Designer Babies:Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options?

By Stephen L. Baird

The forces pushing humanity towards

attempts at self-modification, through

biological and technological advances,

are powerful, seductive ones that we

will be hard-pressed to resist.

Almost three decades ago, on |uly 25, 1978, LouiseBrown, the first "test-tube baby" was born. The world'sfirst "test-tube" baby arrived amid a storm of protestand hand-wringing about science gone amok, human-

animal hybrids, and the rebirth of eugenics. But the voicesof those opposed to the procedure were silenced whenBrown was born. She was a happy, healthy infant, and herparents were thrilled. The doctors who helped to create her,Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards, could not have beenmore pleased. She was the first person ever created outsidea woman's body and was as natural a baby as had everentered the world. Today in vitro fertilization (IVF) is oftenthe unremarkable choice of tens of thousands of infertilecouples whose only complaint is that the procedure is toodifficult, uncertain, and expensive. What was once so deeplydisturbing now seems to many people just another part ofthe modern world. Will the same be said one day of childrenwith genetically enhanced intelligence, endurance, and othertraits? Or will such attempts—if they occur at all—lead toextraordinary problems that are looked back upon as theultimate in twenty-first century hubris? (Stock, 2006.)

SugarPhosphateBatkboni'

Base pair

a -J

.asto

Figure 1. Deoxyribonudeic acid (DNA). The chemical insidethe nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions, or blue-prints, for making all the structures and materials the body needsto function.

Soon we may be altering the genes of our children toengineer key aspects of their character and physiology.The ethical and social consequences will be profound.We are standing at the threshold of an extraordinary, yettroubling, scientific dawn that has the potential to alter thevery fabric of our lives, challenging what it means to behuman, and perhaps redesigning our very selves. We are fastapproaching the most consequential technological thresholdin all of human history: the ability to alter the genes wepass to our children. Genetic engineering is already beingcarried out successfully on nonhuman animals. The genethat makes jellyfish fluorescent has been inserted into mice

1 2 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • April 2007

embryos, resulting in glow-in-the-dark rodents. Other micehave had their muscle mass increased, or have been made tobe more faithful to their partners, through the insertion ofa gene into their normal genetic make-up. But this methodof genetic engineering is thus far inefficient. In order toproduce one fluorescent mouse, several go wrong and areborn deformed. If human babies are ever to be engineered,the process would have to become far more efficient, asno technique involving the birth of severely defectivehuman beings to create a "genetically enhanced being" willhopefully ever be tolerated by our society (Designing, 2005).Once humans begin genetically engineering their childrenfor desired traits, we will have crossed a threshold of noreturn. The communities of the world are just beginningto understand the full implications of the new humangenetic technologies. There are few civil society institutions,and there are no social or political movements, criticallyaddressing the immense social, cultural, and psychologicalchallenges these technologies pose.

Until recently, the time scale for measuring change in thebiological world has been tens of thousands, if not tnillionsof years, but today it is hard to imagine what humans maybe like in a few hundred years. The forces pushing humanitytoward attempts at self modihcation, through biologicaland technological advances, are powerful, seductive onesthat we will be hard-pressed to resist. Some will curse thesenew technologie.s, sounding the death knell for humanity,envisioning the social, cultural, and moral collapse ofour society and perhaps our civilization. Others see thesame technologies as the ability to take charge of our ownevolution, to transcend human limitations, and to improveourselves as a species. As the human species moves out ofits childhood, it is time to acknowledge our technologicalcapabilities and to take responsibility for them. We havelittle choice, as the reweaving of the fabric of our geneticmakeup has already begun.

The Basic ScienceBiological entities are comprised of millions of cells. Eachcell has a nucleus, and inside every nucleus are strings otdeoxyribonucleic acid {DNA). DNA carries the completeinformation regarding the function and structure oforganisms ranging from plants and animals to bacterium.Genes, which are sequences of DNA, determine anorganism's growth, size, and other characteristics. Genesare the vehicle by which species transfer inheritablecharacteristics to successive generations. Geneticengineering is the process of artificially manipulating theseinheritable characteristics.

Genetic engineering in its broadest sense has been aroundfor thousands of years, since people first recognized thatthey could mate animals with specific characteristics toproduce offspring with desirable traits and use agriculturalseed selectively. In 1863, Mendel, in his study of peas,discovered that traits were transmitted from parents toprogeny by discrete, independent units, later called genes.His observations laid the groundwork for the field ofgenetics {Genetic, 2006).

Modern human genetic engineering entered the scientificrealm in the nineteenth century with the introductionof Eugenics. Although not yet technically considered"genetic engineering," it represented society's first attemptto scientifically alter the human evolutionary process. Thepractice of human genetic engineering is considered by someto have had its beginnings with in vitro fertilization (IVF)in 1978. IVF paved the way for preimpiantation geneticdiagnosis (PGD), also referred to as preimpiantation geneticselection (PGS). PGD is the process by which an embryois microscopically exatnined for signs of genetic disorders.Several genetically based diseases can now be identified, suchas Downs Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Sickle Cell Anemia,Cystic Fibrosis, and Huntington's disease. There are manyothers that can be tested for, and both medical and scientificinstitutes are constantly searching for and developing newtests. For these tests, no real genetic engineering is takingplace; rather, single cells are removed frotn embryos usingthe same process as used during in vitro fertilization. Thesecells are then examined to identify which are carrying thegenetic disorder and which are not. The embryos that havethe genetic disorder are discarded, those that are free ofthe disorder aie implanted into the woman's uterus in thehope that a baby will be born without the genetic disorder.This procedure is fairly uncontroversial except with thosecritics who argue that human life starts at conceptionand therefore the embryo is sacrosanct and should not betampered with. Another use for this technique is genderselection, which is where the issue becomes slightly morecontroversial. Some disorders or diseases are gender-specific, so instead of testing for the disease or disorder, thegender of the embryo is determined and whichever genderis "undesirable" is discarded. This brings up ethical issuesof gender selection and the consequences for the genderbalance of the human species.

A more recent development is the testing of the embryos fortissue matching. Tiie embryos are tested for a tissue matchwith a sibling that has already developed, or is in danger ofdeveloping, a genetic disease or disorder. The purpose isto produce a baby who can be a tissue donor. This type of

1 3 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • April 2007

procedure was successfully used to cure a six-year-old-boyof a rare blood disorder after transplanting cells from hisbaby brother, who was created to save him. Doctors say thetechnique could be used to help many other children withblood and metabolic disorders, but critics say creating ababy in order to treat a sick sibling raises ethical questions{Genetic, 2006).

The child, Charlie Whitaker, from Derbyshire, England,was born with Diamond Blackfan Anemia, a condition thatprevented him from creating his own red blood cells. Heneeded transfusions every three weeks and drug infusionsnearly every night. His condition was cured by a transplantof cells from the umbilical cord of his baby brother Jamie,who was genetically selected to be a donor after his parents'embryos were screened to find one with a perfect tissuematch. Three months after his transplant, Charlie's doctors.said that he was cured of Diamond Blackfan Anemia, andthe prognosis is that Charlie can now look forward to anormal quality of life (Walsh, 2004). Is this the beginning ofa slippery slope toward "designer" or "spare parts" babies, oris the result that there are now two healthy, happy childreninstead of one very sick child a justification to pursueand continue procedures such as this one? Policymakersand ethicists are just beginning to pay serious attention.A recent working paper by the President's Council onBioethics noted that "as genomic knowledge increases andmore genes are identified that correlate with diseases, theapplications for PGD will likely increase greatly," includingdiagnosing and treating medical conditions such as cancer,mental illness, or asthma, and nonmedical traits such astemperament or height. "While currently a stnall practice,"the Council's working paper declares, "PGD is a momentousdevelopment. It represents the first fusion of genomics andassisted reproduction—effectively opening the door to thegenetic shaping of offspring (Rosen, 2003).

In one sense PGD poses no new eugenic dangers. Geneticscreening using amniocentesis has allowed parents to testthe fitness of potential offspring for years. But PGD is poisedto increase this power significantly; It will allow parentsto choose the child they want, not simply reject the onesthey do not want. It will change the overriding purpose ofIVF, from a treatment for fertility to beitig able to pick andchoose embryos like consumer goods—producing many,discarding most, and desiring only the chosen few.

The next step in disease elimination is to attempt to refine aprocess known as "human germline engineering" or "humangermline modification." Whereas preimpiantation geneticdiagnosis (PGD) affects only the immediate offspring.

germline engineering seeks to affect the genes that arecarried in the ova and sperm, thus eliminating the disease ordisorder from all future generations, making it no longerinheritable. The possibilities for germline engineering gobeyond the elimination of disease and open the door formodifications to human longevity, increased intelligence,increased muscle mass, and many other types of geneticenhancements. This application is by far the moreconsequential, because it opens the door to the alteration ofthe human species. The modified genes would appear notonly in any children that resulted from such procedures, butin all succeeding generations.

The term germline refers to the germ or germinal cells, i.e.,the eggs and sperm. Genes are strings of chemicals thathelp create the proteins that make up the body. Tliey arefound in long coiled chains called chromosomes locatedin the nuclei of the cells of the body. Genetic modificationoccurs by inserting genes into living cells. The desired geneis attached to a viral vector, which has the ability to carrythe gene across the cell membrane. Proposals for inheritablegenetic modification in humans combine techniquesinvolving in vitro fertilization, gene transfer, stem cells, andcloning. Germline modification would begin by using IVFto create a single-cell embryo or zygote. This embryo woulddevelop for about five days to the blastocyst stage (very earlyembiyo consisting of approximately 150 ceils. It containsthe inner cell mass, from which embryonic stem cells arederived, and an outer layer of cells called the trophoblastthat forms the placenta. (It is approximately 1/10 the size ofthe head of a pin.) At this point embryonic stem cells wouldbe removed. (Figure 2) These stem cells would be altered byadding genes using viral vectors. Colonies of altered stemcelts would be grown and tested for successful incorporationof the new genes. Cloning techniques would be used totransfer a successfully modified stem cell nucleus into anenucleated egg cell. This "constructed embryo" would thenbe implanted into a woman's uterus and brought to term.The child born would be a genetically modified human{Inheritable, 2003).

Proponents of germline manipulation assume that oncea gene implicated in a particular condition is identified, itmight be appropriate and relatively easy to replace, change,supplement, or otherwise modify that gene. However,biological characteristics or traits usually depend on inter-actions among many genes and, more importantly, theactivity of genes is affected by various processes that occurboth inside the organism and in its surroundings. Thismeans that scientists cannot predict the full effect thatany gene modification will have on the traits of people orother organisms.

1 4 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • April 2007

I . O

< u

Blastocystin cross section

Figure 2. A preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells produced bycell division following fertilization. The blastocyst is a sphere madeup of an outer layer of cells (the trophoblast), a fluid-filled cavity(the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells on the interior (the innercell mass).

There is no universally accepted ideal of biologicalperfection. To make intentional changes in the genes thatpeople will pass on to their descendants would requirethat we, as a society, agree on how to classify "good" and"bad" genes. We do not have the necessary criteria, norare there mechanisms for establishing such measures.Any formulation of such criteria would inevitably reflectparticular current social biases. The definition of thestandards and the technological means for implementingthem would largely be determined by economically andsocially privileged groups {Human, 2004).

Summary"Designer babies" is a term used by journalists andcommentators—not by scientists—to describe severaldifferent reproductive technologies. These technologies haveone thing in common: they give parents more control overwhat their offspring will be like. Designer babies are madepossible by progress in three fields;

1. Advanced Reproductive Technologies. In the decadessince the first "test tube baby" was born, reproductivemedicine has helped countless women conceive andbear children. Today there are hundreds of thousandsof humans who were conceived thanks to in vitrofertilization. Other advanced reproductive technologiesinclude frozen embryos, egg and sperm donations,surrogate motherhood, pregnancies by older women, andthe direct injection of a sperm cell into an egg.

2. Cell and Chromosome Manipulation. The past decadehas seen astonishing breakthroughs in our knowledgeof cell structure. Our ability to transfer chromosomes(the long threads of DNA in each cell) has led to majordevelopments in cloning. Our knowledge of stem cellswill make many new therapies possible. As we learn moreabout how reproduction works at the cellular level, we

will gain more control over the earliest stages of a baby'sdevelopment.

3. Genetics and Genomics. With the mapping of thehuman genome, our understanding of how DNA affectshuman development is only just beginning. Somedaywe might be able to switch bits of DNA on or off as wewish, or replace sections of DNA at will; research in thatdirection is already well underway.

Human reproduction is a complex process. There aremany factors involved in the reproduction process: thegenetic constitution of the parents, the condition of theparents' egg and sperm, and the health and behavior of theimpregnated mother. When you consider the enormouscomplexity of the human genome, with its billions of DNApairs, it becomes clear that reproduction will always havean element of unpredictability. To a certain extent we havealways controlled our children's characteristics throughthe selection of mates. New technologies will give us morepower to influence our children's "design"—but our controlwill be far from total {Designer, 2002).

Since the term "designer babies" is so imprecise, it is difficultto untangle its various meanings so as to make judgmentsabout which techniques are acceptable. Several differenttechniques have been discussed, such as screening embryosfor high-risk diseases, selecting the sex of a baby, pickingan embryo for specific traits, genetic manipulation fortherapeutic reasons, and genetic manipulation for cosmeticreasons. Although, to date, none of these techniques arefeasible, recent scientific breakthroughs and continuedwork by the scientific community will eventually make eacha possibility in the selection process for the best possibleembryo for implantation.

Arguments for Designer Babies1. Using whatever techniques are available to help prevent

certain genetic diseases will protect children fromsufFering debilitating diseases and deformities and reducethe financial and emotional strain on the parents. If wewant the best for our children, why shouldn't we use thetechnology?

2. The majority of techniques available today can only beused by parents who need the help of fertility clinics tohave children; since they are investing so much time andmoney in their effort to have a baby, shouldn't they beentitled to a healthy one?

3. A great many naturally conceived embryos are rejectedfrom the womb for defects; by screening embryos, we aredoing what nature would normally do for us.

15 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • April 2007

4. Imagine the reaction nowadays if organ transplantationwere to be prohibited because it is "unnatural"^eventhough that is what some people called for whentransplantation was a medical novelty. It is hard to seehow the replacement of a defective gene is any less"natural" than the replacement of a defective organ.File major difference is the entirely beneficial one thatmedical intervention need occur only once around thetime of conception, and the benefits would be inheritedby the child and its descendants.

Arguments Against Designer Babies1. We could get carried away "correcting" perfectly

healthy babies. Once we start down the slippery slopeof eliminating embryos because they are diseased, whatis to stop us from picking babies for their physical orpsychological traits?

2. There is always the looming shadow of eugenics. This wasthe motivation for some government policies in Europeand the United States in the first half of the twentiethcentury that included forced sterilizations, selectivebreeding, and "racial hygiene." Techniques that couldbe used for designing babies will give us dangerous newpowers to express our genetic preferences.

3. There are major social concerns—such as: Will we breeda race of super humans who look down on those withoutgenetic enhancements? Will these new technologies onlybe available to the wealthy—resulting in a lower class thatwill still suffer from inherited diseases and disabilities?Will discrimination against people already born withdisabilities increase if they are perceived as geneticallyinferior?

4. Tampering with the human genetic structuremight actually have unintended and unpredictableconsequences that could damage the gene pool.

5. Many of the procedures related to designing babiesinvolve terminating embryos; many disapprove of this onmoral and religious grounds.

As our technical abilities progress, citizens will have tocope with the ethical implications of designer babies, andgovernments will have to define a regulatory course. We willhave to answer some fundamental questions: How muchpower should parents and doctors have over the design oftheir children? How much power should governments haveover parents and doctors? These decisions should be madebased on facts and on our social beliefs.

ActivityWhat better place to expose our students to a developingtechnology that could eventually change the genetic makeupof the human species and affect the dynamics of politics,economics, morals, and cultural beliefs of our society thanthe technology education classroom?

Winoa Morrissette-Johnson. a high school teacher inAlexandria, Virginia has designed an excellent two-daylesson plan that will allow students to:1. Discover ethical issues surrounding the practice of

genetic engineering in reproductive medicine.2. Understand key terms and concepts related to the science

of genetic engineering.

This lesson plan can be accessed at: http://school.discovery,com/lessonplans/programs/geneticengineering/

ReferencesDesigner Babies. (2002). The Center for the Study of

Technology and Society. Retrieved September 14, 2006fromwww.tecsoc.org/biotech/focusbabies.htm

Designing Babies: The Futtire of Genetics. (2005). BBC News.Retrieved September 22, 2006 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/health/590919.stm

Genetic Engineering and the Future of Human Evolution.(2006). Future Human Evolution Organization. RetrievedSeptember 19, 2006 from www.human-evolution.org/geneticbasics.php

Human Germline Manipulation. (2004). Council forResponsible Genetics. Retrieved October 18. 2006 fromwww.gene-watch.org/programs/cloning/geriTiline-position.html

Inheritable Genetic Modification. (2003). Center forGenetics and Society. Retrieved October 05, 2006 fromwww.gene-watch.org/programs/cloning/germline-position.html

Rosen, C. (2003). Tlie New Atlantis. A lournal of Technologyand Society. Retrieved October 14, 2006 from www.thenewatlantis.eom/archive/2/rosen.htm

Stock, G. (2005). Best Hope, Worst Fear. Human GermlineEngineering. Retrieved October 05, 2006 from http://research.arc2.ucla.edu/pmts/germline/bhwf.htm

Walsh, F. (2004). Brother's Tissue "Cures"Sick Boy BBCNews. Retrieved September 27, 2006 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/health/3756556.stm>

Stephen L. Baird is a technology educationteacher at Bayside Middle School, VirginiaBeach, Virginia and adjunct faculty memberat Old Dominion University. He can bereached via email at Stephen.Baird@vbschools.com.

16 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • April 2007