How
would it be if it were possible to ‘order’ the birth of a baby girl who would
grow to be as beautiful as Venus and as intelligent as Marie Curie? Or the
birth of a baby boy who would grow to be as handsome as Adonis and as
intelligent as Einstein? How would it be if it were possible to choose the
colour of the eyes, hair and skin tone? Does the idea sound outré, utopian? Recent scientific advances indicate that the
idea of ‘designer babies’ is neither all that outré nor all that utopian.
It is a possibility in the not too distant future. It is the ethics of the
issue that should worry mankind. Is genetic engineering ethical or even
desirable?
Man
‘created’ angels, gods and goddesses in his own image. It is for this
reason they are referred to as anthropomorphic gods. In his ‘creation’
man made gods and goddesses the most beautiful creatures; again beauty being a product
of his own imagination. The creation of anthropomorphic gods is but an
expression of man’s endless quest to replicate nature or improving upon it. It
was an enticing subject that drew artistes and scientists alike. In general the
artistes were wary of the dangers of replicating or improving upon nature. Here
are a few examples. Mary Shelly’s 1918 Gothic novel ‘Frankenstein or
The Modern Prometheus’ described the
horrors that would result in tinkering with nature. So did Aldous Huxley’s dystopian
‘Brave New World’ (1932) and Ken Follett’s science-fiction ‘The Third
Twin’ (1996), but to a less horrific degree.
But
the scientists would not be deterred. For as long as the history of science
could be traced, maverick – for want of a better word – ‘scientists’ in many
nations conducted experiments with the objective of transmuting base metals
into gold, to find a universal solvent and to find a potion that would extend
longevity. The ‘scientists’ were collectively known as alchemists.
Although for long they were dismissed as charlatans and although they did not
achieve the objectives they set out to do, their work had advanced science as
far as the purification of metals.
In
recent times genetic engineering has been focusing on four areas of human
development. They are muscle enhancement to improve athletic performance;
memory enhancement to improve intellectual performance; growth hormone
treatment to improve physical stature and selection of sex and genetic traits
of children. The selection of sex is already a reality. It must be noted that
gender screening tests are illegal in India. There are several companies in the
USA which already offer ‘sex selection’ with certain pre-conditions that would
preclude its possible misuse. The process/product is offered to only those
couples who have one child and who desire to have a child of the opposite sex
to ‘balance their families’.
The theory of eugenics
is as old as Aristotle. It appears the fourth century BCE philosopher had
suggested that ‘men should tie their left testicles prior to intercourse if
they wanted a male child’! In ‘The case against perfection: ethics in the
age of genetic engineering’ (2007), Michael J. Sandel discussed both the
pros and cons of genetic engineering. As societies evolve, old mores give way
to new norms. Sandel cites a character from the 1981
British historical film, ‘Chariots
of Fire’. It was the story of two athletes, Eric Liddell, a devout Scottish Christian and Harold
Abrahams, an English Jew who competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics. Prior to 1924,
employing professional coaches for training to compete in amateur sport was
scoffed at. It was considered ‘ungentlemanly’. Abrahams defied the
custom as he felt that it was just a cover for anti-Semitism. The point being
made is that today employing coaches is an accepted norm. In fact it is unimaginable
for any athlete to go into high level competitions without a personal trainer.
Much of the opposition
to genetic engineering stems from the negative connotations associated with eugenics.
The
objective of eugenics was to increase the proportion of healthy and
intelligent individuals in the general population. Conversely the poor and unhealthy
were prevented from conceiving by forced sterilisation. It
is generally assumed that forced sterilisations as a measure of eugenics were
practised only in Nazi Germany. According to a report published in the website
PsychCentral.com, by the 1930s thirty states in the USA had sterilisation laws.
Between 1927 when Carrie Buck, the first victim of the Virginia sterilisation
law was sterilised and the 1970s, 65,000 Americans with ‘mental illness or
developmental disabilities’ were sterilised. When the Buck case
reached the Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled:
“It is better for all the world,
if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them
starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit
from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (See , Accessible from http://bit.ly/2mZHs8Q).
To forestall genetic
engineering for ethical considerations amounts to throwing the baby out with
the bathwater. Scientists believe that the key to finding remedies for diseases
like thalassemia and cancer is in genetic engineering.
When the banking industry
introduced information technology tools in the 1980s doomsday predictors hollered
that it would lead to thousands going out of employment. We live in a world of
over the counter (OTC) remedies and food supplements for growth and beauty
enhancement. Not an hour passes when we don’t see bamboozling advertisements
about them on television. Bariatric surgery and cosmetic surgery for beauty
enhancement are fairly common with only the cost being the limiting factor. Would
it be the only limiting factor for ‘made to order babies’ too? Or are ethics
involved?
Should we in the end
accept and live with advances in genetic engineering or heed the warning of
Mary Shelly and Aldous Huxley about ‘Promethean hubris’? The last word in the
debate is yet to be pronounced!
