Against Designer-ish Babies
—
The Economist recently ran an article titled “In Praise of Designer-ish Babies.” The article describes how certain businesses are now offering couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) the opportunity to “screen” the embryos they create. Embryos can supposedly be screened for genetic risks for illnesses and even for particular heights or IQ levels.
The article endorses such screening of embryos. Its main argument is that parents just want to give their kids the best chance, so why shouldn’t people be allowed to have as much information as possible to select the “best” embryos?
The concept of a “best” kind of human being is where the trouble begins.
Of course, if one believes that human rights begin at conception, when a unique individual is formed, embryo selection is inherently wrong since it kills the unwanted embryos. Those in favor might argue that since an estimated 26% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, this is ethically permissible. But there is a difference between intentionally killing an embryo and accepting the tragic loss of a life through natural causes.
Even if one does not agree that human rights begin at conception, though, there are many reasons to be cautious about the selection of embryos based on desired genetic traits, an approach also known as “designer babies.”
The fact that there are populations that are currently over- and underrepresented by genealogical databases is one of the most disturbing things about the concept of selecting embryos. The article casually mentions that those with European ancestry have a better chance of getting accurate genetic risk assessments, because those with European ancestry are better represented in genetic databases. Even for those who don’t believe embryo selection is inherently wrong, this racist reality alone should be enough to give people pause.
If embryo selection becomes commonplace, this means that those with European ancestry will have an unfair advantage. It will create even more racial inequality in our society if those with European ancestry are better able to choose more highly desired traits for their children.
A 2019 study showed that by choosing from 10 embryos, parents may be able to raise the height of their child by 1-6 cm and boost their IQ by 7 points. As databases improve and cover broader populations, embryo selection could lead to even larger disparities between children who were produced through embryo selection and those who were not.
It’s interesting to note that in Isabel Wilkerson’s book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, she asks readers to imagine a world in which privilege has been determined by height instead of skin color. A version of this could become the reality if embryo selection becomes widespread and is limited to the wealthy or well-connected.
The Economist article dismisses criticisms of embryos selection as being unnatural or eugenicist. The article argues that unnatural reproductive technology is already being used in the case of IVF and that there is a difference between the “murderous coercion of early-20th-century eugenics programmes and parents seeking as much knowledge as possible when picking an embryo.”
But selecting the child with the highest IQ seems eerily reminiscent of Buck v. Bell, a landmark US Supreme Court case in which it was ruled that institutions could forcibly sterilize inmates who were judged “feebleminded” so that they couldn’t spread their alleged lack of intelligence to future generations. Embryo selection based on IQ takes this a step further by intentionally deleting those who have the genes for a lower IQ.
So how close are we to creating true “designer” babies? It’s currently difficult for traits that are controlled by more than one gene to be predicted in an embryo. There is a concern that companies that are promising embryo selection based on multi-gene traits are preying on vulnerable parents who want the best chance for their children.
Also, as the article says, not many people are currently able to use embryo selection. As of now, embryo selection businesses are mostly for the wealthy. However, that will change as more people invest in this kind of technology and the technology advances.
Parents will always want the best for their children. But there is a stark ethical difference between hiring a tutor and disposing of embryos that don’t quite make the cut.
Laws must be put in place with at least some restrictions over what can be chosen or selected. In Britain, for example, it is only legal to select an embryo for approved factors.
While restricted embryo selection still doesn’t support a Consistent Life Ethic that respects the rights of human beings at all stages, it is better than a eugenicist free-for-all. As the old adage goes, if we don’t learn from history’s mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them.
Comments