modern extension of ‘every child a wanted child’? It seems filled with human-‘controllness’. Perhaps we should begin by not-fearing being vulnerable so much ???/ Read the book by Brene Brown … an intro into her ideas that vulnerability is the source for joy and creativity, can be found in her TED presentation.
Haven’t you ever wondered why any human prognosis of the future that is defined by human ‘genius’, is always cold/dark/joy-less/’heavy’/pointless-meaningless, eh Reality? Christ’s crucifixion was not about God being weak, as about Him being vulnerable.
Oh, yes, people as products … what could possibly be wrong or go wrong with that?
The Illinois State Society of American Medical Technologists states ”once parents begin to control the genetic make-up of their children, they are not allowing natural evolution and the idea of ‘natural selection’ to run their courses. The idea that humans know what is best for the advancement of the race is what makes germline engineering the new eugenics.”
The arrogance of those who support germline engineering is staggering. As if we know all there is to know about the human genome. Having one sickle cell gene provides protection against malaria; who knows all the advantages that other “bad” genes offer? Allowing ignorant humans to make decisions that will impact unknowable numbers of people in future generations without their consent…what could possibly go wrong?
SM, natural selection really does not apply anymore – we’re keeping vast numbers of babies alive that would otherwise die fast. It’s moved from an unconscious thing to a conscious one.
Given the development of the human race, is it really “unnatural” that we’d be doing so? I’d say no, and likewise it’s no surprise that we want to weed out some problems.
Agreed that we don’t know all that could go wrong. The law of unintended consequences and all that….
Not true at all Doug. As long as there is still competition to find mates or survive, then there will always be natural selection. The continually emerging field of epigenetics shows that behavior has always and always will play an important role in that process, it was never an unconscious thing for mankind. That said, adaptation and some mythical sense of “progress” (especially though eugenics) are two very different things. It’s folly to believe man can justly substitute himself for God and nature.
Well, Chris – I think it’s certainly at least mostly true. “Competition to survive”? Where, really, do you see that? Heck, we hold it as an ideal that nobody starves or dies because they are handicapped, slow, stupid, etc. This is a conscious deal – our social policies apply it. We don’t even have capital punishment in all the states anymore, i.e. no matter what behavior one exhibits, as a society we often don’t want that individual to die.
“Competition to find mates”? Now, there is certainly competition for some mates, but in the end there’s pretty much ‘someone for everyone.’ So, just about everyone gets to breed, if they want to, circumventing natural selection there too. If you don’t believe me – with a bit of gratuitous humor -just check out your local Walmart. : P
It definitely used to be an unconscious thing – people and babies died due to things we had no conscious control over. Now, that is much, much less the case, i.e. we have control over many of the things that used to result in such deaths. Conscious intervention makes all the difference, often.
If anything, I think the argument would be that “we are part of nature” and thus what we do is natural.
Actually, Chris, one of the prominent ancient Greek philosophers (Aristotle, methinks, but let me double check with my history buff partner…) envisioned a ruling class that bred with each other – and the only ones allowed in this ruling, selective class were the best of the society – only the very most brilliant and physically fit. The lesser people were to be left to their own devices and have families or whatever. But the upper echelon were to breed with each other like herd animals to create perfect humans, essentially. So strains of eugenics have been around for a very long time as well. Sadly.
This will die just like eugenicist’s Robert Graham’s breeding for intelligence did in the late 1990’s. Selective breeding carries too many serious consequences….
Thomas R: Selective breeding carries too many serious consequences….
You may be right, TR. My gut feeling is that even if it were successful – in the opinion of those doing it – it wouldn’t result in any greater happiness, overall.
Yes Doug – lousy parents would still be lousy! :)
lousy parents would still be lousy
Ha! True that…. Feels to me that as a practical matter, it would instantly be a competition among some parents, to see who could have the “best” designer-baby. An extention of those who maintain a shrieking critique of their five year old’s performance on the soccer field.
This is different from just trying to eliminate genetic deficiencies, but I do agree with Chris:
it will likely happen, the only question is how widespread it will be.
The genie is coming out of the bottle. Even if the US outlawed it, there will be “genetic tourism.”
LibertyBelle: a ruling class that bred with each other – and the only ones allowed in this ruling, selective class were the best of the society – only the very most brilliant and physically fit. ….the upper echelon were to breed with each other like herd animals to create perfect humans, essentially.
From the great successes that have come with animal husbandry, it’s easy to see why the idea has appeal.
There of course would be the dangers of inbreeding. I’d also think some people would keep trying to max out certain characteristics, at who knows what cost. In the end – what would really be achieved? Would people be happier?
I understand what you are saying Jack. As long as we can eventually engender some real social, political and economic equality and justice then it should be possible for such advances to flow through the whole of society.
Haven’t you ever wondered why any human prognosis of the future that is defined by human ‘genius’, is always cold/dark/joy-less/’heavy’/pointless-meaningless, eh Reality? – no, because I don’t find that to be the case. That seems more your cup of tea.
they are not allowing natural evolution and the idea of ‘natural selection’ to run their courses. - or it could be argued that evolution has obviously given us the ability to advance some aspects of evolution.
Fact: primates are not evolving into creatures that are neither female nor male. Fact: sexual reproduction on the planet earth is not evolving into a 3 parent paradigm. Fact: humans can abuse technology any way they please, but that does not mean that the lies humans tell themselves can be forced into being true. IVF involves the death and destruction of human beings. Abortion causes the death and destruction of human beings. These two facts don’t cease to be true just because a few designer babies survive the process, nor because some ulilitarian individuals refuse to acknowledge that all humans are people.
primates are not evolving into creatures that are neither female nor male
I still wonder, sometimes. Again, Walmart….
Fact: primates are not evolving into creatures that are neither female nor male. – how can anyone possibly know. Millions of years, millions of permutations, anything’s possible.
Science, today. If one concedes that it would be millions of years before such an evolution occured, then one concedes that in 2014, the facts are what I stated above. Ah, isn’t it sweet that the father of modern genetic science was a humble, catholic monk? : > ) .
mmm, yet you said ‘are not’ rather than ‘haven’t’. We don’t know that it isn’t already in its first imperceptible flickers of being. It may or may not be millions of years, we can’t know.
the facts are what I stated above. – apparently not.
Fact: sexual reproduction on the planet earth is not evolving into a 3 parent paradigm. – yet we have scientists telling us that evolution has given them the ability to start a quest into this particular area of participating in evolution.
Why oh why does humanity not seem to be able to use their ingenuity for good? We are truly a fallen race. Lot’s of good reasons to steer clear of this posted in the comments, I don’t see an upside. Have you seen the movie “Elysium’?
Creation of three parent embryos is similar to the various forms of IVF. Countless human embryos are destroyed in order to perfect the techniques, then more destroyed as the most suitable specimens are created and selected.
People are accustomed to the killing attendant with IVF. Because of this, humans are already considered commodities. Animal husbandry management policies are applied to the breeding and culling of humans.
Plenty of people have been entertaining class envy, and statist methods of managing this, that they handed ultimate control of everyone’s lives over to the government. There will be designer humans and both the process and the results will be dehumanizing.
Actually, Chris, one of the prominent ancient Greek philosophers (Aristotle, methinks, but let me double check with my history buff partner…) envisioned a ruling class that bred with each other .
It was Plato.
I guess it’s a good thing that some pro-lifers are questioning their belief that the FDA is infallible.