With gene manipulation and cloning becoming available do parents have the right or perhaps the obligation to manipulate their offsprings DNA makeup? Isn’t it in their and mankinds best interest to create the best human possible? Or should that be left in “Gods” hands?
I for one believe that anything man can do comes from God. Having given man the ability and the intelligence to do these very things.
So I say yes, let’s parents, if they choose, alter the genes of their children.
Have at it.
I agree IF and only if the parents are using genetics to make a healthy baby. However, if it is being used to manipulate the genetic makeup so that it decides the gender or for specific traits like ability to run, or intelligence.
I say yes. Though I don’t know that I’d classify it so much as a right. What you’ll have is parents manipulating a bit of genetic material in what may (or may not) develop into a child. They’re really mucking about with their own bodily fluids. Individually, every one of us has the power (well, half of the power) to create a new person. Tweaking some proteins is merely taking that power one step further, to have more control over the creation of new people. I don’t see that there is anything immoral about that, in and of itself. So long as people are prepared to accept responsibility for the outcome, I don’t see a problem.
[tangent]
This seems like the pro-life/pro-choice debate in a slightly different wrapper. I suspect that you’ll see a strong trend of pro-choicers saying “yes” and pro-lifers saying “no”.
[/tangent]
This applies equally to pulling your own toenails out with a pair of pliers, but I still think it’s a bad idea.
As I see it, there are three basic forms that this sort of manipulation can take:
I have absolutely no problem with this one. In fact, I think it could reasonably be said that when it becomes possible, parents would have an obligation to do it. It’s just another form of preventative medicine, like vaccinations.
It has long been established that parents have a duty to ensure that their children have the best future possible. Does this mean that parents are obligated to make sure all their children are are as smart, strong, and attractive as the human genome allows? I’m not really sure.
I have some reservations about this one. First of all, what if the modifications have nasty side effects? And what if the resulting children are genetically incompatible with “all-natural” humans?
Do parents have the right to manipulate their children (offspring) at all?
Well, sure. Of course they do. Parents have a right and an obligation to manipulate a squalling, inherently selfish being into a functional human being, for example.
I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with your question.
TomH…
I’m not sure that that applies at all. We know inherently, most of us anyway, not to do things that hurt us. Yet God gave us the ability to do things that can and do help us.
How can you equate hurting with helping?
I have to disagree with most of the responses to this. I say that no, parents don’t have a right, nor do they have an obligation to choose the genetics of their offspring. Putting aside purely physical traits (“no, we want her to be blonde”), let’s focus on the intangible (for lack of a better word). Overpopulation could possibly become a problem for the countries that use genetic manipulation, as natural selection would not be as likely to filter out those children whose bodies would normally be incapable of staving off illness and disease. Being able to clone organs for transplant would accomplish the same thing, IMHO. It also takes familial responsibility out of the equation (“little Johnny would have been an alcoholic, just like his dad. Thank God we took care of THAT problem in utero.”). Maybe my opinion on this is very obtuse, but, given the potential we as humans have to find something good and run it into the ground (dare I mention reconstructive surgery as an example?), I see far more potential for mismanagement and disaster than good. Wouldn’t we be better served to try to rehabiliate those people in prisons that are already there instead of forgetting about them, and manipulating it so that genetic predisposition for violence, crime, drug abuse, alcohol-ralated deaths and the like never occur again? It almost seems like genetic manipulation is the next step in creating a Stepford society. Don’t get me wrong. We all want a Utopia. But I don’t think that the end justifies the means in this case.
I can’t see how this is a valid argument. We try to save every single human every single day, with a complete disregard for “natural selection”. Baby having breathing problems? We put him on a respirator. Got a bad ticker? Get him a transplant (or even an artificial heart). Trouble reproducing? Hit the fertility clinic.
It seems to me that this is beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. I don’t recall seeing any suggestion that we immediately abandon current wrongdoers. Further, I don’t understand your “irresponsibility” argument at all. If our little block of cells carries a gene that would make a human succeptible to substance abuse (using your example), why wouldn’t we alter it? How can that possibly be seen as not taking responsibility? If I get strep throat (I am succeptible) should I avoid taking antibiotics to get rid of it? Wouldn’t that be less responsible than letting my immune system handle it?
I agree that there is potential for misuse, but I don’t see any need for justification. I don’t see anything wrong with manipulating a few protiens in cell.
Beezelbubba, I will concede your points. I won’t use the stereotypical, hiding behind religion justification, either. But it seems to me that genetic manipulation just is not natural. You mentioned organ transplants and the like. In actuality, I have the same reservations regarding those types of procedures as well. This is just my opinion, and, with all due respect, no amount of debating will change my mind. I don’t necessarilly like that about myself, but it IS true. These are my own thoughts and ideals, and I hold them dearly
Aside from the abortion issue (I’m pro choice) and discussions of whether it is “natural” (Is a liver transplant “natural”?), there are a few things that bother me about in utero genetic manipulation. First off, it brings to mind Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World, but let’s forget about the obvious moral conundrums and focus on the science.
Whether we like it or not, we are in a kind of balance with nature. By using genetic engineering to breed out certain diseases and select for “desirable” traits (freedom from disease, resilience, intelligence, etc.) we will create a much shallower gene pool. By trying to “fix” problems, such as a predilection for substance dependence, we may be losing some of the genetic coding that could prove beneficial to the species if things go south in the future.
Case in point: sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease characterized by malformations in red blood cells causing them to lose much of their ability to transport Oxygen. People with this disease suffer quite a bit. The gene in question is usually classifed as recessive, as it takes two copies for the malformations to be expressed. However, when the individual has only one copy, the person is resistant to malaria. Breed out sickle cell anemia and you breed out malarial resistance.
Our drive to develop the perfect babies may produce a population with considerably less genetic diversity. We will rely on certain interchangeable parts that have been proven “safe” in order to fix the “problems”. Naturally these genes will have to be approved by somebody (think the FDA) and will constitute a finite set of sequences. Widespread use of these sequences may cause the gene pool to shrink through a high-tech inbreeding process (everone starts having similar sequences spliced into their DNA in utero and can then be considered somewhat related). Some unforeseen natural event will more easily be able to take out the whole lot of us. I don’t want Homo sapiens sapiens to suffer the same fate as the Dutch Elm.
Granted, this is a worst case scenario requiring that the majority of newborns be genetically enhanced. I doubt that will ever happen. Gene therapy, when performed on somatic cells, will be a good thing. As a medical technique it holds a lot of potential. However, it should not be performed for cosmetic reasons or on gametes for almost any reason. Genetic manipultaion of gametes and genetic alteration in utero may lead to human directed evolution, the proverbial road to Hell paved with good intentions. A cocker spaniel is a good example of what human directed evolution has wrought. That floppy-eared son of a bitch wouldn’t have a prayer of surviving in the wild.
-Beeblebrox
The thing that used to worry him most was the fact that people always used to ask him what he was looking so worried about.
The argument that gene manipulation is not natural is not IMHO a valid argument. Is in vitro fertilization natural? Yet it is used every day. I doubt many here would argue against the use of it. Artificial hips, knees. and even electronic means to see and hear are being developed. These are not natural well, only in the sense that mankind developed them.
The problem I see is not in the use of gene manipulation but in the government getting in the way of it and not allowing science to prove the validity or even perhaps the fallacy of it.
The argument in your OP is as follows:
As far I can make out, the argument you are trying to advance is something along the lines of:
You see the problem: the very point I was making was that your argument did not distinguish between beneficial acts and harmful acts.
So now it becomes something along the lines of:
Now you have a different problem, which is that the benefit arising from the act is explicit in the premise. This is little more than saying “good things are good and bad things are bad” and it doesn’t help to answer the question of whether any particular thing is good or bad.
Either way, the argument that technology must be good because it is God-given isn’t a very good one. In fact, it’s as bad as the argument about “naturalness”, which you rightly objected to.
To add to Beeblebrox’s excellent post, remember that mistakes made in the gene pool do not go away, they potentially accelerate and become worse over time. Unlike polluting the water supply with some chemical substance which will dissipate slowly over time, if we “pollute” our own gene pool with something that seemed like a good idea at the time but turned out to be fatal in the long run, those genes will potentially exist in our gene pool indefinitely. Removing them would be a mess.
Thanks Beeblebrox.
Making the gene pool shallower is my largest reservation. I mean, lets just pick an easy example – what happens if we identify a gene that causes extremely high metabolism, so children end up being thinner when they grow up. That gene would be very popular! (think of the diet craze in America)
Adding cloning into the mix makes life very weird. If you could make your child look like Kate Winslet, it would be very tempting. That could easily remove a lot of variety from the gene pool.
I think a lot of the people who are trying to talk about “natural”-ness may be trying to say that evolution so far has spent a lot of time making us able to fend off disease, and different enough that the race doesn’t die out. Mucking too much with it too quickly ( and think how quickly cloning could become standard compared to evolution ) could lead us down dangerous roads.
But, as to the question? I think it makes sense to allow cloning – but I for one would be tempted to do as little “standard” cloning as possible. Similar to if I lived in China, all other things being equal, I’d rather have a girl. But, that’s just me.
Me’Corva
Hi Andros
Sorry for the delayed response… I’ve been away.
Not going anywhere in particular. Just interested in knowing where folks reckon that their rights over their children start and end.
In terms of your answer though, do you see a difference between manipulating a child physically (tinkering with DNA prior to birth) as opposed to manipulating them behaviourally in the light of their actions and reactions to situations?
As someone who has four older brothers (two are dead. One is nearly dead and the last will be there in a few years.) who are all in the late stages of Muscular Dystrophy (Duchene’s Dystrophy) I would say with a whole hearted YES to gene mutation.
It would not save or help my brothers right now, but it would save future generations a whole lot of worry, concern and let them have a life, which my two surviving brothers do not have at all. And, for the record, neither does my mom.
Sure. But tinkering with DNA is not the only way we might manipulate our children physically. While behavior modification is clearly most common, we do already change our childrens’ physiologies already.
It looks like we’re looking for a line somewhere between braces and genetic manipulation for good teeth so braces are unneeded. And I have no idea where that line might be, if it exists at all.
I agree… and I suspect that the position of such lines will vary, depending on the degree to which we (any of us) have a vested interest in a given situation.
I remember reading somewhere that it’s easier to see both sides of the debates that you have no personal interest in.
Hi Shirley Ujest. I cannot image the pain and distress that you brothers’ illnesses must have brought to you and your family. I truly hope that you are able to find the strength that you need to cope with the situation and that your remaining brothers are also able to face the future with dignity and courage. Peace be with you.
I do wonder though, the extent to which any of us have a right to manipulate DNA as suggested by the OP. I just wonder how I would cope if I sanctioned some form of DNA manipulation that I decided I had a right to sanction, only to discover that in the event, my child determined that I should not have sanctioned it (for whatever reason). At what point does the child’s rights take precedence over mine?
Don’t misunderstand… I do think that as parents we have responsibilities and obligations to our children. Discharging those effectively is not always easy. I think the point I’m making is that perhaps responsiblities and obligations should be considered way ahead of any rights that I may claim that I have.
More importantly, any decisions to manipulate DNA should be weighed very carefully… they are difficult decisions to reverse at a later date.
pax