GENETIC ENGINEERING 1

Genetic engineering and the possibility of designer babies
Cynthrea Bright
International Management
Dr. Matthew Ademola
November 27, 2012

Introduction
Shannon Brownlee is the acting director of the New America Health Policy Program and is also a nationally known writer and essayist. In March of 2002 she wrote an article for the Washington Monthly called Designer Babies. Brownlee explains the birth of cytoplasmic transfer in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process and the technical advances from this process that is making designer babies possible.

Summary
How is the creation of designer babies even possible? Well the process began with the creation of IVF and then in the 1990s embryologist Jacques Cohen created the process called cytoplasmic transfer. This process gave women who did not have success with normal IVF hope by placing cytoplasm from a fertile egg into the infertile women’s eggs. The first baby born from this process was in 1997 and at first was deemed a huge success and advancement in technology. Then 4 years later Cohen admitted to adding mitochondrial DNA to the embryo what in essence gave the child three parents, the mother, father and the mitochondrial DNA donor. This was the first form of human genetic modification and the long term ramifications are still unknown. One of the children born with the mitochondrial DNA has developed a mild form of autism but it has not been determined if it is because of the genetic modification.
Technical advances in the IVF process have made it possible for parents to choose the sex of their child and for embryos to be test for diseases. Fertility doctors are now being asked if they can ensure their child won’t be hyperactive or gay. The only thing that stands in the way of this, practicing eugenics is the ethics and morals of fertility doctors and technical restrictions in place. The technology that is making this possible have no laws, restrictions are guidelines in place to govern them. The Food and Drug Administrative (FDA) states that any embryo that is genetically manipulated is a biological product and bound by regulations like drugs are. Federal laws have made the FDA’s authority in this field unclear though and the market for IVF is fertile.
When the first IVF clinic opened in Norfolk, VA anti-abortionist protested stating that the process allowed fertility doctors to play God, experiment on embryos and even for couples to abort diseased fetuses. When scientists began to apply for federal funds for embryo research the anti-abortionist lobbied for it to be banned and won. This did not stop the research though for there are millions of couples who cannot conceive and they essential fund the market and research.
With private funding leading the way scientific development in the field has been performed out of clinics by fertility doctors. When research is federal funded restrictions that regulate safety and efficacy are set in place and with the lack of federal funds these new techniques are not taken into consideration before they are used on patients. This was seen firsthand in the 90s when new techniques that involved surgery were used like gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT), on hundreds of women to improve pregnancy rates but later abandoned when it did not live up to that promise of higher pregnancy rates. Additionally, no thought of side effects to the embryo or mother was taken into consideration when reproductive tissue from animals was mixed with the culture to incubate embryos. The animal tissue could be contaminated and cause diseases like the mad cow disease. To be fair the results of some these new techniques have produced successful births but statistics for failures is unclear because research is privately funded for one and clinics do not want to produce results for fear of losing clients. A study published by the British Medical Journal states that one of the techniques makes it 200 percent more likely for the child be born with an birth defect and the practice of placing more than one embryo in a women’s womb results in multiple births that could lead to health risk for the mother and child.
Beyond helping women conceive children, genetic engineering has allowed parents to test embryos for tissue types to create a baby to save an existing child who has a fatal disease through Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). This essentially is an issue of parents creating a child for tissue donation and not love. Over time it will be possible for parents do to the unthinkable, create designer babies, by choosing not just their sex but hair and eye color. It is very obvious that some form of oversight is needed in the fertility industry. The FDA needs to update their charter to help shift the balance of power for this issue to their side. The same testing and clinical trials that new drugs and medical devices go through needs to be applied to human embryo experiments. Federal funding should also be considered because it could provide a higher level rigor and restraint to the field as well as provide oversight to human experimentation.

Critique
I have an eleven year old daughter whom I conceived through natural birth. Through nature taking its course I delivered an healthy, curly haired, brown eyed and skin baby girl. There was sense of awe from having delivered such a miracle and remember being amazed that her father and I were able to create something so beautiful. I have watched my daughter grow into herself through intellect, personality, and character. Nature and nurture has conceived and developed my child. I do understand that everyone is not blessed to be able to conceive naturally and utilize IVF in order to do so. What I do not understand and find unethical is the use of PGD for non-medical purposes such as the creation of designer babies. The consequences are numerous to the parent, child and society as a whole. A child is created in the image of God, not to be made into a product to be manufactured. If and when the creation of a child is marketed as a product it could dehumanizes the child and the world. Parents would also be taking on a huge responsibility when choosing the traits of their child as well as taking away the child’s rights. Beyond the responsibility of making such a decision, parents will also raise their expectation level for the child and the child will not have the freedom to pave their own path in the world. Additionally, there are no federal guidelines or policy in place for scientist to adhere to and neither are their actions monitored. There are no long term studies on PGD, so who’s to say this science and future science methods will be proven and safe? Although the science is not quite there, the world should be hesitant and think twice, three times about accepting and using this technology when it does become available for in all things it is unethical. I think society needs to wake up on this issue and realize that funding the fertility industry is not a bad idea, government regulations and restrictions will allow testing to be monitored and help prevent birth defects and other health issues. The FDA also needs to be allowed to granted power to rule on fertility issues.

References Brownlee, Shannon (2007). Society Should Restrict Designer Baby Technologies. Opposing Viewpoints Critical Thinking. Ed. Clay Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints Recourse Center: Critical Thinking database EJ3010454228