While reading through one of my teacher buddy’s blog, I came across one of his interesting class discussions. Basically he quoted an article on genetic engineering and the possibility of removing birth defects before they become a problem–and showed how some couples actually want to include Birth Defects. I mean, Why develop Meckel’s Diverticulitis when you’re thirty when you can easily get rid of it from the genetic architecture: but if you love your kid, would you want him to have the same issues so that you can bond?
The particular couple referenced in both articles, with the genetic disorder of dwarfism, doesn’t want to have “normal” children–they want kids that are like them: dwarfs. They want that deformity plugged into the genetic code to ensure similarity between the parents and the child.
Now, unmistakably, we’ll say that that sort of thing is conceptually wrong. After all, what’s being done is actually a potential danger to the human since folks with dwarfism have a higher risk factor with a bunch of other congenital stuff (even though, its conceivable that the “side effects” can be removed before hand and just leave the dwarfism).
The question (in my friends post) hinges on this: if it is wrong to add a defect to the genetic code to ensure likeness in family members then is it wrong the other way around? Said plainly if adding a defect is wrong, is removing defects also wrong? Is it wrong at a completely different level?
5 responses to “Paradise City Where the Babies Are Pretty: A Question on Genetic Engineering”
No one really knows what sort of crazy chain reactions can happen on the sub DNA level. What strand of code keeps another strand of code in check.. and vice versa.
Do we really want carbon copies of each other running around. Sure that is a tad extreme, but i’m sure eventually, we will start to view all sorts of things as defects. To tall, to short, fat/skinng/ ugly/hot. To dark, to light, to domincan(born with Dominos Disease). Where would we finally draw the line?
Will hitler finally get his “perfect race”?
I guess on the plus side, we can actually develope people to do a set job. Figthers, thickers, builders… i think this was an old episode of Startrek next gen.
That’s a really good point. Implementing this sort of genetic tampering opens us up to an entire new realm of potential “diseases” on the genetic level. An Off Switch on say Dominicanism can me an On switch on emCeeEhfism.
So that is a huge potential problem.
The ethical problems you raised are also very self-evident. A perfect race implies a sort of homogeneity which demarcates anything outside of that so-called perfection as Faulty. Not only that, I would imagine that this leaves humanity vulnerable in matters of adaptation. I mean, if we were all tall, that’d be a problem if a race of aliens attacked with a penchant against Tall Beings.
I know that’s silly but the point is that humans have various characteristics that make them more adaptable to certain situations and diseases.
MCF replied in full here.
I don’t think we really have to remove genetic diseases from the genome. I mean, we’re bringing a child into being here. Surely, as long as the child will live a good and happy life, it is still perfectly good to bring that child into existence. Especially so if it also makes the parents happier – having more happy people is good.
So, I guess that means that I am also in favour of allowing people to add genetic diseases to their child’s genome, if the parents desire. After all, who are we to dictate what sort of child people should be having? For us to try control other people’s reproduction like that is just wrong – wrong like Hitler’s eugenic control over people’s reproduction was wrong.
Well, wouldn’t adding a disease to a child’s be on par with Hitler’s eugenic control? Isn’t it elevating the genetic characteristics of X disease to the desirable level and thus ignoring the normal genetic makeup of the formed child?