Designer Babies

[Artemis84]

Did anyone see the program last week called "Tampering with Nature?" One of the highlights was about how human cloning will soon becom a reality. They also talked about how parents can "design" their child before they're born. For instance, if you wanted a blonde, green eyed genius, the baby's DNA can be replaced with the modifying DNA. What do you guys think about this?

[random]

yea, we need more blonde green eyed genius' running around.

[SamuraiInBlack]

My personal thoughts:

I believe that cloning and genetic designing of children has its pro's and cons. For example, if a family lineage has been known for having heart problems or cancer, genetic design will break that curse. Or if there's a good chance said child will be born with some sort of physical or mental retardation, doctors today can stop that from occuring. I'm not saying that no one wants a physically/mentally challenged child, but for myself, it pains me to look upon one and know that they were never given the choice to be that way. They simply had to become that way because a screw-up in genetics decreed it so.

The bad part is the Supermodel theory I've possessed about this. Society as a whole has always gone for what has been deemed beautiful, tasteful or basically "so damned good I gotta have it". Well, a possible result of this will be that true beauty will be hard to come by, because genetics will have made it possible for all of us to look like the next Laetitia Casta, Tyra Banks, Anna Kournikova, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, etc.

And, in the wrong hands, this kind of technology can create a world of chaos, or a world of stasis. Just imagine a world where nothing out of the ordinary ever happens. Just the same old crap happening on a different day. Or vice versa, nothing will ever be the same, and the world grows dark from a mass lineage of murderers and criminals spawned from test tubes.

While the two theories seem impossible now, it could very well become a reality with even a sliver of a chance for it to happen. Remember...at one time, man said there was no way a human being could run a mile in under 4 minutes. Today, your average Olympic runner who takes his running seriously can do it without effort. It was also said that man could not fly. Today we have airplanes. And once, man claimed it would never go into space. We have now discovered entire otherworldly galaxies.

[Armitage]

The idea scares me. There's a fine line between correcting congenital problems and tailor-making kids. Kind of kils the suprise of mixing in the gene pool.
Oh, and *cough*Gattaca*cough*.

[SamuraiInBlack]

If it were going to be strictly used for repairing genetically related problems including obesity and various cancers and what not, I'd be all for it. But knowing the way society works, it just wouldn't be that way and there'd be cosmetic uses for it as well, legal or illegal.

[Wyrdsister]

I must admit that my opinions on cloning and other DNA tampering are pretty reactionary. It really makes me nervous. I wouldn't say I have a well-formed and educated viewpoint on this issue.

Wyrdsister

[Incendia]

I'm kind of "half and half" on the whole genetic engineering thing. I think it would be wonderful if we could eradicate many of the diseases that plague our society today. The whole idea of being able to clone organs for transplantation that won't cause autoimmune responses in their recipients and other such things is great. However, I disagree with altering intelligence and external features like physique, eye and hair color etc. I'm afraid that things will just get carried too far...I'm not quite ready to deal with a "Brave New World" scenario in the future...if ya' know what I mean! ;)

[threenorns]

i have absolutely no problem with genetic cloning or genengineering.

as for that movie, gattaca, that was laughable. i mean, THINK of the sheer cost and logistics of trying to run the system they were positing! it's ridiculous.

anyone remember Dr Bashir, on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, who had to hide his history because his parents wanted a better life for him than he'd get as a physically weak nebbisch who got sick all the time and was learning disabled? they had him treated using genetic engineering and turned him into a drop-dead-gorgeous, near supergenius, even though it was illegal. he spent much of his Star Fleet career feeling ashamed and like a freak and deliberating downplaying his intelligence so as not to stand out too much (such as pretending to mistake a pre-ganglionic prion for a post-ganglionic neuron on his final exam, thereby finishing only second in his class.... as IF!).

the thing is, gattaca is happening today. okay, so maybe nobody's looking at our babies' genetic structure and saying "oh my: a congenital sociopath who likes flower-arranging in her spare time, tsk, tsk", but they ARE looking at us in the bars and in the courts and in the job interviews and saying "go home with HIM!? are you kidding!?? he's HUGE!!!!" and "well, you KNOW what they say about THOSE kind of ppl -- of *course* he's guilty!" and "her body odour is a bit offensive -- i think we'll pass on this application".

so what's the difference?

the thing is, if "everybody" goes for the Supermodel Theory, then you know what will happen? such ppl will stop being beautiful because ppl are attracted to what's different, not to the Pablum definition of homogenized physiology. not even a hundred years ago, women who were stick-thin were doomed to spend their lives as "old maids" because they weren't considered beautiful -- who wants a wife who'd probably die in childbirth? men with smooth, hair-free, scar-free faces were suspected of being homosexual or immature "callow" youths -- Real Men had scars and facial hair, muscles on their muscles, and thought literacy was something you did with the bathroom door locked.

today, european and latin men find curvaceous, bodacious women gorgeous, while stick-thin women are "dog food" (that, by the way, is a direct quote from a booty-enhanced friend of mine who has returned to mexico on vacation every year since and enjoys her popularity there very much). in the papagos, women under 200 pounds are looked on with concern and checked for illness or depression (they certainly don't get married too often!).

as for intelligence, if EVERYONE has an iq of 160, then it logically follows that that will become "normal".

if we choose our genetic destiny or if nature and the environment choose it, what's the difference?

if i happen to want a blonde-haired, blue-eyed child, i have two choices: find a blue-eyed blonde and keep him hostage until he produces, or choose the correct gene combination from the choices offered by my genetics and the father's.

i have two lovely daughters. while i would never change them as they are, i would leap at the chance to select the genes to create them as they are -- i'm just wicked blind lucky things have worked out as they have. i might even keep my older daughter's neurological difficulties, because those are what's gifted her with her high IQ and incredible artistic ability, but if i had engineered them out, i wouldn't regret it because i wouldn't know any different!

the best way to make something flourish is to suppress it and to forbid it. the best way to kill something is to make it something that just "isn't done" -- the campaign against drinking and driving is succeeding because kids are growing up thinking that driving drunk is something losers and posers do, and we all know what kids think about being "cool", right?

i say let genetic engineering go right ahead -- if a generation of superkids evolves and gets all the plum jobs, so what: they're qualified! it's not like in that ridiculous movie, where you just don't GET a job unless you're genetically enhanced. eventually, the hoopla will die down and those who want to will, while those who don't, won't.

me, i'm more interested in cross-species genengineering -- i've always wanted the attributes of a cat with the intelligence of a human....

[Semele]

My feelings on this are different than most. I am all for the research....but not to the end of cloning humans. I think they should really be working towards cloning organs. Just think how wonderful it would be if someone on a transplant list gets their new organ from these means rather than having to await the death of someone else who is kind enough to offer them this gift. Maybe at some point in the future we will be able to take a sample of the persons DNA and grow them a new heart/kidney/lung/retina...whatever. That is where I can see this would benefit human kind.

As for cloning a blue eyed baby girl with curly blond hair....I guess Mol and I will have to keep our fingers crossed that it will happen someday without drastic measures.

[gunner]

" I think they should really be working towards cloning organs. Just think how wonderful it would be if someone on a transplant list gets their new organ from these means rather than having to await the death of someone else who is kind enough to offer them this gift. Maybe at some point in the future we will be able to take a sample of the persons DNA and grow them a new heart/kidney/lung/retina...whatever. That is where I can see this would benefit human kind."

i'm with semele on this, and i'm hearing reports of research and experiments already under way for "cosmetic repair" parts for people disfigured by accidents. nothing happens overnight but i'd be willing to bet that semele's "major replacement parts" may be available by the time some of our younger members will need them. to my mind a better solution, medically and ethically than the present transplant surgery methods.

[Myst]

I'm with Gunner here.

Why aren't they cloning human organs? Why is money being spent on human cloning which most people feel is highly unethical (and really, what's the point? Gods gave us a way to procreate already didn't they?) instead of more important studies such as how to cure cancer, aids, diabetes, or even the common cold? I'd almost hazard to say it's because cloning humans would probably be profitable, but then I'd sound like a friend of mine who's convinced there's already a cure for cancer - the government just won't let it out because cancer patients generate so much income for them (ie. treatments, home care, etc.). Sick, sick, sick!