The idea of "designer babies" that are genetically engineered to have superior strength and intelligence seems like a science-fiction fantasy (one explored, for instance, in the film Gattaca among other places). However, in November, 2018 a rogue scientist in China announced that he had genetically modified human embryos in order to confer resistance to HIV and those embryos developed in children. The scientist was later sentenced to 3 years in jail. Putting aside the moral and legal issues of experimenting on humans, should the production of designer babies be prohibited by the law? If so under what principle? After all, does genetically enhancing a baby benefit (and not harm the child)?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that setting aside legal and moral issues, experimenting on babies is still wrong. I think genetically enhancing the baby does not benefit the child and I also believe genetic enhancement would need to be proportionally applied. If the experiment goes wrong, and the child is left with disabilities as a result of the experimentation, it is definitely not beneficial for the child. However, even if the experiment does go as planned and the child happens to turn out genetically enhanced, the child is a different person than they were before. This is harm because the child did not "ask" to be made different than they were before. There could be unforeseen differences in how the child would act in society. While for these reasons I think human enhancement is wrong, if an initiative to genetically enhance babies is necessary, certain steps would be required to ensure fairness. The government would not be able to force anyone to have genetic enhancement because that violates civil liberties. However, the government could incentivize and support genetic enhancement if they believed it to be beneficial. The other thing the government would need to do is apply the same enhancements to all babies. This would keep genetic advantages equal and help avoid issues of fairness. Since the government's main justification for implanting laws is to ensure the safety of its citizens or to improve society, the government is unjust in legalizing genetic enhancement due to all the risks and possible problems surrounding genetic modification.
ReplyDeleteThe government is justified in prohibiting genetic modification as it imposes experimentation on those who cannot consent as well as safety and ethical concerns regarding human nature. Under Dworkin's principles of Paternalism, enhancements are unconstitutional as they violate the individual's right to consent. It is not within the right of others, even parents, to decide the traits an individual holds. Additionally, aside from the health risks, genetically modifying DNA poses the threat of ending individuality, an important aspect of human nature. With the ability to become whoever one desires, the competition for most intelligent, highest income, or even to become the next LeBron James is likely to increase drastically. But what about artists, teachers, janitors, waiters, waitresses, and so many more? What about individuals who uphold our society in a different, yet uniquely important manner? Who will hold these positions? If technology for enhancements were permitted under law, it would likely be the poor who would hold less desirable jobs. Genetic modification would disproportionally advance the wealthy who can afford costly medical procedures. As a result, the already existent wealth gap would increase substantially only perpetuating a cycle of poverty. Those who did not receive the procedure would likely hold inferior traits, and lack the ability to compete with those who had. The poor would continue to hold low paying jobs that require less qualifications, thereby resulting in the polarization of society and loss of individuality. This case exemplifies impure paternalism, as it strips individuals of low socioeconomic status from opportunities given to those who can afford procedures. Genetic modification poses a threat to the well-being of society, and therefore should be illegal.
ReplyDeleteIn a case where we know that CRISPR technology can be safely used to improve human fetuses, I think it should be legal. Modifying a baby can prevent the baby from coming out with extremely harmful genetic diseases. In addition, modifying a baby’s eye color for example does not cause harm to others, or harm to self. Some might argue that modifying a baby’s color to make it red for example would cause offense to some people, I think that the offense is not great enough to make it illegal. For the baby, there can only be benefits. Genetic resistance to fire, electricity, alcohol, many rare mutations that exist in the smallest fraction of our population could be gifted to everyone. In the words of Syndrome from The Incredibles, “when everyone’s super, no-one will be.” Since editing the baby ideally does not cause it harm if the technology is sound, the only people it could harm would be other people. If only the rich can afford to edit their babies, the class divide between the rich and the poor would become even larger. In this case, there is an argument to be made to prevent editing under legal moralism. Many people would argue using legal moralism that genetic editing should be available to everyone, or no-one. Personally, I disagree that genetic editing should be illegal under legal moralism. For starters, banning the technology to remove life threatening diseases before birth is just like creating a cure for cancer and then refusing to use it. At the very least, genetic editing should be legal for medical use. Ideally, everyone will be able to afford to use genetic editing to improve the health of the child. Even if it turns out only the rich can afford it, the technology will still be saving more people than if it were banned. When it comes to make super babies, I think it should be allowed. Using genetic editing, we would be able to elevate the human race. Of course, it would suck for us, the people without any special powers. I also assume it would only be available to the rich at the start. Even so, by fostering children with stronger bodies and higher IQs, I believe that we can solve many problems on this planet. Overtime, genetic editing should become cheaper as well. If we make it legal, I think that everyone will eventually have these genes except for a small group of people who will voluntarily reject it. Overall, there is an argument to be made for banning genetic editing under legal moralism, however, it is hard to know the exact impacts of banning it or allowing it. If we decide not to use this technology, I believe we will be closing off many promising doors in the future.
ReplyDelete