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 20th
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.











