Genetically engineering your kids.

Great Debates
1

If you could genetically engineer your kids to remove the possibility of having some some dreadful disease like cancer or Down’s Syndrome, would you? What’s the difference between that and positively modifying them for height, weight, eye color, intelligence, strength, speed and stamina?

I propose that I want to hire the most intelligent, physically fit, attractive, talented woman I can find to donate eggs that I may fertilize them with my sperm and have the result brought full-term. Why physically attractive? If you don’t think the world revolves around sex and physical attraction, you’re more naive than I am. And that’s saying something. Parents spend thousands of dollars giving kids music lessons, education etc. Why not just pre-wire a kid with talent to the best of our ability?

If you think this all sounds crazy, it’s already being done. Right now lesbian couples routinely chose who will be the father of their progeny by virtue of the numbers alone. If they can afford it, they are given the opportunity to pick from the most viable embryos. If I wanted to there are many women selling their eggs on the internet and many more willing to lease a womb. All ya’ gotta’ have is money.

2

Er, why bring up lesbian couples?

3

I want my kids to have prehensile tails! They’ll be able to do that, right?

4

Isn’t this just an individual re-enactment of breeding the super race? There is terrifying precedent for that.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn’t do it. I think there’s enough pressure on kids to live up to their parents’ ideals without the parents “designing” their children’s very bodies and whatever other characteristics they can influence genetically.

Talk to the parents of children with Downs Syndrome. Most of the ones I’ve talked to have said they wouldn’t trade their children for “normal” children, hard as it is.

If you “design” a Kate Moss (or insert your favourite “look” here) daughter, will it be for your own pleasure at having sired such a desirable person? Or will it be so she gets the preferential treatment you hope she’ll get for her looks? If the latter, how do you know that trends in beauty won’t change enough by the time she grows up to ruin your plan?

5

setting: inertia sitting alone at head of conference table

“Will anyone second this proposal?”
::inertia raises hand, looks around:: “Proposal seconded. Resolution passed to hire myself an attractive woman to donate eggs to be fertilized with my sperm. Said full-term result to be named Mini-Me, regardless of sex.”

inertia, the first paragraph of your post raises an interesting ethical issue worthy of GD. The rest of your post is half MPSIMS and half Pit. What do you really want people to respond to?

P.S. I’d be a little more careful about how you brag. So what if you have enough money to hire a donor? If you’re looking for an egg donor AND a womb lessor, one might infer that you’re such a loser that you can’t find a woman who would be happy to bear your child - for free.

6

andros:

Why not? That is what they are doing. Heterosexual couples are doing the same thing many times also, but it’s more accepted when heterosexual parents do it because the resulting child will grow up in a more or less traditional family structure. It also isn’t so obvious.

Furthermore, many men feel threatened by lesbians reproducing in this manner because they, the men, are no longer necessary. Women can have children the same way they always have while men can not.

Nu Vo Da Da:

Absolutely, but that’s further down the road. It’s been said that anything that’s already been done in nature will be relatively easy to duplicate. It’s the new innovation stuff that’s tricky. Also, I believe it was in Unca Cece’s first book where he pointed out that many kids are already born with prehensile tails.

UppityWoman:

Hitler’s eugenics program is certainly not a star acheivement, however the idea behind eugenics is sound. If we do not allow defective genes to propogate we will be able to solve debilitating diseases at the root. Fortunately, we’ll be able to accomplish this at the molecular level in the not too distant future in an agreeable and humane way (more humane than not, actually).

Parent’s are always going to have unrealistic expectations of their children whether they are genetically enhanced or not. As far as the Down’s syndrome parents, a more proper question to ask is, “Would you rather your child did not have Down’s syndrome?” You’ll excuse me if I assume to know the answer to be “Yes.”

Can any historians here tell me of a time when short was more attractive than tall? Is female balding gonna’ be HOT HOT HOT in the years to come? Excessive body hair? Brittle finger nails? Frizzy hair? I don’t want to focus on the superficial things and I almost didn’t put it in the original post but decided that it’s exactly this superficiality that might drive the eugenics market into the mainstream so I stuck it in. However, there will be many concerns parents will have beyond physical appearance. These I’ve put in the original post and I feel and certainly many parents would feel are much more important than appearances.

Fillet:

By all means, lets keep it debateable. If you’re confused then please confine your consideration to these two questions. “If you could genetically engineer your kids to remove the possibility of having some some dreadful disease like cancer or Down’s Syndrome, would you? What’s the difference between that and positively modifying them for height, weight, eye color, intelligence, strength, speed and stamina?”

My point with the rest of all of that was that if wanted to engage in the activities previously described it would be a very simple matter to accomplish without the need to consult anyone but myself as I did in your little drama. I guess that’s a different thread though.

7

There are several problems with genetic engineering. At the present moment we haven’t maped the entire human genome yet. Because of this it is impossible to modify many genes without the possibility of side effects.

Next, to answer your question, no, I wouldn’t modify them. I myself am very young, but I can already see many of the moral, ethical and perhaps far off adaptive problems assocaited with genetic engineering.

Many people would argue that it is against the will of god, but I will not, for I am an atheist. My argument however, will be based on society. If genetic engineering were possible(and it is) only the affluent would be able to afford such changes. A generation later when these rich and enhanced command our capitalistic society they will most likely be able to once again create an plutocracy. They will be able to generate wealth and control political situations far better then any normal person will be able to. This in turn will create a larger gap between the have and the have-nots. Now, do you really want these genetically engineered kids?–don’t answer that if you’re rich :smiley:

Definition : Natural selection: survival of the fittest

Definition: The bell curve of evolution: the population drifts toward the trait that helps them better survive.

Now for my hypothesis :). What if sometime in the year say like 5000 or something when everyone is genetically engineered. This entire population will have “desirable traits” which would basically make everyone have similar genetic codes. What then if some epidemic(the Andromeda(sp?) strain) struck that could not be cured, and the genetic immunity against it no longer existed since it was rooted from the “desirable traits” gene pool. Since natural selection no longer occurs the bell curve of evolution can not happen. This epidemic would then destroy everyone before anyone even had a chance to adapt.

Hrm, not very well explained, but I guess words can only go so far, oh well. I don’t have the time to develop a cohesive thesis, but I hope that you will be able to understand the underlying idea.

Good day to ya,

8

inertia, I wasn’t confused by your post. It just took a left turn after the first paragraph, and I wondered what point you were actually trying to make.

Now, then. If I thought that there was a good chance that my child might eventually suffer from a disease that was clearly related to a specific gene defect, because that disease was common in either my family or my husband’s, I would indeed consider gene therapy. Given our present level of knowledge, those circumstances would be pretty limited.

I do not believe in all-purpose fishing around in one’s genetic material. I especially don’t believe in “engineering” someone with particular attributes. I think it’s a bit presumptuous for us to decide what should be considered the height of attractiveness for the next generation.

So, should we make it worse by deliberately tinkering, and then possibly still not being happy with the results? “God knows, Johnny, your mother and I tried to get everything fixed for you before you were born, but we just can’t STAND the angle your nose makes with your forehead…”

IMHO, this sort of discussion applied to Downs’ Syndrome invokes strong reactions because the visible result of the genetic “repair” would be a person with a fundamentally different personality, not just a healthy adult. If I were the parent of a Downs’ Syndrome child, I doubt I’d be in favor of genetic therapy that would change my child’s identity, the essence of who they are.

Sorry, if you start at a superficial level you’re probably going to stay there. News flash - traits that are considered attractive can vary considerably from culture to culture. So whose idea of attractiveness has more merit? Besides, most of the examples you give here are silly things that can be handled cosmetically, if they really bother a person. Genetic engineering to correct brittle fingernails is massive overkill, and the sort of thing that only the wealthy could afford to indulge in.

In your OP, you cite intelligence, physical fitness (athleticism), attractiveness and talent. IMHO, having intelligence, athleticism and talent aren’t worth anything if a person isn’t motivated to use them - and that’s not something you can program in genetically.

As for attractiveness - to me, what makes a person attractive has as much to do with their personality as their appearance. I suspect that’s true of most people, except the most shallow.

9

I apologize for not making my self clear in my first response. The parents of Downs Syndrome children that I have talked have said “no” to your question, above. And they have stated this without even being asked the question.

10

Bored2001:

About the genetically rich, yes that is exactly what is going to happen if there isn’t some sort of legislation passed. It has been conjectured that eventually the genetically rich will become a different species all together.

That whole Andromeda strain idea could happen today. AIDs (100% mortality, no cure, fairly easily containable) could mutate as it likes to do, Hunta virus from the mid-west or ebola (90% mortality, no cure, highly communicable) from Africa could wipe out everyone tomorrow. Our genetic code is remarkably similar now. Also, I fail to understand why, in the future, resistance to disease will not be a desireable trait. Wouldn’t it fit under physically fit from the OP or have I been remiss? This is a different thread however.

Fillet:

The point is rather moot until we find someone with a child suffering from Down’s syndrome and get to ask them.

“So, should we make it worse by deliberately tinkering, and then possibly still not being happy with the results?” Yes, we should. It would be a flaw of the parents to expect Johnny live up to promises he did not make. As you point out, it is/will be possible to manipulate many minutae of a developing person, but it will be much longer before we are able to manipulate the personality of said person. However, if as parents we give children all of the advantages we can I believe we have failed in our commitment to them.

“As for attractiveness - to me, what makes a person attractive has as much to do with their personality as their appearance. I suspect that’s true of most people, except the most shallow.” I agree with you one hundred and fifty percent. I have made the assertion that attractive people have an easier time and are more successful than less attractive people. Do you disagree? Stop the veiled insults and say what you really mean or shut up.

11

I mean, if as parents we do not give our children all of the advantages we can we have failed in our commitment to them.

12

I knew I didn’t get my point of across. :slight_smile: I was in a hurry.

Anyway, the whole idea about the Andromeda strain is that it is completly uncurable. What if we can not discover how to cure the disease by altering our genetic code? What then? Since we will all have EXTREMELY similar traits there is little chance of someone having natural immunity from which we can clone genes from. However if the gene pool were random as it is today then there will be a greater diversity and a much much greater chance that someone will have that immunity. That(those) person(s) will have a distinct genetic advanatge, and through natural selection the bell curve concept of evolution will be carried out. That is to say that the population will gradually change to incoporate that genetic advantage.

Anyway, back to doing my hw, boy. I said I was young didn’t I? =)

~bored2001

13

inertia said:

Um, originally you said the question was to be asked of the PARENTS. So I gave a response reflecting what I think the parents’ view might be. The above comment is apropos of nothing previously said in this thread.

Really? Then how do you arrive at your next statement?

Not entirely. Physically attractive people probably do have it easier under certain circumstances that lend themselves to superficial judgements of a person’s worth or capability. However, in my view, attractiveness involving qualities that go beyond a pretty face will eventually lead to greater - and longer-term - success.

inertia, what the hell are you talking about? You wanted opinions, or you shouldn’t have posted to this board. I gave you mine - and I meant what I said. Sorry if my pointing out inconsistencies in your posts disturbs you. If all you wanted to do was hold forth on your views, then you should stick with posts in MPSIMS.

14

whups, I didn’t mean to sound insulting. change that comma in the last line to a period. :slight_smile:

15

Well, as the parent of a child with Down Syndrome, I most assuredly would prefer that my daughter not have it. I have heard the arguments that she would no longer be the person I love, but someone else entirely. I don’t care. I would rather she grow up without mental retardation, and have a different personality, than to spend the rest of my life worrying that she will be taken advantage of.

So, inertia, if you figure out a way to change her genetic makeup, I will allow you to change my child into someone without Down Syndrome. But I will be damned sure to look into the testing, first.

As far as trying to make more attractive people? There are too many variables for what is considered attractive. Some people prefer tall, some short. Ditto blonde, brunette, or redhead. It seems like you’ll wind up making your offspring into what you want them to be. Me? I will continue to go off of personality, every time.

Waste
Flick Lives!

16

True, there are some varying standards for beauty, but there are also a lot of universals. Besides, there’s plenty of appearance modification already. I’m sure you’re all familiar with those techniques.
In fact, parents of Downs kids are resorting to surgery - plastic surgery, to remove the “mongoloid” features that make them so distinctive. They say it’s to prevent discrimination. Their feeling, I guess, is that if you take away the obvious features, you’ve got Forrest Gump. Someone just a little slow, not someone that will be automatically thought of as defective.
If the technology exists, it’s going to be used. From what I’ve read, the genome mapping will be done sometime this year.
Do I think this is going to inevitably lead to some kind of GATTACA-esque dystopia? No. Do I think that the society will become increasingly divided along class lines? Well, it’s already DOING that, right?

17

I thought the whole point of having children was to further YOUR genetic material. Hell, if you don’t want a kid that looks like you just adopt.

18

If, and that’s a big IF, I wanted to have genetically altered children we’d have to be a far bit more down the genetic road than we are now.

I’ve used the example of cats elsewhere: white haired cats with blue eyes are usually deaf–Green eyes=okay, one blue eye and one green eye? The cat will usually be deaf on the blue sided ear.

We just aren’t sure about all the connections in human DNA. We used to have “junk DNA” but now the same stuff is getting attention because somebody has figured out a little more about it.

Even when the Human Genome Project is finished there’ll be a lot more to do before we get to teeth, hair, tallness and whatever handsome or pretty is.

I’m also wondering about the little woman, how would you say, “I married you, babe, but you’re defective in my mind. We are goosing up your DNA to get better kids.”

Are you a track star?

Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley

19

GLWasteful:

In the far future (after we’re all dead) they will perfect gene therapy whereby they reprogram adults. They’ve already done it to a limited degree for simple problems. I read many years ago of a young girl who had leukemia. Prognosis: Not very long to live. Decision: Gene therapy. They designed a virus which would deposit a snippet of DNA in just the right spot. Outcome: I believe she survived.

Again, I am not all about physical appearance, but society at large IS. Red hair is kinda’ sexy though (just in case Elelle is out there.)

Trip Fall:

We are becoming more Gattacaesque every day. Who has seen the billboard, “Do you know who the father is? 1-800-DNA-TYPE.” Or something very similar.

Occam:

The point of engineering at least at first would be to make certain your strong points are expressed in your progeny. Only years from now will we have the technology to create new genes.

Jois:

One of the genes that can code for red hair in humans will also cause the recipient to be slightly anemic. That’s not good.

20

Inertia - yes, but only if it’s a girl and she has freckles.

Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley