Andrew Incandela Dr.

Erin Dietel-McLaughlin Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric, Section # 9 15 November 2013 The Problem With Designer Babies Since its founding in 1842, The University of Notre Dame has been an establishment of high moral and ethical standards, promoting justice in all aspects of society and enabling its students to do the same. One way the university keeps with this tradition today is through the Reilly Center, whose mission is to integrate advancement of science and technology, adherence to ethical norms that uphold human dignity, and development of sound policy for the common good (John J. Reilly Center). However, with technological breakthroughs coming at an everaccelerating pace, this is becoming increasingly hard to do in todays society. One such technology that creates problems is the genetic enhancement of humans. Although the methods to do this are not fully developed yet, many are very optimistic that it will be possible to genetically improve people, both mentally and physically, within the next few decades by modifying their genetic code (Darnovsky 133). While dramatically improving the abilities of individuals sounds like an incredible breakthrough for humanity, it also raises many ethical and practical questions for us as members of society. Would doing this be right from an ethical perspective? What effects would this have on society? How should Notre Dame, a university that devotes itself to promoting the common good, respond to this? This paper will answer these questions by exploring this technology from an ethical as well as a practical perspective. The conclusions drawn from this analysis will point to a specific course of action that should be taken by Notre Dame in response to this technology.

Incandela The answers to these questions are important because this technology, if utilized, could profoundly and permanently change our entire society, and Notre Dame, more than any one

person, is in a position to genuinely influence how the genetic engineering of humans is received and implemented by the world. Notre Dame has already listed this technology as one of the top emerging ethical dilemmas and policy issues in science and technology, making how the university responds to this issue a relevant discussion. To form an opinion about the validity of genetic enhancements, it is first important to develop an understanding of what this technology actually does. Genetic engineering refers to a broad range of technologies and methods, which can be divided into two broad categories: Germ-line gene therapies, which are interventions on a persons genome that will be passed onto future generations, and somatic gene therapies, which are genetic interventions that do not affect future generations (Ethics of New Technologies 123). The controversy surrounding this technology stems mainly from germ-line gene therapies, which describe various methods of adding to or modifying a human embryos genetic code so that the modifications persist in all future cells (Mehlman 60-61). The span of this technology ranges from the conservative to the extreme, from curing genetic diseases by fixing defective genes to creating individuals with hyper-intelligence. If this is one day possible, the question will be where we should draw the line between what is not permissible and what is, if such a line even exists. While many will argue differently, there definitely is a line concerning gene modification technologies, and this line exists between biomedical enhancements [and] therapy, defined as the treatment or prevention of diseases (Buchanan 5). While actively enhancing people through biomedical enhancements raises a multitude of ethical and practical issues, the same technologies can be used to treat diseases, which can be incredibly beneficial to

Incandela society. Notre Dame should adopt this position by funding research that focuses on therapy and

not enhancements because it is justifiable from an ethical and a practical perspective, which is in line with Notre Dames mission to promote ethical behavior and the common good in society. One reason Notre Dame should not support gene enhancement technologies is because they are ethically wrong. There are two main ethical schools of thought on gene modification: One is looking at the situation from a Utilitarian perspective, and the other is from the perspective of Deontology. The conflict between these two theories hinges on focusing on the actions themselves versus the outcomes of those actions. Utilitarianism, which states that each persons happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons, is the outcome-based option (Berry 44). A utilitarian would hold that the morally right thing to do would be the thing that maximizes expected happiness. Making better children would fall under this category because people could argue that their children would be happier because of these modifications. But do we really know what makes people happy? Earnest Hemmingway has been quoted, saying, happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know (Scribd.). Intelligence is not an indicator of happiness, and the same can be said of athletic ability, creativity, or other desirable characteristics. Even if intelligence did lead to happiness, the negative affects of this technology discussed later on would far outweigh this benefit. Because there is not sufficient evidence to support the idea that people will be happier because of this technology, the Utilitarian argument for biomedical enhancements fails. Notre Dame does not subscribe to Utilitarianism, but rather the views of the Catholic Church, which would approach genetic enhancements from a Deontological perspective. Deontology argues that this type of technology is wrong because it is an inherently wrong action. The main principle of Deontology is we should not do things if they are morally wrong actions,

Incandela but is using this technology a morally wrong action? One way Deontology would define a morally bad action would be an action that is not universalizable, meaning it is not possible for everyone to do that action and have good outcomes (Berry 82). If everyone can do something and have good outcomes, than it is a universal rule and would therefor be justified from a deontological perspective. Not murdering people, for example, is a universalizable action. A

world where nobody killed anyone would certainly be a better world. However, the same cannot be said about genetic engineering. This is because the very nature of genetic engineering is selfdefeating: If more and more parents choose to engineer their children in order to give them a comparative advantage over other children, they will eventually run into this problem: Once all parents are doing this, there will be no more advantage to do it because everyone would be taller or smarter or more athletic. All they will have done is raise the baseline, in which case their child would be no better off than they would have been had no parents chosen to modify their children. Because genetically enhancing people is not a universalizable action, it is intrinsically wrong from a Deontological perspective (Berry 41). Genetic engineering is also morally wrong because of the assumptions it makes about human nature and the value of human life. It assumes that we, as people, have such a comprehensive knowledge of our own nature that we can know what is prudent concerning our biological future. This comes from the idea that because we are creatures of the mental realm, we are more than mere animals (A Life-Centered Approach to Bioethics 30). However, at the same time, it is true that human beings are both in nature and over it, continuous with it and discontinuous from it (Jones 12). While we may have abilities and knowledge that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom, we are also very animal-like in some respects. Catholics would call this characteristic our finiteness. Because we are finite, or imperfect, we are often

Incandela irrational and prone to mistakes. If this is true, can we really be sure that we know what is best for humanity concerning something as complex as evolution? Moreover, the same abilities and knowledge that separate us from the animals give us a

certain value and dignity above all other creatures on this earth. When we propose to genetically modify people to improve certain traits, we are denying this dignity, implying that a person is only worth as much as his abilities provide for him or for society. Certainly no one would say that the less intelligent, less physically impressive people are somehow worth less than people who are more genetically gifted. However, this is exactly what genetic enhancements suggest. Someone could use this same reasoning to argue that even curing diseases using this technology is out of the question. By curing illness using genetic engineering, we are saying that a person is not good enough with the original DNA he was given, and that a modification to his original DNA will somehow make him better. Taking this line of thinking this far cannot be correct because if this is true, then how can we justify the use of any sort of medicine? A radiologist, by curing someone with cancer, is really saying that that person is somehow inferior and needs treatment to make him better or more valuable. Common sense tells us this is ridiculous. People receive medical treatment to improve their lives, and the genetic curing of diseases is just another form of this. The key difference between genetic enhancements and therapies is that there is nothing wrong with the people being genetically enhanced. They will live perfectly normal lives without modifying their DNA. The same cannot be said about people with genetic diseases. These people are facing a life of severe impairment and disadvantages. Curing their diseases is not denying their dignity; rather, it is giving them the opportunity to live a full and happy life, which is something everyone should have. A person bred by his parents to be a basketball player,

Incandela meaning he has been given genes that make him extremely tall and athletic, has little choice but to be a basketball player. After all, his parents paid a lot of money for those genes, so he better

make the most of them. By being enhanced, his freedom is limited by his genes; he becomes less of a person and more of a commodity. Conversely, a person cured of a genetic disease would have his freedom increased by his treatment because he has been given the opportunity to live healthy, autonomous life. Because of this, Notre Dame should support using genetic engineering to cure diseases but not to enhance people further above the baseline. Not only is enhancing people ethically wrong, but it is also practically a bad idea, one that a university concerned with promoting the common good should avoid. One way this can be seen is by investigating the effects this technology will have on the modified individuals themselves. When this technology becomes available, the changes made to children will most likely be driven by popular opinion, which is ever-changing. An enhancement that is favorable today may be incredibly detrimental down the road. For example, if the Chinese had had this technology during the period when the binding of young girls feet to make them more attractive was popular, a good portion of Chinese people today might not be able to walk properly because their ancestors feet had been deformed in the past, and the traits have persisted in all generations since (Mehlman 74). This is an extreme example, but even in our own country views of attractiveness have changed significantly and recently. An attractive woman at the turn of the twentieth century would be seen as overweight today, and models today would be seen as unhealthy at any other time in history. When something as permanent and significant as altering a persons genes is subject to factors as fickle as public opinion, their worth comes into serious question.

Incandela The same concept can be applied to the judgment of parents, who will be the ultimate deciders concerning the modifications of their children. While it may be true that many people will use this technology responsibly, what can be said about the people that use it irresponsibly? The little power parents have been given in naming their children has already produced names

such as Batman Bin Suparman and Urhines Kendall Icy Eight Special K (Neatorama). These parents have put their children at a significant disadvantage by giving them these names, but at least the child could change his name eventually if he wanted to. Unfortunately, the genetic equivalent of naming a child Batman would not be as easily avoided. Someone may want their child born with green skin, a tail, or some other outlandish trait that would effectively handicap them from birth. What is to stop this from happening? Proponents of genetic engineering would say to just regulate the technology so that this doesnt happen, but doing so poses significant challenges. There are about 21,000 different genes in the human genome, and each one of them corresponds to specific trait or characteristic (National Human Genome Research Institute). The relationship between these genes is very complex, and multiple genes can often affect the same characteristic. It would be almost impossible for any higher organization to monitor every birth, checking thousands of gene combinations for illegal enhancements for every child. Even if they could regulate the industry, preventing certain changes from being made, what is to stop people from paying private parties to modify their children in ways the government wouldnt let them once the technology and methods were well known? A kind of black market could spring up for gene enhancements, which would be extremely detrimental to the people born out of such an unregulated establishment.

Incandela

Furthermore, how would those engineered be viewed by the rest of society? Harry Yield, a professor of religion at George Washington University, says that there is already a natural impulse to segregate ourselves[genetic engineering] will accelerate that in a very dangerous direction(CQ Researcher). Given this impulse to segregate, it makes sense that people would indeed look at genetically engineered individuals differently. It is possible they could even be discriminated against, and that all of their achievements would be taken with a grain of salt because they have an unfair advantage, similar to the athlete that uses steroids. In this way, the child, through no fault of his own, would be seen as an outsider whos achievements dont really matter as much as other peoples. No one would want such a situation for their children. Conversely, imagine a situation where the majority of the population has been enhanced. Two seemingly identical people apply for a job; one has been enhanced and one hasnt. The enhanced person gets the job because the employer feels better hiring a genetically superior person over someone who has all of their original genes (Buchanan 125). This would hardly be fair to the person that didnt get hired, and this cycle, if allowed to continue over several generations, would further widen the already considerable gap between the rich and the poor. In a short while, it would be effectively impossible for a person to succeed in life unless his parents had paid for the genes that allow him to do so. This effect, when applied to all of society, is quite alarming. Genetic enhancement technologies would obviously be very expensive, as all new technologies are, which means that only the very wealthy will be the ones that have access to them. Even today, it costs couples around $50,000 dollars to use the relatively primitive genetic engineering technologies already available, and more sophisticated techniques will only get more expensive (Mehlman 75). Now, on top of being financially superior, societys elite will also be genetically superior. Genetics will

Incandela eventually be one more characteristic used to separate the classes. Allen Buchanan, a proponent of genetic engineering and the author of Better Than Human, downplays this by saying that [gene] technologies may become cheap eventually and rather rapidly (126). To justify this, he uses the widespread availability of cell phones and computers to all members of society today. However, complex genetic technologies are nothing like cell phones. Why hasnt the price of medical treatment gone down with the price of cell phones as we have grown more efficient?

The medical industry and the technology industry are completely different, and there is no reason to believe the price of genetic enhancements will drop significantly once available, resulting in the inevitable further separation of classes into the modified and unmodified. If Notre Dame does indeed adopt this position, what should the course of action be? Large institutions such as Notre Dame can shape the outcome of this conflict by funding research that focuses on using this technology to cure diseases, and not to enhance people. An example of such research would be research involving chimeric cells, which would make it possible to correct human disease not merely by adding normal alleles randomly but rather by correcting the underlying genetic defect (Friedmann 49). Another example, known as Ooplasm transfer, involves transferring cytoplasm from the cells of healthy donors to the cells of embryos identified to be at risk for genetic diseases (Friedmann 51). If enough institutions exclusively fund this type of research, it may gain traction as a viable medical treatment, which would greatly increase our potential to cure diseases. Also, the lack of funding for genetic enhancement technologies will make them significantly harder to develop in the future. If pursued any further, genetic engineering will lead us down a morally bad road, one that will have grave and lasting effects on individuals as well as on society. These potential effects include diminishing the dignity, freedom, and quality of life of the genetically enhanced,

Incandela as well as creating a society even more divided than the one in which we currently live in. Because of this, Notre Dame should not fund research investigating these technologies, but rather research that explores the lifesaving potential of genetically cured diseases. It is evident that with todays rapidly advancing technology, it will be all too easy for scientists to push for new developments past the ones that may be prudent for society out of curiosity and the desire for achievement. Keeping in mind the things mentioned above, we must curb this strong tendency to always search for the next greatest technology, and be content that the society in which we live now has nothing to gain from these technologies, and everything to lose.

10

Works Cited "About." John J. Reilly Center. N.p., 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. Allin, Bill. "Why Intelligent People Tend To Be Unhappy." Scribd. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. Berry, Roberta M. The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. London: Routledge, 2007. Print. Buchanan, Allen E. Better Than Human: The Promise and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print. Chadwick, Ruth F. "Gene Therapy." The Concise Encyclopedia of the Ethics of New Technologies. San Diego, CA: Academic, 2001. 123-46. Print. Darnovsky, Marcy "The Case Against Designer Babies: The Politics of Genetic Enhancement." Redesigning Life?: The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. Ed. Brian Tokar. London: Zed, 2001. Print Friedman, Theadore. Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and Perils of Genetic Modifications. Ed. Chapman, Audrey R., and Mark S. Frankel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2003. Print.

Incandela

11

Johnson, Lawrence E. A Life-Centered Approach to Bioethics: Biocentric Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print. Jones, D. Gareth. Brave New People: Ethical Issues at the Commencement of Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Print. Masci, David. "Designer Humans." CQ Researcher. CQ Press, 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

Santoso, Alex. "10 Strangest Names EVAR!" Neatorama. N.p., 19 May 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. "2012 National DNA Day Online Chatroom Transcript." National Human Genome Research Institute. N.p., 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.