Technological Blessing or Mistake of the Past?

In July of this year a very curious piece of research was brought to the attention of the world. It would simultaneously bring hope to those suffering from infertility, and also disgust to those who saw it as scientists "playing God". The Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St. Barnabas in New Jersey released the information that they had been testing the use of genetic modification with in vitro fertilization. 15  babies in the program were born using a method that uses DNA from three separate parents. The method  was used for couples who wanted to conceive their own genetic children but were unable to do so because of mitochondrial defects in their eggs. The institute extracted healthy mitochondria from an anonymous female donor's eggs and then inserted the mitochondria into those of the mother, replacing the defective ones. So far, two out of the 15 babies have been shown to have successfully inherited DNA from the three separate parents, which means that they will be able to pass on those genes to their children as well.  Does this experiment have implications for human future itself?

It seems that the main issue behind this particular work was that of human infertility. But to many people it could be a gateway into fixing other genetic problems that we wouldn't want to pass onto our offspring. Julian Savulescu, an Oxford professor and controversial ethicist, argues, "When it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children". Indeed, the technology now seems to exist to isolate certain "good genes" from one parent and meld them into the greater DNA structure of another. What Savulescu proposes doing could in the short run save parents the heartbreak of their children growing up to have intense behavioral issues and self-destructive tendencies. It could also do a future favor to the communities that they would grow up in by removing a potential threat of violent assault or perhaps drunk driving.

After all, there are already practices in place of screening embryos for the genetic disposition for certain cancers and defects. The process, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), is used to screen for embryos free of mutations on the BRCA1 gene, which could carry a 60-80% increase in lifetime risk of breast cancer. Just this past July, at the conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, research was presented on the PGD method that very successful distinctions between embryos that carry the breast cancer gene mutation and those that didn't. To those who carry a long family history of cancer, this practice may very well become a common test.

For all of the potential benefits of the two genetic modification methods mentioned above, there is still the question of the past transgressions of similar programs. What is today’s genetic modification is not so far off from the concept of eugenics. The historical legacy of this practice is one of racism and prejudice against mental disabilities, most notably in Nazi Germany. But the idea of eugenics and ethnic cleansing stems even farther back from programs in the United States back in the early 20^th century. According to an article by Edwin Black in the San Francisco Gate, “In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as ‘bad girls,’ diagnosed as ‘passionate,’ ‘oversexed’ or ‘sexually wayward’”. Even the Supreme Court supported the practice through a decision in a 1927 case, the reasoning being to prevent the world from dealing with future generations of “imbeciles”.

Although the contemporary field of genetic modification is not, to my knowledge, involved in the sterilization of the “unfit”, it does have a clear parallel with eugenics. Both types of programs place importance on removing perceived human imperfections. But who is to decide what particular traits or genes are fit for removal? Cancer and infertility have clear moral justifications, but what about the genes for certain mental disabilities? The other issue with genetically modifying future children is the disparity between rich and poor. It would be a practice largely of the elite because such cosmetic procedures cost tens of thousands of dollars. Arguably, a future picture of humankind might be one that juxtaposes rich, genetically “perfect” people with those who are poorer and genetically inferior.

Whatever the positive implications of human genetic modification, it is also difficult to predict what future course such programs would take. We cannot predict whether humankind would learn from the mistakes of past eugenics programs, or if they would instead inadvertently adopt a similar purpose. I personally hope that these new technologies will only be used for the purposes of infertility or preventing life- threatening disease, but we will have to wait to see what the future of reproductive science entails.