# Is there a good reason to be against designer babies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2016, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828 "2016-02-01T09:05:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/21 "2016-02-01T15:48:02Z")
Even just removing genetic diseases could be a problem. The classic example is sickle cell: If we had the resources to spend on genetic testing (and possibly modification, but it could also be done just by culling sperm and eggs), we could eliminate the gene for sickle cell, and ensure that nobody ever gets it again. That, in itself, would be a good thing… except that carrying one copy of the sickle cell gene provides protection against malaria, and in some parts of the world, malaria is a bigger killer than sickle cell. Of course, we could also use technology to protect against malaria. Or at least, we can do that now. But what happens if we lose that technology, and malaria again becomes a major killer? It could happen. We can’t be sure it won’t. And if that happens, we’d be glad to still have a few malaria-resistant people in the population. And of course, the issue isn’t just sickle-cell and malaria. Maybe, for all we know, someday there will be some other disease which emerges, which we’ve currently never heard of, and it turns out that having a single copy of the Tay-Sachs gene protects against it. Or likewise for any given genetic disease you might think of. We can even take it one step further: Sometimes, a disease itself can be a benefit, depending on circumstances. Hemochromatosis, for instance, causes the body to accumulate too much iron. It’s a fairly mild disease, compared to the likes of sickle-cell and Tay-Sachs, and fairly easily treated, but in the long run it can lead to arthritis, gland problems, and other issues. On the other hand, it also means that you can recover from blood loss more rapidly, and so if you’re in an environment where bloodshed is frequent, it could actually be an advantage. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/22 "2016-02-01T15:51:20Z")
If we allow unfettered genetic manipulation, Khan Noonien Singh will end up controlling a full quarter of the planet during the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s before he and his followers are stopped at an astounding cost. As a species, we simply cannot afford that. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/23 "2016-02-01T15:55:13Z")
Jar Jar Binks race was a result of genetic engineering :eek: ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/24 "2016-02-01T16:00:20Z")
Chronos point got me thinking. I’d feel a little bit better about designer babies IF we can do the following first. We can take a sample of human DNA. A preserve it perfectly (statistically speaking) for a very long time. AND We can use that DNA sample to make a clone (not one of those crappy clones that don’t work right/last). An honest to goodness clone that has no defects the original owner didn’t have. So then we start taking samples of everybody. After that we do the designer baby thing. THEN If it turns out this designer baby stuff was a BAD idea…we have something to fall back on. Otherwise we end up like the Azgard (sp?) on Stargate. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/25 "2016-02-01T16:04:07Z")
> [@andros](#): > > If we allow unfettered genetic manipulation, Khan Noonien Singh will end up controlling a full quarter of the planet during the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s before he and his followers are stopped …by Gary Seven, who was also augmented. It’s turtles all the way down! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/26 "2016-02-01T16:13:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We already have designer babies. In vitro allows us to select out genes (included entire Chromosomes when selecting for gender), so what we are talking about is a matter of degree, not kind. Rich people can select out genetic defects (Tay Sachs, for example) that poor people can’t. And we’re curing diseases by modifying genes in humans. > > Science shouldn’t be held back because of irrational fears. Exactly. This is reminiscent of the GMO crop debate. We’ve been doing this stuff for a long, long time. It freaks people out a bit that we can now (well, soon in the case of this debate) quicker than on a generational scale. I don’t see any downsides to allow people to have some ability to ‘design’ their children, since it’s something we’ve all done since the first humans started walking around. It’s just that now, instead of designing them by choosing mates with specific, desirable traits and hoping for the best, it will be a bit less rolling the dice. As for the poor missing out, that might be the case initially, but eventually it will be like big screen TVs. Initially, only the rich could afford the things. Now, you can go to Walmart and get one for less than $400. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/27 "2016-02-01T16:19:12Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > My concern is with a lack of diversity. That’s how we lost the Gros Michel, and the Cavendish could be next. When it’s a species of banana we get over it, but people would be another problem altogether. Still, I suppose it would be possible to keep breeding stocks of free-range eggs and sperm frozen in case of an emergency. I suspect we’d muddle through. Just leave a diverse population sample out in a reservation somewhere and allow them to breed naturally. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/28 "2016-02-01T16:24:41Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Exactly. This is reminiscent of the GMO crop debate. We’ve been doing this stuff for a long, long time. . A generation or two at best is a “long long time”? But the more important points. First a cross between a corn plant and a blueberry plant is one thing. But more importantly, when it comes to humans we are only beginning to scratch the surface on what genes do what and how they are interrelated. If you don’t even know that, IMO it is morally wrong to start tinkering. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/29 "2016-02-01T16:25:28Z")
You can also bet that it’s going to be done somewhere, whether “we” like it or not. Better to do it under conditions “we” can control than by North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/30 "2016-02-01T16:56:46Z")
[QUOTE=billfish678] A generation or two at best is a “long long time”? [/QUOTE] Dude, humans have been tinkering with genetics, our own and other species for thousands of years…10’s of thousands really. I’d say that’s a ‘long long time’, yes. > [@](#): > > First a cross between a corn plant and a blueberry plant is one thing. It’s all part of a continuum. Consider that corn itself is a genetically modified plant that wouldn’t exist without human intervention and breeding. > [@](#): > > But more importantly, when it comes to humans we are only beginning to scratch the surface on what genes do what and how they are interrelated. No, we’ve been scratching the surface of designing our species for 10’s of thousands of years. What you mean is that recently we started making progress in doing it in a more formal and rigorous manner using technology to achieve what we are after instead of breeding and random mutation. > [@](#): > > If you don’t even know that, IMO it is morally wrong to start tinkering. If humans felt as you did we’d still be debating the merits of fire and if we should start using it, since we wouldn’t know all the rather profound changes it would have on our species both physiological and societal it effect. Know how we found out what all it would do? We tinkered and figured it out. Same as with all the other technology we’ve developed and incorporated into our species since. A lot of which caused a hell of a lot of death and pain. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/31 "2016-02-01T17:09:16Z")
> [@XT](#): > > If humans felt as you. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t do some mind reading on my thoughts on other issues. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/32 "2016-02-01T17:16:21Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > I’d appreciate it if you didn’t do some mind reading on my thoughts on other issues. You are saying that tinkering is ‘morally wrong’, whatever that means. Doesn’t seem to be much mind reading involved in making a comparison. It’s simply another technology that is going to change humans in unknown and unexpected ways. My guess is that fire has had a MUCH more profound on human psychology and physiology than ‘designer babies’ ever will. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/33 "2016-02-01T18:03:21Z")
> [@XT](#): > > As for the poor missing out, that might be the case initially, but eventually it will be like big screen TVs. Initially, only the rich could afford the things. Now, you can go to Walmart and get one for less than $400. Especially because reproducing these genetic improvements isn’t even stone age technology, and the only effective tools to prevent “bootlegging” probably qualify as crimes against humanity. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/34 "2016-02-01T18:06:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We already have designer babies. In vitro allows us to select out genes (included entire Chromosomes when selecting for gender), so what we are talking about is a matter of degree, not kind. Rich people can select out genetic defects (Tay Sachs, for example) that poor people can’t. And we’re curing diseases by modifying genes in humans. > > Science shouldn’t be held back because of irrational fears. This is nothing compared to what is looming with CRISPR technology. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/35 "2016-02-01T18:25:53Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > This is nothing compared to what is looming with CRISPR technology. That’s what I was talking about when I mentioned curing diseases. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/36 "2016-02-01T18:41:32Z")
> [@GlowingDarkness](#): > > 3)Unintended physical and mental conditions - The final fear is that modifying human DNA would create diseases/syndromes we would never have thought of. That is a legitimate concern. Since DNA is the way it is because for so long, and that humans don’t understand DNA completely, the possibilities for errors are just too great. This. Designer babies will be a good idea someday, but not just yet. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_Arachnid_Laser_1)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/37 "2016-02-01T18:43:44Z")
We should separate the issues here: avoiding certain genetically transmitted conditions is a purely medical issue. Let’s not confuse it with using it for cosmetic changes, which is pretty science fiction-y at the moment. There’s two debates going on in here. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/38 "2016-02-01T19:14:49Z")
> [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser](#): > > We should separate the issues here: avoiding certain genetically transmitted conditions is a purely medical issue. Let’s not confuse it with using it for cosmetic changes, which is pretty science fiction-y at the moment. There’s two debates going on in here. What about, say, increasing intelligence? I doubt “having an average intellect” is a purely medical condition, but I wouldn’t say the improvement is a cosmetic change. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_Arachnid_Laser_1)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/39 "2016-02-01T19:24:01Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What about, say, increasing intelligence? I doubt “having an average intellect” is a purely medical condition, but I wouldn’t say the improvement is a cosmetic change. Fair enough, three separated issues, then. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828/40 "2016-02-01T21:11:23Z")
Plus there’s the question of what to engineer. If the australopithecines had genetic engineering they might have chosen sharper teeth and claws and thicker fur rather than speech and brains. Are we qualified to choose what changes to make? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-good-reason-to-be-against-designer-babies/744828.md?page=3)