Designer Children?

Echo

The post in the main section regarding our looks versus other traits and how we identify with those things leads me to consider how much work is being done on the human genome. The human genome has been mapped. There are now traits we can positively identify as the cause of certain diseases, and researchers are working to find ways to retroactively change or heal those genes. Likewise, cancer researchers have found there are almost as many ways of having cancer as there are individuals.

It is doubtful that changing genes in existing bodies will be available in the near future, if ever, but even now we can determine if a fetus carries certain disease causing traits. It is very likely we will be able to change or predetermine the traits of children yet to be conceived before we will be able to change those of existing individuals.

And there is little debate over whether it is ethical to test a fetus for its disease causing traits. Most people understand not wanting a child to be burdened with Huntington's or Parkinson's or cystic fibrosis or a number of other diseases. And it is likely people will just as willingly accept the idea of changing or choosing disease-free traits for children in the future.

But my question is how far would you go to choose "beneficial" traits for a child if it were as easy as choosing from a menu? Everyone knows that tall men do better socially and in business than short men, for example. Tendencies toward obesity not only have social and business ramifications, but also strongly influence disease and quality of life. Tendencies to have more fast-twitch versus slow-twitch muscle fibers can predict a person's athletic abilities. Intelligence is highly favoured for many reasons.

My 10 year old daughter took a quiz at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, answering questions regarding this. In her opinion, it was fine for parents to KNOW the contents of a child's genome, but not okay to change or decide it. This leads me to believe that our beliefs on this might be more innate or gut-level than highly reasoned. I cannot say I believe the same. If it were easily available, I cannot claim that I would not check the boxes to make sure my child were not only genetically disease free, but also had more socially beneficial traits. A parent's desire to see a child succeed can be so strong that I tend to believe that most people, when push came to shove, would do the same.

DH, on the other hand, thinks I am too easily able to separate emotion from issues like this. He thinks choosing traits would be morally wrong. I have a hard time seeing it as significantly different from other ways parents try to increase their child's odds of future success.

You?

9 years ago

Off Topic

10 replies

Latest reply was from SarahTheWhite

N-Marie

Veteran

I think first you need to separate the question of "selecting" a trait (embryo selection or termination of a pregnancy) from modification of a trait (ie gene therapy). They are pretty different questions with different ethical ramifications

Practically speaking, it is currently possible to test for a variety of disease genes as well as the gender of an embryo or in a fetus as early as 12 weeks in a non-invasive blood test (relatively new and currently only available to moms older than 35). I know that in countries with a greater problem with gender selection (usually selective abortions of females), the tests are highly controversial and in some cases illegal. Whether or not you consider it to be ethical would depend on how you view embryo production/destruction or abortion.

The first gene therapy was approved in the EU quite recently for a very rare disorder (http://www.bioworld.com/conten.....-therapy-0). So the future is here. That said, in human medicine, very few things are "free", from a financial or health perspective. Altering genes carries the risk (and will likely always carry the risk) of off-target mutations and cancers. And honestly, companies really, really don't want to test drugs for babies and children unless the alternative is death or serious disability because the liability is so high. I think all of those therapies would probably remain under the supervision of a doctor operating under medical guidelines, which are not likely to include "cosmetic" use-cases. The best analogy I can think of is use of growth hormone, which is used on-label for children with a true growth deficiency. But a doctor risks losing their license if they give it to a normal height child to get a few extra inches because of the risk.

I see no problem with knowing the genome of your child and I think this will be standard practice in less than a decade.

9 years ago

Neel

Veteran

I wouldn't love my child more if he were more intelligent, more handsome, taller, fairer, more athletic than what he is now. If everyone were tall, intelligent and athletic .... How are they unique from the rest? The uniqueness is what makes a person IMO.

I wonder if you went to an orphanage to adopt a child ... If you would have the same criterias in mind .... Before you choose a child? (you as in anyone!). The entire essence of human race would be lost and we would become robots.

I also do not think tall, athletic or intelligent is somehow superior to short, non athletic and average intelligence. And then there is fair, blonde, blue eyed etc. Where does one stop?

Diseases are a different beast and not a fair comparison. Future chances of survival is not the same as future success!

9 years ago

Neel

Veteran

To N-Marie's point - Checking for genetic and serious diseases with fetus is still legal in India (where I come from).... But the gender of the child will still not be revealed (illegal) and the parent has a choice whether they want to continue with the pregnancy if there is an issue.

9 years ago

SarahTheWhite

Veteran

I am a huge believer in creativity being fostered best within limitations. Have you ever been paralized by too many choices, or even too many good things? I have taken 50 items into a dressing room and almost prayed that only one thing would fit so that I wouldn't have to pick between 5 fabulous items. Not only would it be too difficult for me to choose what so called "best" traits to pick for my child to have, I would never want to deny my child the right of creating his/her own path in this world within the parameters of what they were dealt. Some of my best outfits, artwork, rooms, and work have been born out of immovable obstacles, problems, and budgets. I feel that my children's life work of growing into their own person, should be done without the imprint of my severely biased fingers. I love the wonder of the lack of control - that I get to be a spectator and stand in awe that these little people are melding strengths, weaknesses, personality traits, and even physical issues and diseases into strong and vibrant humans who stand on their own two feet and make their unique marks on this world.

9 years ago

N-Marie

Veteran

I guess I should add that if it were 100% risk free, I would be tempted but for most traits would probably not choose to modify a child's body.
I would select for better vision (I am almost blind without my contacts), but I consider that to be a medical condition. My son may end up needing braces because of a wide gap between his front teeth, and we will likely do that because it's a "now or never" situation. But I would be loathe to modify most cosmetic traits because I feel that it's not my choice to make. For example, although it's normal in a lot of cultures to pierce the ears of babies, I would not pierce my daughter's ears unless she was old enough to request it and to understand that it is mostly permanent.
I also think that diversity is preferable to some kind of homogenized future where we are all the same (or everyone who can afford it is the same). For example, I am very short - only 5'1. But I was a gymnast for a long time, and my (lack of) height was an advantage. Loads of fast twitch muscles are not an advantage if your preferred sport is marathon running.
And aesthetic preferences change with time. Just look back at some of the Titian paintings from the 1500s, where women were rather zaftig, with curly hair and pale skin. I am a bit repulsed by some of the cosmetic surgeries that seem to aim to give everyone the same nose. So I would feel wrong forcing today's beauty ideals on a child.

9 years ago

rachylou

Veteran

I don't think people really make good choices when it comes to these things. Otherwise you wouldn't have problems like the one around selecting for gender. I mean, take sickle cell. Would you select against it? It confers some immunity to malaria.

Just consider hand cream and hand sanitizer. A good idea? Use of these products and then handling thermal print receipts (I heard on the radio) increases our uptake of BPA to toxic levels.

Diabetes is 'genetic', but whether you actually get it depends... Like on things like your uptake of endocrine disruptors like BPA...

9 years ago

Janet

(website)

Veteran

Hmm. I'm reminded of something my husband and I talked about years ago. If someone had asked me to describe the perfect man for me, before hubs and I met, my description would have been a far cry from the man I ended up deciding to spend my life with. I might have thought I wanted certain "traits" in a partner, but the truth is those traits don't really make the person. I see a world of issues with picking and choosing genetic traits for our children, serious disease aside.

Sometimes what we envision pales in comparison to the surprising reality we get when we don't try to control everything. (And this, coming from an admitted control freak.)

9 years ago

Anonymous

What about the kids point of view? Talk about pressure. Your parents essentially design you, you are suppose to 'succeed', and really aren't interested. Seems like it could set up families for a lot of disappointment.

I think Rachylou is right about making choices. We did amniocentesis for our second. It was recommended, I read way too much info and was basically paralyzed on making the decision on whether to proceed with the procedure. I remember DH saying something to the effect that it was recommended and not to get ahead of ourselves. We didn't have to make the next decision until we got there. This seems like a whole other level of what diseases and conditions are expectable or not.

9 years ago

Echo

Veteran

Just to be clear, of course selecting genes is currently impossible unless one is willing to select an embryo or terminate pregnancies. I was not intending that to be one of the choices, as I would be against terminating (at least for myself) a pregnancy based on anything other than a disease or condition incompatible with life. I'm not sure anyone thinks it is a good idea for any society to end up with a drastically higher percentage of male to female children.

I was instead meaning the sci-fi future, if it ever comes to pass.

And I absolutely see and agree with most of the points made here about unrealistic expectations on a child, or the danger of removing diversity, or unintended consequences. However, I still think that I would be unable to NOT make some choices. Perhaps it is my upbringing, but being a parent is an experience wracked with guilt anyway. I cannot imagine the overwhelming guilt I would feel if my child had a condition or trait that hindered them from pursuing what they wanted to pursue, if I had had the option of changing it before/while they were conceived. And yes, I realize that the choice for one thing is necessarily the choice against another, so any choice necessarily limits options. But still...

I don't think loving a child more or less would enter into the equation, at least for me. I would have loved my children regardless of their physical or personality traits. However, we aren't talking about looking in retrospect; we are talking about changing the reality before it happens. I wouldn't love a child with a disability any less, either, but if I knew I could have prevented that disability and chose not to, I would likely never forgive myself. Granted, other traits aren't necessarily in the same ballpark, but there are some general parameters I would absolutely choose if I could. Like N-Marie said, my eldest recently got glasses and my younger two will be getting braces soon. Additionally, both DH and I and (predictably) all of our children lack most physical coordination. Athletics or dancing is mostly out of the question for us. If I'd had the chance to move the needle closer to at least average in that regard, I likely would (both for my children and myself).

It is relatively easy to sit from our vantage point where these things are impossible and claim with certainty that we wouldn't change or choose a thing. But if it were a reality and you knew every other parent could or would make choices, would you really leave everything up to chance?

9 years ago

SarahTheWhite

Veteran

Hmmm. Way to make a tough question tougher... Must ponder further...

9 years ago

Category