“There may be ways, for instance, to design a baby’s genes
without violating the principle of informed consent. This is the belief
that no one’s genes—not even an embryo’s—should be altered without his
or her permission,” (117).
In Sharon Begley’s article, “Designer Babies,” she informs the reader
that in vitro fertilization, currently used for couples with fertility
problems, will soon be used to create dream children. My mind
wanders—hell, it sprints—to some sort of Frankenbaby. Or a baby as
irresistible as John Travolta in the movie Michael. Mothers
fighting off adult women in the grocery store, “He smells like my
grandmothers cookies! Take my phone number! Call me when he’s sixteen.”
As Begley explored the topic, I began to accept the reality of designing
genetic code.
Imagine a family history free of Diabetes. You have my attention. Without the looming threat of diabetes your children are free to enjoy a life booze, diet coke and cigarettes. Dream child! Where do I sign?
In all seriousness, in a few years it may be possible to inject an
artificial human gene carrying instructions to make certain cells
self-destruct. Suppose a baby boy fetus with a family history of
prostate cancer is injected with a designer gene. By the time his
cancerous prostate cells start growing his designer gene will kick in
and kick ass by causing the cells to commit suicide and he will not die
of cancer (115). This is all very exciting. Man overcomes nature yet
again. I knew we could do it. Never mind that we’ve created poisonous
chemicals that contribute to the cancer epidemic. It would be much more
boring to eradicate cancer by finding the root cause, especially if it
challenges the current capitalistic globalization model. Yawn. So last
year.
Believe it or not, there is opposition to these designer genes.
“There is a great divide over whether we should be opening up this
Pandora’s Box,” (116). However, the author says molecular biologists may
have come up with a solution making the manipulation of a fetus less
creepy and weird. For instance, injecting designer genes into unborn
people violates the principle of informed consent. Very sane, UCLA
geneticist, John Campbell gives this example: A gene for patience could
be equipped with an on/off switch activated by taking drugs. (Taking
drugs to alter one’s mood making them tolerable to be around— this
sounds like something my uncle does. He calls it smoking pot.) The
child free to accept or reject the drug retains informed consent over
her genetic code (117). I am glad some people in the science community
are trying to protect the rights of the individual’s body, even a fetus.
However I find it strange that the concern is only for genetic code of
the unborn. Almost no one has a problem mutilating a newborn’s genitalia
without his consent, or injecting our children with vaccines full of
heavy metals.
Having a cynical temperament like mine, I am not interested in having
the option to turn my virtue on and off with prescription drugs. If I
want to be a bit nicer, I will have a glass of wine. As far as
preventing hereditary diseases and disorders, I say we get our houses in
order and stop causing disease before we start consciously altering our
genetic makeup.
