Genetically Engineering Babies a Moral Obligation, Says Ethicist

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu, an expert in practical ethics, says that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a 'moral obligation' as it makes them grow up into 'ethically better children' and that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence as it means they will then be less likely to harm themselves and others. 'Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?' writes Savulescu, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics. 'So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.' Savulescu says that we already routinely screen embryos and fetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome and couples can test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes. 'Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.'"

Comments

Parents are already "designing" their kids

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife worked for a pediatrician in a well to do area a couple of years ago and if it looked like their kid was going to be under 6 foot, they would ask for a referral to an endocrinologist for hormones to get the kid to grow a bit more. The pediatrician didn't think it was necessary in most cases, but they are his patients so he complied. The parents wanted the best for their kids and wanted to insure that they could get any advantage that they could possibly get for them.

James Watson, co-discover of DNA, was on the National Press Club a few years ago, and this question was asked (can't find the archive right now - heard on NPR). Anyway to paraphrase,

90% of CEOs are over 6 foot. A 5 foot 2 inch tall man and a five foot tall woman may want to better the opportunities for their child.

Of course, what he meant was that up to a point, height matters in all sorts of endeavors and not only sports: politics, finding a mate, work, etc ... There is a strong correlation between height and success. Yes, I know - queue up all the exceptions but keep in mind, many of those were extraordinary people; such as Einstein - 5' 5".

Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

"This topic isn't even about the rich, it's specifically about a potential era where these technologies may become affordable enough to apply on a massive scale."

Every topic about any subject with potential for abuse is about the rich (though not solely so, of course.) The rich are the people in power. Those with power decide how any technology will be used. Everything is a double-edged sword, and the question "How will those who hold the largest double-edged swords use them?" is always entirely valid. Indeed, it must be asked.

I hope this helps you understand why "we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe", which is - of course - a complete mischaracterization of the nature of the discussion.

Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"We always know best, and what is for the best."

"Our intellect is capable of producing a better world on its own, if given sufficient technology."

"It is immoral not to condition our babies to accept whole-hardheartedly, their statistically inevitable circumstance in life."

Thank Ford, Huxley's vision of a moral paradise is nigh.