• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Designer babies are coming sooner than you think

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kimawolf

Member
Stanford law professor and bioethicist Hank Greely predicts that in the future most people in developed countries won't have sex to make babies. Instead they'll choose to control their child's genetics by making embryos in a lab.

On KQED's Forum program, Michael Krasny spoke with Greely about his new book, The End of and the Future of Human Reproduction. Greely highlights the ethical and legal questions that might arise in the future's reproductive paradigm.

Krasny: There are a lot of new advances, technology and so forth. We reached the point where you get some sperm donor and a little piece of skin and you're in business because of stem cells.
Greely: My book argues that two different biomedical innovations coming from different directions and not really propelled by reproduction are going to combine here. One is whole-genome sequencing, and the other is what I call easy PGD, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, [that] is, getting rid of egg harvest ... which is unpleasant, dangerous and really expensive.

This ties in with in vitro fertilization also being not as onerous as it has been in the past.

What I think is going to happen, we'll be able to take some skin cells from anyone and turn them into any cell type. Make these into eggs or and that is going to make IVF much easier, cheaper and less dangerous.

You [can] decide, "Well, I want these traits," and it becomes a selective process.


Yes, I think we will see an increased and broad use of embryo selection. I would be careful to set the time frame at 20-40 years. I think we'll actually see a world where most babies born to people with good health coverage will be conceived in the lab. People will make about a hundred embryos, each will have its whole genome tested, and the parents will be [asked ... "Tell] us what you want to know and then tell us what embryo you want.
"

This could bring down health care costs, and it is also good for same- couples, isn't it?

Well, yes and maybe. I think it should bring down health care costs, and, in fact, one of the advantages to it is that it would be so beneficial for public health care costs that I think it would be provided for free. If it costs say, $10,000 to start a baby this way, 100 babies is a million dollars. If you avoid the birth of one baby with a serious genetic disease, you've saved $3 [million to] $5 million. The same-sex issue, I think that's going to work, but that's another jump. That would be taking a skin cell ... from a woman and turning it into a sperm. I think [it's] probable, but that hasn't been done yet.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-baby-making-move-from-the-bedroom-to-the-lab

So this is the future. Something else to be thought of with this.. you could theoretically be your child's father and mother by donating a few skin cells. There is also the future where say a normal person can only afford 100 embryos, so you have a smaller selection to choose from to get that perfect bavy, yet a rich person could get say 1 million. Giving them a much better shot at finding that potential "genius" child since the field of selection they have is far greater than yours.

Not to mention editing genes will alllow same parents to be able to edit their kids hair color, eye color, skin color etc. Crazy times we live in.

I also imagine the ethical implications of designer babies and what would the unforseen consequences be for us as a species?
 

Goodstyle

Member
This is going to bring up some serious discussion on race, and if they find a way to determine orientation, sexuality too.
 
Gataca_Movie_Poster_B.jpg
 
I feel like this is one of those things where just because science can, doesn't mean it should. I think this will be an ethical disaster.

Diseases/defects are fine I think. But when it gets to essentially creating or ensuring a particular appearance or race, etc., that's just not a good idea. Especially given only a certain sect of the population will have access to this.
 

Faustek

Member
Rather redesign myself.

Gills so I can sleep under water perhaps? A new spine so my back doesn't hurt or just try to be white for a week. Heard that's fun.
 
This is going to bring up some serious discussion on race, and if they find away to determine orientation, sexuality too.

Speaking as someone who has suffered from depression most likely (according to therapist and psych) brought on by gender dysphoria, I have very mixed feelings about this. If they can nail that down, so achild does not have to suffer in a world that starkly refuses to change, I think I'd do everything I can to avoid it. As for whether or not it's ethical, /that's/ the question...
 
We really do have to start having the debates about this though.

On the one hand, if we can help stop generational illnesses and conditions before a child is born, it's hard to deny the boons that could have.

But where do we go to far? Wanting certain eye colour or hair colour? Having them look exactly the way we want? It's so tricky.
 

Viewt

Member
The next few pages is just going to be people talking about Gattaca. Which I'm fine with. Gattaca is great.

Anywho, yeesh, I dunno how I feel about people possibly setting their baby's sexual identity. Wouldn't that make everyone just a bit more... boring?

But I think it'd be great if we could help eliminate hereditary diseases, and just give kids a better chance in general of living happy, healthy lives.
 
When I'm like 55 I'm going to be so pissed at those hot shot genetically modified teenagers. Not to mention that all of the kids named "Khalissi" will have silver hair now.
 

thefro

Member
We really do have to start having the debates about this though.

On the one hand, if we can help stop generational illnesses and conditions before a child is born, it's hard to deny the boons that could have.

But where do we go to far? Wanting certain eye colour or hair colour? Having them look exactly the way we want? It's so tricky.

Parents with the $$$ will be designing kids to be genius super-athletes unless that's regulated like crazy. Too much economic motivation to have someone with the potential to be a pro-athlete (free college at the least).

Then you'll basically have two classes of humans pretty quickly.
 
I can see this being staunchly opposed, since all they'd have to do is frame it in the context that 99%+ of embryos will be aborted.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm sure the anti-GMO people will be all against this, too.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
On the other hand it is possible that it could lead to the complete eradication of many inherited/genetic diseases and disorders.

Not everything is doom and gloom.

That is sort of happening now with in vitro already. There's some testing that can be done in the selection process of an embryo.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
More ways to widen the gap between the rich and poor!

Petty much.

The poorer portion of the population will be born naturally. Another portion will be genetically engineered to all be tall, attractive, perfectly healthy, super talented and super intelligent. That will put a segment of the population, already poor, at a huge disadvantage. A couple generations of that, and if you think the gap between the classes is wide now, this will only compound it immensely.
 

Cagey

Banned
What would this mean for homosexuality given the genetics involved and what this could mean for picking and choosing and embryonic development.
 

kess

Member
This will do interesting things to the concept of equality -- "better" people will inevitably believe they are worth more than other people, as they always have. America's shit education system offers a preview of how this can be abused.
 

Lesath

Member
Petty much.

The poorer portion of the population will be born naturally. Another portion will be genetically engineered to all be tall, attractive, perfectly healthy, super talented and super intelligent. That will put a segment of the population, already poor, at a huge disadvantage. A couple generations of that, and if you think the gap between the classes is wide now, this will only compound it immensely.

At least at the moment, the genetic determinants of some of the traits you have listed are really a combination of factors scattered throughout the genome (e.g. what goes into height? torso length, thigh length, etc) or a complex combination of factors (e.g. the same features on one face might be attractive but be unattractive on a larger face). We're probably decades away from that point, so I'd say might as well get this started now and let the rich folk have their blue-eyed-yet-potentially-uggo babies so the price of the technology is driven down substantially by the time the heavy stuff rolls around.
 

Fat Goron

Member
More ways to widen the gap between the rich and poor!

Everything is ALWAYS available first to the rich. If people stop doing things because it's not going the be immediately available to everyone, then it's never going to be available to anyone.

And it's not like rich people only have children with other rich people. If genetic diseases are eliminated from a smaller gene pool, the effects will slowly but surely be spread to a wider gene pool.

The sooner we start getting rid of some life destroying genes, the better.
 

TheMan

Member
This is a bit different than a designer baby- this sounds more like a very inefficient and expensive method of advanced screening, rather than actual gene manipulation. I guess you could get the same end result as true gene manipulation if you also include donor gametes and screen enough embryos.
 

Alphahawk

Member
I don't really see this as the future anytime soon despite what some futurist says. Certainly I can't see a reality where a majority of babies are born via this process. As a society we like to have sex and therefore sex is likely going to be the preferred method for this type of thing.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Speaking as someone who has suffered from depression most likely (according to therapist and psych) brought on by gender dysphoria, I have very mixed feelings about this. If they can nail that down, so achild does not have to suffer in a world that starkly refuses to change, I think I'd do everything I can to avoid it. As for whether or not it's ethical, /that's/ the question...

I don't think gender dysphoria is or should be that controversial to fix, if it's something you can address in-vitro... I mean, why would you inflict years of suffering or costly after-the-fact surgeries to redress what could have been dealt with in the womb?

What is a bit more concerning is the idea that people would start selecting for certain traits that aren't life-threatening but have real-world ramifications, like skin color.

What would this mean for homosexuality given the genetics involved and what this could mean for picking and choosing and embryonic development.

As farra s the research I've seen, homosexuality isn't genetic, or at least it's genetic in combination with environmental factors (like how the more sons in a family there are the more likely one is gay, et al.) So I don't think you have to worry about a "cure for the gay gene." Plus, I'm optimistic that by the time this sort of selective screening can become widespread enough to have a major impact, I don't think homosexuality will be regarded as a malady to treat.

More realistically, I can see deaf couples just doing what some have been doing for years now and deliberately selecting for a deaf child.
 

JordanN

Banned
I don't really see this as the future anytime soon despite what some futurist says. Certainly I can't see a reality where a majority of babies are born via this process. As a society we like to have sex and therefore sex is likely going to be the preferred method for this type of thing.

Japan?
 
Yeah, but they'll still be raised by shitty parents.

It'll be a problem once the designer babies are having their own designer babies.

As a society we like to have sex and therefore sex is likely going to be the preferred method for this type of thing.

Having children isn't a driving factor for sex and sex isn't a driving factor for having children.

In fact, it's quite the inverse for most people.
 

Lucario

Member
I still have no idea how the concept of 'designer babies' isn't reviled as much as eugenics.

Hopefully lawmakers will have the sense to put a stop to this before it starts, or at least limit its applications to preventing serious medical conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom