Designer Baby

The term "designer baby" refers to a baby that has been created to meet specific genetic criteria. It is not a scientific term, but one coined by the media to designate a baby genetically "designed" to carry or not carry certain traits. The term often carries negative connotations, as it raises a host of practical concerns and ethical considerations that have been the subject of wide debate. Limited DNA manipulation is already possible, and the mapping of the human genome, rapid progress in gene therapy, and the creation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have opened the door to further breakthroughs.

Until the twentieth century, the sole determinants of a baby’s genetics were the DNA in the sperm and the egg that met to create the embryo. There was no reliable form of prenatal testing or manipulation. Babies were conceived and born without any possibility of the parents knowing traits such as gender, eye color, or potential for genetic abnormality until the baby was born. But technological developments have made such insights a reality and increasingly provide the ability to shape traits and characteristics before birth.

Background

Genetics is the study of heredity, the transmission of traits or characteristics from parents to their offspring. Heredity has been of interest for agricultural purposes for centuries, as farmers have long attempted to breed livestock and crops that would be most successful in a given set of circumstances. For example, large, healthy cattle would be preferred for economic reasons, and by continually breeding the largest, healthiest specimens, farmers would promote the spread of genes that control for size and disease resistance. This form of artificial selection, known as selective breeding, began long before the science behind it was understood.

Gregor Mendel was an Austrian Augustinian monk who is widely acknowledged to be the father of genetics. In 1856, Mendel used his education in physics and mathematics to begin a major experimental program in which he bred pea plants for specific characteristics. By working with generations of plants, Mendel was able to accurately track and analyze how the qualities of parent plants affected those of their offspring, establishing the laws of heredity and the concept of the gene as the unit for transmitting such information. Mendel’s work was later shown to apply to animals as well, including humans.

In the late twentieth century, human genetics became an important field of research thanks to advances in theory and technology. Scientists developed methods of genetic testing to identify risk for various genetic disorders. Techniques such as amniocentesis, percutaneous umbilical blood sampling (PUBS), and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) sample the DNA of a developing fetus prior to birth and allow screening for various diseases. The Human Genome Project, active from 1990 to 2003, successfully sequenced the complete human genome, providing a foundation for further research into how genes work—and how they may potentially be controlled. These and other developments led to speculation that genetic testing could progress beyond medical applications and be used to select babies based on non-health-related traits such as height, eye color, or even complex characteristics like intelligence. In 2012, researchers reported progress in noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus. This achievement brought scientists a step closer to perfecting the process necessary to create designer babies: the manipulation of genetic material in an unborn child.

Topic Today

Methods of genetic engineering to impact the development of a fetus vary, with the most complex forms of selection and manipulation remaining unproven. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a technique used in in vitro fertilization (IVF), involves screening embryos for traits such as genetic diseases or gender before deciding which embryo to implant in the womb. Gene therapy involves altering or replacing cells’ DNA or mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), including in unfertilized egg cells. Advances in stem cell research offer further possibilities for shaping an embryo’s genes for a desired outcome.

In February 2016, the British government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority approved genetic editing in human embryos in research by the Francis Crick Institute. The specific process approved, which had only been used on humans once before, is known as CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) and uses the Cas9 enzyme to snip out sections of the genome. It made genetic modification far easier and more precise than ever before and showed the potential to efficiently accomplish things like removing the genes that cause certain diseases. The controversy surrounding genetic modification in general, however, led many researchers to call for any further steps to wait on consensus regarding the ethical implications; scientists directly involved in the Crick Institute's project denied any intent to create designer babies or otherwise promote eugenics, focusing instead on the goal of understanding early genetic development. Critics claimed that any implementation of CRISPR or similar techniques, even if initially used only to prevent genetic diseases, would inevitably lead to its use for nonmedical reasons and the creation of designer babies.

The potential to create a designer baby raises significant ethical and legal concerns. Questions have been raised on issues such as parental rights over an unimplanted embryo and the rights of a person in decisions made about their genetics prior to their birth. Proponents of human genetic engineering view choosing a baby’s traits as a logical progression of parental choice, while some opponents see the process as a potential danger to family relationships. A common fear is that as the exact genetics of more complex physical and intellectual characteristics are discovered, the wealthy will be able to afford to choose desirable features for their children while others will not, leading to an escalating division of social classes by genetics. Others object to designer babies on religious grounds, claiming that the process is a form of playing God. Still another concern is that genome modification through highly experimental techniques such as CRISPR remain potentially harmful to the developing embryo, posing risks such as accidental deletion of the wrong genes.

Although screening embryos for purely medical reasons is widely practiced and accepted, there are ethical concerns about the health aspects of designer babies as well. While some advocate using such screenings to prevent a child with a genetic condition such as Down syndrome, others see such measures as discrimination and object to the rejection and termination of embryos deemed "defective." Another concern is the "savior sibling," a child who is conceived with the express purpose of providing genetic material to an original sibling in dire need due to a health condition. Savior siblings are conceived using assisted reproductive technology; their DNA is tested to ensure they are a genetic match for the existing child and are free of the disease. While the process can be effective, concerns have been raised over the disposal of embryos that do not meet the requirements and the creation of a new life purely for the purpose of saving an existing life.

The legal and ethical issues regarding designer babies are compounded by the lack of official consensus and government regulation on the subject. Professional organizations such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) hold differing stances on the acceptable limits of genetic manipulation and selection. A lack of legal precedent and the rapidly developing pace of genetic technologies means that perspectives on the issue continue to quickly shift and evolve. From any viewpoint, the concept of designer babies will continue to be a source of debate in the medical and bioethical communities. The general public shares strong feelings on the issue as well: a 2016 poll conducted by the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and the science website STAT found that a majority of Americans were against the idea of designer babies, even those genetically modified to prevent diseases. However, people's views have shifted over time. A 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center revealed that the American public was equally divided over the use of gene editing in babies to reduce the risk of disease, with 30 percent saying it would be a bad idea for society and 30 percent saying it would be a good idea. A further 39 percent surveyed said they were unsure if designer babies would be harmful or beneficial to society.

In the summer of 2017, it was reported that a team of scientists at Oregon Health and Science University had carried out the first known successful modification of the DNA of human embryos in the United States. This achievement, which also proved more effective than previous attempts conducted by Chinese scientists, increased debates regarding the possible reality of designer babies. However, some experts argued that as this experiment, which utilized the CRISPR technique, only involved a sole gene mutation in a single-cell embryo, it represented significant progress in the field of gene editing but did not necessarily mean that scientists would have the capability to conduct the complex level of personality and intellect modifications that involve multiple genes associated with the concept of designer babies. That year, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine issued an endorsement of gene editing, but noted that it should only be used for "serious diseases and disability."

The debate over designer babies continued into the 2020s. Meanwhile, scientists pointed to the successful use of CRISPR technology to solve problems other than creating gene-edited babies, including in the treatment of serious diseases like cancer and HIV. In 2023, news reports shared that the technology had been used to cure symptoms of sickle cell disease, a blood disorder that largely affects African Americans, in some patients.

Bibliography

Begley, Sharon. "STAT-Harvard Poll: Americans Say No to 'Designer Babies.'" STAT, Boston Globe Media, 11 Feb. 2016, www.statnews.com/2016/02/11/stat-harvard-poll-gene-editing/. Accessed 17 May 2016.

Belluck, Pam. "Gene Editing for ‘Designer Babies’? Highly Unlikely, Scientists Say." The New York Times, 4 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/science/gene-editing-embryos-designer-babies.html. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Berlatsky, Noah. Genetic Engineering. Greenhaven, 2013.

Bliss, John. Designer Babies. Heinemann, 2012.

Chamary, J. V. "GM Human Embryos Won't Create Designer Babies." Forbes, 16 Feb. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2016/02/16/embryo-gene-editing/#e4ad73329f9b. Accessed 17 May. 2016.

Daar, Judith. Reproductive Technologies and the Law. LexisNexis, 2013.

Ghose, Tia. "Children to Order: The Ethics of ‘Designer Babies’" LiveScience, 13 Mar. 2014, www.livescience.com/44087-designer-babies-ethics.html. Accessed 23 Nov. 2014.

Kelley, Kristin. "Amniocentesis Prior to 1980." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Arizona Board of Regents, 25 Sept. 2013, embryo.asu.edu/pages/amniocentesis-prior-1980. 23 Nov. 2014.

Kitzman, J. O., et al. "Noninvasive Whole-Genome Sequencing of a Human Fetus." Science Translational Medicine, vol. 4, no. 137, 2012, pp. 137–76.

Liss-Schultz, Nina. "We Are This Close to 'Designer Babies.'" Mother Jones, 8 Feb. 2016, www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/genome-embryo-crispr-designer-babies/. Accessed 17 May 2016.

Rainie, Lee et al. "Americans Are Closely Divided Over Editing a Baby's Genes to Reduce Serious Health Risk." Pew Research Center, 17 Mar. 2022, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/americans-are-closely-divided-over-editing-a-babys-genes-to-reduce-serious-health-risk/. Accessed 30 July 2024.

Regalado, Antonio. "Forget Designer Babies. Here's How CRISPR Is Really Changing Lives." MIT Technology Review, 7 Mar. 2023, www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/07/1069475/forget-designer-babies-heres-how-crispr-is-really-changing-lives/. Accessed 30 July 2024.

Sher, Geoffrey, et al. In Vitro Fertilization: The A.R.T. of Making Babies (Assisted Reproductive Technology). Skyhorse, 2013.

Taylor-Sands, Michelle. A Relational Approach to Assisted Reproduction: Re-evaluating the Welfare of the Child Principle in Selecting Saviour Siblings. Routledge, 2012.