Designer babies: Professor Julian Savelescu

“Fancy a child who’s likely to be altruistic? Then look for a version of the COMT gene. Want them to be faithful and enjoy stable relationships? Avoid a variant of AVPR1A. Steer clear of a certain type of the MA0A gene, too—it’s linked to higher levels of violence in children who often suffer abuse or deprivation.

Screening embryos like this is illegal at present, but isn’t rational design something we should welcome? If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring—rather than consigning them to the natural lottery—then we should. Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?” (source: Reader's Digest, Professor Julian Savelescu)

The opportunity will arise within five years to screen not just for certain inherited genetic diseases, such as breast cancer, but for certain genes which affect moral development, such as those listed above. Should we not screen for maximum social benefit, taking the utilitarian criterion, and for greatest personal happiness? This implies:

a. Eliminating future children who will be costly to society in terms of treatments.
b. Eliminating future chlidren who will be costly in terms of criminality or behavioural problems. (Click below to read more)

Some genes, so the argument goes, so affect your life chances that they should be identified and those individuals eliminated from the gene pool before birth. Such genes might include – genes of poor memory, autistic genes, as well as those suggested above affecting relationships. At present it is only defects such as Downs syndrome or predisposiiton to certain cancers or debilitating illnesses that are permitted for screening before embryo selection.

Professor Savelescu (quoted above) using utilitarian considerations of social welfare argues that this is inconsistent. He concludes: “Screening embryos like this is illegal at present, but isn’t rational design something we should welcome? If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring—rather than consigning them to the natural lottery—then we should. Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?”

There seem to be two objections to this view:
1. The theological objection that humankind is more than a bundle of genes. To be human is to embrace imperfection and to acknowledge our uniqueness. There is no one “type” (colour, intelligence, skill set) of humanity. Diversity and imperfection are what makes us human.

2. The philosophical objection to perfectionism. Perfectionism implies some agreed standard that all of us share which defines beauty, truth or in this case, top-tier humanity. But there is no such telos for humanity. This is because many human characteristics do not submit to this test. We are a bundle of different potentialities which together in their complementary way, bring out the meaning of humanity.

To remove those who are problematic or challenging in their behaviour, to remove all those prone to sickness or have a shortened life is, I think, to remove other values, such as compassion, tolerance, patience and sacrifice, which are far higher in the scale of social utility than the supposed greater happiness of a planet of “perfect humans”, even if we could agree on this concept of "perfection".

Image© Rebecca Dyer 

http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/magazine/readers-digest-main/the-maverick-its-our-duty-to-have-designer-babies