Genetically modifying children - wrong ?

Post Reply New Topic

By Marcy Darnovsky 17 Jul 2018

I don't see gene editing as a pathway to a super race, since genes survive depending on environment. Also possible greater inequality could happen, or possible equality could happen. But that can depend on "who" wants and can distribute gene editing and the "why". And a civilised society could need this depending on the goal of that society. For instance, if the goal of that society is to decrease physical suffering caused by aging, gene editing could be the solution.

Simple as that, it's a tool to advance humanity like so many others, and eventually it will happen.
Problem: we do live in a society that enforces social and official control, and the way it is now the technology is very exclusive.

Always consider the source first. Marcy Darnovsky is an American policy advocate and author who has extensively spoken and written on the politics of human biotechnology, focusing on their feminist, social justice, human rights, health equity, and public-interest implications. She completed her Ph.D. in the History of Consciousness program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and is currently serving as the Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society. She is frequently cited by television, radio, and online sources.

Basically, she's a political activist, a social justice warrior, a historian, an administrator, and a media darling -- she is neither a geneticist nor a medical doctor.

Objecting to genetic treatments that could eliminate gene-based disabilities is both inhuman and inhumane. She deserves to be ignored.

What is this luddite hysteria? Of course it isn't wrong!

This doesn't bother me in any particular way, since I'm fairly certain when I have children that they're just going to be naturally homegrown demonic creatures. I just find it darkly amusing, an image in my head of somebody picking the visual characteristics of their child and it being a replica of a garbage character creator a la Fallout or Dark Souls.

Considering the benefits, I'd say it's not wrong at all. With gene editing, we could make it so that no baby dies early due to some genetic disease. We could also create more geniuses, which would only help advance human society in at least some ways.

As for the inequality issue, I guess that depends on how the gene editing is used. Even then, it'll still exist; even without gene editing, some will just have way better genes than others.

On the point that gene editing is not needed because of embryo screening, I feel that it is a logical fallacy. However uncommon, it may be that no embryos are viable/do it have a hereditary genetic defect. To outright deny it in that front is closed-minded. I've not read the 200 page report, just this article, but saying they've greenlit Gattaca is a it sensationalist. As long as doctors are held to the same standards as they have always been, and put care of the patient first, then I do not see a problem unless nations allow privatised, profit-driven corporations to make the decision.

One argument that often comes up is along the lines of "look at my relative, x, and they're doing great - if we had gene editing they wouldn't be here". To which I say, no, they would still be here, but they might not have muscular dystrophy or ALS. While we don't know what all genes do, in a significant number of cases, we know what gene defect causes the fuses or syndrome.

Also, look at the English aristocracy - I'd say that's pretty specific gene editing done the old-fashioned way. People aren't clamouring for Boris Johnson's genes.