How Designer Children Work

by Kevin Bonsor and Julia Layton

Given the choice, would you rather have been born with a different eye color, hair color or skin
tone? Maybe you would have chosen to be taller, thinner or more muscular. Of course, you didn't
have these options. The physical and personal traits a person winds up with are just one big roll
of the dice, with only the biological parents' genes to draw from. However, within advances in
genetics research, people may soon preselect their children's physical and personality traits like
they pick out options on a new car.
Scientists have only begun to unravel the secrets hidden within the human genome-- the genetic
blueprint for a human being. The mapping of the genome was finished in 2003, and scientists are
continuing on the quest to discover what each gene does and how it functions. At this point in
2010, it's possible to manipulate the genes of embryos. In February 2009, a fertility clinic in Los
Angeles tried to offer selection of hair and eye color but retracted the offering in the face of public
backlash.
But the implications of human genetic manipulation go further than choosing green eyes. In
England, deaf activists protested a 2007 bill that allowed for genetic selection only against certain
diseases and disabilities, and prohibit selection for them, claiming deaf parents should have the
right to select a deaf child if hearing parents have the right to select a hearing child
[source: TimesOnline].
That same bill let parents select embryos that would make suitable "savior siblings" -- children
conceived with the initial purpose of acting as donors for a sick brother or sister. Some people
argue that embryos selected for their tissue types are a kind of designer children, just like
embryos selected for tallness or blond hair.
Designing our babies is a reality that governments, ethicists and religious organizations are just
now starting to address in full force. In this article, we'll learn about the progress and goals of
human-genome research, how we're already weeding out genetic diseases and about the future
of "selecting" human offspring.
The basis of all potential genetic manipulation in human beings is the human genome, the Holy
Grail of genetics research. In 2003, scientists finished it -- at least to the degree that current
technology allows.

Mapping the Human Genome
If you think of the human body as big, complicated, encrypted code, then the scientists mapping
the human genome are attempting to break that code. Once the code is broken, it will reveal
many secrets of how the human body works, and it could lead to greater disease prevention. In
June 2000, scientists from the Human Genome Project and from Celera Genomics both





































announced that they had assembled a working draft sequence of the human genome, a major
step in cracking the code.
What researchers are trying to do is
construct a detailed genetic map of the
human genome and determine the
entire nucleotide sequence of
humandeoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). A
nucleotide is the basic unit of nucleic acid,
which is found in the 23 pairs
ofchromosomes in the human body.
According to the Human Genome Project,
there are between 26,000 and 40,000
genes in the human body. Each of these
genes is composed of a unique sequence
of pairs, each with four bases, called base
pairs.
In a DNA molecule, which is shaped like a
twisted ladder, the bases are the chemicals
that interlock to form the rungs of the
ladder. The sides of the ladder are made of
sugar and phosphate molecules. The human
body has about 3 billion base pairs, but only
about 4 percent of those pairs constitute
DNA that affects gene function. We don't
have any idea about the purpose of the
other 96 percent of base pairs, consequently
termed junk-DNA.
The finished sequence was completed, with 99.99-percent accuracy, in 2003. Discovering the
secrets of the sequence is still in its infancy.
Better understanding the human genome will tell us a lot about how life works. It could lead to
preventing or curing diseases, because genetics is what getting sick is all about -- our genes are
trying to fight off the genes of a virus or bacteria. The next step will be to determine how this
battle is played out. Today, researchers know the positions of some genes that control our
medical traits. Other genes have been located but their functions are unknown, and still others
remain entirely elusive. The point of genome research is to locate the genes and determine just
how the four bases are sequenced, and then to learn what the genes actually do!
! which opens the door to all sorts of options.


Fig. 1. Bumans have 2S paiis of
chiomosomes, which they inheiit fiom
theii paients. These chiomosomes
contain the genes that ueteimine theii
offspiing's tiaits. The tiaits that aie
obseiveu in the phenotype aie
ueteimineu by the genotype of the
offspiing.





































Genetic Prescreening
When doctors first performed in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1978, it gave many otherwise infertile
couples a way to have a child of their own. IVF works by removing the eggs from the woman's
uterus, fertilizing them in a laboratory and then, a few days later, transferring the fertilized egg,
called a zygote, back into the uterus. IVF has also led to a procedure that allows parents to weed
out genetically defective embryos. This procedure is called preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD).
PGD is often used during IVF to test an embryo for genetic disorders before inserting it into the
woman's uterus. Once the egg is fertilized, acell from each embryo is taken and examined under
a microscope for signs of genetic disorders. Many couples use this procedure if there are any
inherited disorders in their genes to decrease the possibility that the disorder will passed to their
child. Currently, PGD can be used to detect many disorders, including cystic fibrosis, Down
syndrome,Tay-Sachs disease and hemophilia A.
Some genetic disorders are specific to one gender or another, such as hemophilia, which usually
affects boys. Doctors may examine the cells to determine the gender of the embryo. In a case
where a family has a history of hemophilia, only female embryos are selected for placement in the
uterus. This practice is at the center of a larger debate about whether parents should be able to
choose embryos purely on the basis of gender. Some people worry that it could lead to an
imbalance between genders in the general population, especially in societies that favor boys over
girls, such as China.
While PGD enables us to pick out embryos that don't have genetic disorders, and even chose the
gender we want, it is only the beginning of what genetic engineering can do. Parents could some
day custom-order babies with certain traits.
Hair- and eye-color selection is already a (highly controversial) possibility.

Choosing from the Genetic Menu
The idea of manipulating the genes of humans should not surprise us. Scientists have been
altering animal genes for years. Goats and cows have been manipulated so that they produce
more milk or more proteins in their milk. Mice have been injected with genes that may
cause Alzheimer's disease in an effort to find a cure. Jellyfish genes have been injected into the
monkey genome.
One of the more interesting transgenic animals was created by injecting a spider gene into a
goat's genome. Spider silk is very strong and, if produced in enough quantity, could create a very
powerful type of body armor. And while spiders don't make enough silk to produce this super
body armor, scientists discovered that spider silk is a protein similar to goat milk. When the spider
gene is inserted into a goat, the goat produces a protein that is identical to that found in spider
silk. This protein is extracted from the goat's milk to produce silk fibers, called BioSteel, which is
used to make bulletproof vests.





































Altering the genetic properties of living animals is a reality, and some of these animals have
genetic makeups similar to that of humans. It's only a small leap from here to producing humans
who can jump higher, see farther, hear better (or not at all) or run faster. Before these super
humans can be created, though, we have to learn more about the human genetic code.
One method that could soon be used to change human genetics is called germline gene
therapy. It involves adding a step to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Germinal cells are our
reproductive cells, and this approach means manipulating genes of the sperm, egg or early
embryo. Beyond just screening embryos, germline therapy actually adds new genes to the cells.
It's possible that almost any trait could be added to an embryo to create a tailor-made child.
Germline therapy is already being performed on animals. Genetic changes to germinal cells may
not show up in the animal that results from the embryo, but may instead show up in later
generations.
The long-term implications of germline therapy could be the elimination of disease and disability
by simply "fixing" genetic problems as they arise. They could also be a bit darker -- a "Gattaca"-
esque scenario in which only genetically perfect beings can advance in society. Or a nation
develops super-human bullet-proof speedster soldiers and conquers the rest of the world for
slave labor.
Either way, we can look forward to intense debate in the coming years over the acceptable
applications of genetics discoveries. Will designing children to look, act and think a certain way
become a commonplace approach to propagation?

- Copieu fiom: http:science.howstuffwoiks.comlifegeneticuesignei-
chiluien4.htm
o See this website foi moie infoimation on uesignei babies






































Ethics of Designer Babies
by Sarah Ly Keywords: Reproductive rights (/keywords/reproductive-rights), Genetic engineering (/keywords/genetic-engineering), Eugenics (/keywords/eugenics)
A designer baby is a baby genetically engineered in vitro (/search?text=in%20vitro) for specially selected traits, which can vary from lowered disease-risk to gender selection. Before the advent of genetic engineering and in vitro (/search?text=in%20vitro)
fertilization (/search?text=fertilization) (IVF), designer babies were primarily a science ction concept. However, the rapid advancement of technology before and after the turn of the twenty-rst century makes designer babies an increasingly real
possibility. As a result, designer babies have become an important topic in bioethical debates, and in 2004 the term designer baby even became an o!cial entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. Designer babies represent an area within
embryology (/search?text=embryology) that has not yet become a practical reality, but nonetheless draws out ethical concerns about whether or not it will become necessary to implement limitations regarding designer babies in the future.
The prospect of engineering a child with specic traits is not far-fetched. IVF has become an increasingly common procedure to help couples with infertility (/search?text=infertility) problems conceive children, and the practice of IVF confers the
ability to pre-select embryos before implantation (/search?text=implantation). For example, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (/search?text=preimplantation%20genetic%20diagnosis) (PGD) allows viable (/search?text=viable) embryos to be screened for various
genetic traits, such as sex-linked diseases, before implanting them in the mother. Through PGD, physicians can select embryos that are not predisposed to certain genetic conditions. For this reason, PGD is commonly used in medicine when
parents carry genes (/search?text=genes) that place their children at risk for serious diseases such as cystic brosis (/search?text=cystic%20brosis) or sickle cell anemia (/search?text=anemia). Present technological capabilities point to PGD as the likely
method for selecting traits, since scientists have not established a reliable means of in vivo (/search?text=in%20vivo) embryonic gene selection.
An early and well-known case of gender selection took place in 1996 when Monique and Scott Collins saw doctors at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, for in vitro (/search?text=in%20vitro) fertilization (/search?text=fertilization). The Collins
intended to conceive a girl, as their rst two children were boys and the couple wanted a daughter in the family. This was one of the rst highly publicized instances of PGD in which the selection of the embryo was not performed to address a
specic medical condition, but to fulll the parents desire to create a more balanced family. The Collins decision to have a designer baby by choosing the sex of their child entered the public vernacular when they were featured in Time
Magazines 1999 article "Designer Babies". Though the Collins case only involved choice of gender, it raised the issues of selection for other traits such as eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height that are not generally related to the health of
the child.
Prior to the Collins decision to choose the sex of their child, The Council on Ethical and Judicial A"airs released a statement in 1994 in support of using genetic selection as a means to prevent, cure or specic diseases, but that selection
based on benign characteristics was not ethical. Some ethical concerns held by opponents of designer babies are related to the social implications of creating children with preferred traits. The social argument against designer babies is that if
this technology becomes a realistic and accessible medical practice, then it would create a division between those that can a"ord the service and those that cannot. Therefore, the wealthy would be able to a"ord the selection of desirable
traits in their o"spring, while those of lower socioeconomic standing would not be able to access the same options. As a result, economic divisions may grow into genetic divisions, with social distinctions delineating enhanced individuals from
unenhanced individuals. For example, the science-ction lm Gattaca explores this issue by depicting a world in which only genetically-modied individuals can engage in the upper echelon of society.
Other bioethicists have argued that parents have a right to prenatal autonomy, which grants them the right to decide the fate of their children. George Annas, chair of the Department of Health Law, Bioethics, and Human Rights at Harvard
University (/search?text=Harvard%20University) has o"ered support for the idea of PGD, and the designer babies that result, as a consumer product that should be open to the forces of market regulation (/search?text=regulation). Additionally, other
arguments in favor of designer baby technologies suggest that parents already possess a high degree of control over the outcome of their childrens lives in the form of environmental choices, and that this should absolve some of the ethical
concerns facing genetic selection. For example, parents keen on establishing musical appreciation in their children may sign them up for music classes or take them to concerts on a regular basis. These choices a"ect the way a child matures,
much like the decision to select certain genes (/search?text=genes) predisposes a child to develop in ways that the parents have predetermined are desirable.
The increased ability to control and manipulate embryos presents many possibilities for improving the health of children through prenatal diagnosis (/search?text=prenatal%20diagnosis), but these possibilities are coupled with potential social
repercussions that could have negative consequences in the future. Ultimately, designer babies represent great potential in the eld of medicine and scientic research, but there remain many ethical questions that need to be addressed.
Sources
1. Agar, Nicholas. American Institute of Biological Sciences (/search?text=American%20Institute%20of%20Biological%20Sciences). Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html
(http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html) (Accessed October 16, 2010).
2. Annas, George. Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnostic Technology: Medical, Market, or Regulatory Model? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 721 (1994): 2628.
3. Council on Ethical and Judicial A"airs, American Medical Association (/search?text=American%20Medical%20Association). Ethical Issues Related to Prenatal Genetic Testing, Archives of Family Medicine 3 (1994): 63342.
4. Kitcher, Philip. Creating Perfect People. In Companion to Genetics, eds. Justine Burley and John Harris, 22942. Boston: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
5. Lemonick, Michael. Designer Babies. 153, Time Magazine, January 11, 1999.
6. Morales, Tatiana. CBS News. Choosing Your Babys Gender. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/06/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main528404.shtml
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/06/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main528404.shtml) (Accessed October 17, 2010).
7. Verlinsky, Yuri. Designing Babies: What the Future Holds, Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (2005): 246.
Subject:
Reproduction; Reproduction; Ethics
Topic:
Ethics (/topics/ethics), Reproduction (/topics/reproduction)
How to Cite:
Ly, Sarah, "Ethics of Designer Babies". Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2011-03-31). ISSN: 1940-5030 (tel:1940-5030) http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/2088.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 11:53
Publisher:
Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia.
Rights:
Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
Show full item record (http://hpsrepository.mbl.edu/handle/10776/2088)
Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version (http://embryo.asu.edu/print/463) (http://embryo.asu.edu/print/463) Send by email Send by email (http://embryo.asu.edu/printmail/463) (http://embryo.asu.edu/printmail/463) PDF version PDF version (http://embryo.asu.edu/printpdf/463) (http://embryo.asu.edu/printpdf/463)
The Embryo Project Encyclopedia
Recording and contextualizing the science of embryos, development, and reproduction. Recording and contextualizing the science of embryos, development, and reproduction.
Search... search
http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies Mar 18, 2014, 7:19:10 AM











































The Ethics of "Designer Babies" the ethics of the genetic modication of babies
1 Comment
THE PROS AND CONS OF DESIGNER BABIES
(http://designerbabiesethics.les.wordpress.com/2013/04/desisisi1.jpg)
The process of creating a designer baby is often questioned because of its shaky moral platform. Though there are certainly some positive things that can be obtained from the use of genetic engineering
used on unborn babies, but it is often wondered if parents will have the right reasons to genetically modify their baby, or if reasoning will become more supercial. Here are some of the cons associated
with the genetic engineering of babies:
If the process is not done carefully, the embryo could be accidentally terminated.
Furthermore, the technology used is not 100% safe yet. It is only in the experimental stages at this point.
Parents may use this technology for supercial purposes; such as purposely seeking out a blonde haired, blue eyed baby for appearance concerns only.
Could create a gap in society. Designer babies would most likely be better looking, smarter, etc. This could create classes between designer and non designer babies.
Because the technology is so new, it is unknown whether genetically modifying the babies will effect the gene pool. This could cause difculties later on throughout the babys family tree.
A baby cannot consent to having its body altered; therefore some do not believe its right as parents do not own their children.
Genes often have more than one use. For example, a gene that controls intelligence could also control anger management. You could end up with a genius, but very angry, child.
Geneticists are not perfect people and cannot 100% properly evaluate every gene. It is more than likely mistakes will be made.
Individuality will be slighted. Because most people will seek out good-looking, intelligent babies with other optimum characteristics, everyone will be relatively similar.
The procedure is not cheap, and not everyone would be able to afford it. Could create prejudice between Designer and non designer children. Could cause the non-designer children to
miss opportunities because jobs among other things are more likely to take the optimum candidate for something.
The ability to change as humans will falter.
Although there are many questions of if genetically modifying babies is ethical and for the moral reason, there are many positives to this type of treatment:
Installs a better understanding of genetics for genealogists and biologists.
Increases human life span up to 30 years.
Prevents genetic diseases such as down syndrome, Alzheimers, Huntingtons Disease, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and many others.
Reduces risk of inherited medical conditions such as obesity, anemia, diabetes, cancer, and many more.
Keeps up with modern technologies.
Enhancement of children.
Allows parents to give their child a healthy life.
Genetically engineering babies is an option, not a requirement for all parents. For those that disagree with it, they dont have to engineer their child.
Children are already engineered by parents in many ways. Prenatal supplements, education, religion, and morals are all ways parents control their child.
Taking folate during pregnancy reduces risk of a child developing autism. This is an example of medically altering a child and it is considered ethically acceptable.
Eliminates mitochondrial disorders.
Parents set their own limits for genetically engineering their baby.
A complete ban will increase the demand and send people to unauthorized biologists or overseas to receive the same treatment that the US is capable of.
Government does not have the right to control means of reproduction.
Some environmental factors are inevitable so preventative measures should be taken as well.
Allows prospective parents to give their child genes that they do not carry.
With all scientic and technological advancements there is ethical disparagement, the ethical view points should not cease the advancement of technology.
Although not all the kinks in this newly developing technology are xed, with more clinical trials and experimentation, it has the potential to be a very promising.
One response to THE PROS AND CONS OF DESIGNER BABIES
Cait Kraemer says : May 13, 2013 at 3:18 am
This is all very interesting and thought provoking. I think this technology could play a rather interesting role in the future if and when it is developed. Are/will people using/use this technology for
cosmetic reasons? Yes. But I think the possibility of pre-diagnosing illnesses such as Austism and Down Syndrome would be such a great thing because then families who might have to deal with those
illnesses wont have to. Does the possibility of misuse overshadow the possibility of affecting countless families for the better? Because there are so many negatives as well as positives, it does makes the
topic of designer babies kind of hard to decipher.
REPLY
April 28, 2013
About these ads (http://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/)
http://designerbabiesethics.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/the-cons-of-designer-babies/ Mar 21, 2014, 11:45:21 AM











































The Ethics of "Designer Babies"
Blog at WordPress.com. The Skeptical Theme.
Follow
Follow The Ethics of "Designer Babies"
Powered by WordPress.com
http://designerbabiesethics.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/the-cons-of-designer-babies/ Mar 21, 2014, 11:45:21 AM