This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/editing-human-genome-consumer-eugenics-designer-babies
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer eugenics | Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer eugenics |
| (about 23 hours later) | |
| Fri 4 Aug 2017 12.02 BST | |
| Last modified on Mon 7 Aug 2017 16.06 BST | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| “Hope for families with genetic conditions”, and “scientific breakthrough”: that is how headlines are proclaiming a project that modified human embryos to remove mutations that cause heart failure. But anyone who has concerns about such research is often subjected to moral blackmail. We are regularly lumped in with religious reactionaries or anti-abortion campaigners. | “Hope for families with genetic conditions”, and “scientific breakthrough”: that is how headlines are proclaiming a project that modified human embryos to remove mutations that cause heart failure. But anyone who has concerns about such research is often subjected to moral blackmail. We are regularly lumped in with religious reactionaries or anti-abortion campaigners. |
| The medical justification for spending millions on such research is thin: it would be better spent on developing cures | The medical justification for spending millions on such research is thin: it would be better spent on developing cures |
| I am neither. If you peel away the hype, the truth is that we already have robust ways of avoiding the birth of children with such conditions, where that is appropriate, through genetic testing of embryos. In fact, the medical justification for spending millions of dollars on such research is extremely thin: it would be much better spent on developing cures for people living with those conditions. It’s time we provided some critical scrutiny and stopped parroting the gospel of medical progress at all costs. | I am neither. If you peel away the hype, the truth is that we already have robust ways of avoiding the birth of children with such conditions, where that is appropriate, through genetic testing of embryos. In fact, the medical justification for spending millions of dollars on such research is extremely thin: it would be much better spent on developing cures for people living with those conditions. It’s time we provided some critical scrutiny and stopped parroting the gospel of medical progress at all costs. |
| Where genetic engineering really can do something that embryo selection cannot is in genetic enhancement – better known as designer babies. Unfortunately, that’s where its real market will be. We have already seen that dynamic at work with the “three-parent IVF” technique, developed for very rare mitochondrial genetic conditions. Already, a scientist has created babies that way in Mexico (specifically to avoid US regulations) and a company has been set up with the aim of developing the science of designer babies. | Where genetic engineering really can do something that embryo selection cannot is in genetic enhancement – better known as designer babies. Unfortunately, that’s where its real market will be. We have already seen that dynamic at work with the “three-parent IVF” technique, developed for very rare mitochondrial genetic conditions. Already, a scientist has created babies that way in Mexico (specifically to avoid US regulations) and a company has been set up with the aim of developing the science of designer babies. |
| Scientists who started their careers hoping to treat sick people and prevent suffering are now earning millions of dollars creating drugs to “enhance cognitive performance” or performing cosmetic surgery. We already have consumer eugenics in the US egg donor market, where ordinary working-class women get paid $5,000 for their eggs while tall, beautiful Ivy League students get $50,000. The free market effectively results in eugenics. So it’s not a matter of “the law of unintended consequences” or of “scaremongering” – the consequences are completely predictable. The burden of proof should be on those who say it won’t happen. | Scientists who started their careers hoping to treat sick people and prevent suffering are now earning millions of dollars creating drugs to “enhance cognitive performance” or performing cosmetic surgery. We already have consumer eugenics in the US egg donor market, where ordinary working-class women get paid $5,000 for their eggs while tall, beautiful Ivy League students get $50,000. The free market effectively results in eugenics. So it’s not a matter of “the law of unintended consequences” or of “scaremongering” – the consequences are completely predictable. The burden of proof should be on those who say it won’t happen. |
| Once you start creating a society in which rich people’s children get biological advantages over other children, basic notions of human equality go out the window. Instead, what you get is social inequality written into DNA. Even using low-tech methods, such as those still used in many Asian countries to select out girls (with the result that the world is short of more than 100 million women), the social consequences of allowing prejudices and competitiveness to control which people get born are horrific. | Once you start creating a society in which rich people’s children get biological advantages over other children, basic notions of human equality go out the window. Instead, what you get is social inequality written into DNA. Even using low-tech methods, such as those still used in many Asian countries to select out girls (with the result that the world is short of more than 100 million women), the social consequences of allowing prejudices and competitiveness to control which people get born are horrific. |
| Most “enhancements” in current use, such as those in cosmetic surgery, are intended to help people conform to expectations created by sexism, racism and ageism. More subtly, but equally profoundly, once we start designing our children to perform the way we want them to, we are erasing the fundamental ethical difference between consumer commodities and human beings. Again, this is not speculation: there is already an international surrogacy market in which babies are bought and sold. The job of parents is to love children unconditionally, however clever/athletic/superficially beautiful they are; not to write our whims and prejudices into their genes. | Most “enhancements” in current use, such as those in cosmetic surgery, are intended to help people conform to expectations created by sexism, racism and ageism. More subtly, but equally profoundly, once we start designing our children to perform the way we want them to, we are erasing the fundamental ethical difference between consumer commodities and human beings. Again, this is not speculation: there is already an international surrogacy market in which babies are bought and sold. The job of parents is to love children unconditionally, however clever/athletic/superficially beautiful they are; not to write our whims and prejudices into their genes. |
| It’s for these reasons that most industrialised countries have had legal bans against human genetic engineering for the last 30 years. Think about that for a moment: it’s pretty unusual for societies that normally put technological innovation at the centre of their policies to ban technologies before they’re even feasible. There have to be very good reasons for such an unprecedented step, and it’s not to do with “protecting embryos”. It’s to do with the social consequences. | It’s for these reasons that most industrialised countries have had legal bans against human genetic engineering for the last 30 years. Think about that for a moment: it’s pretty unusual for societies that normally put technological innovation at the centre of their policies to ban technologies before they’re even feasible. There have to be very good reasons for such an unprecedented step, and it’s not to do with “protecting embryos”. It’s to do with the social consequences. |
| Genetically modified crops are a good comparison. Faced with a similarly irresponsible absolutism from the scientific community – as well as with the obvious competition for fame and profit – the green movement and the left felt they had to take the issue of GM food into their own hands. Now it looks like it’s time to campaign for a global ban on the genetic engineering of people. We must stop this race for the first GM baby. | Genetically modified crops are a good comparison. Faced with a similarly irresponsible absolutism from the scientific community – as well as with the obvious competition for fame and profit – the green movement and the left felt they had to take the issue of GM food into their own hands. Now it looks like it’s time to campaign for a global ban on the genetic engineering of people. We must stop this race for the first GM baby. |
| • Dr David King is a former molecular biologist and founder of Human Genetics Alert, an independent secular watchdog group that supports abortion rights | • Dr David King is a former molecular biologist and founder of Human Genetics Alert, an independent secular watchdog group that supports abortion rights |
| Genetics | |
| Opinion | |
| Medical research | |
| Biology | |
| Embryos | |
| comment | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |