Designer Babies Analysis

Designer Babies: What are the Ethical and Moral Issues by TK McGhie and Designer Babies: Choosing Our Children’s Genes by Bonnie Steinbock both cover the controversy around an ever growing, ever prominent field of biotechnology. These articles focus on the recent trend of the concept that parents can essentially design the baby of their dreams. Designer babies are not an actual in use trend, but it is a very real hypothetical one. The idea of designer babies first originated in 1978, the day of the first successful in vitro fertilization. From there, more and more technology has become readily available to help improve the lives of unborn children. These two articles are about the same fundamental subject but, they differ from each

other in a multitude of ways. Steinbock makes her argument clear from the beginning and she is consistant throughout her essay that designer babies are a positive progression towards a brighter future. McGhie gives an indepth look into possible pros and cons, and then concludes by stating that designer babies could have “profound potential benefit for the relief and suffering by eliminating genes encoding diseases and for advancing the understanding of human evolution.” (Wilhoit 575).
Steinbock talks of technology like a science fiction writer; large descriptions that always remain vague and grandiose.

Steinbock never cites specific biotechnology advancements or scientific facts. However, her whole essay becomes more understandable upon seeing Steinbock’s credentials as a professor is philosophy not biology. McGhie consistently and thoroughly cites advancements throughout his essay starting with explanations of the first In-Vitro Fertilization, to the 1996 birth of Dolly, which is the first cloned animal, to then explaining the significance of the Human Genome Project. In this way, McGhie sets the stage for a reader who may not know the scientific significance of the topic at hand. This allows readers to fully understand the background on the subject to further their own personal opinions about designer babies. This is not to say Steinbock's paper would be a struggle to comprehend for a reader uneducated in biotechnology and the controversy that surrounds it. Quite the opposite in fact. Her article only covers surface level information about the possibility of designer babies, which can obstruct the reader from the ability to fully form an opinion on the

subject.
Steinbock is clear from the beginning about her opinions. In the first paragraph she states “I want to argue that the objections [against designer babies], are usually not well articulated, and even when they are, it’s far from obvious that such interventions would be wrong.” (Wilhoit 563). Steinbock stays true to their beliefs and through the duration of the article. Steinbock however argues based solely on personal belief, only once does she cite a correlating study that supports her argument for genetically modified children. This is not to say that Steinbock's opinions are invalid, they are however voide when they can not be backed up by supporting evidence. McGhie’s reference page cites nine sources from documentaries to online articles. He references these throughout his paper thoroughly and frequently. McGhie’s personal opinions are never stated as well, this is due to the article being written for the Medical Protection Society Essay Competition in 2001.
Both authors cover the topic of designer babies being used as a front for the eugenics movement. McGhie goes so far as to state supply a quote from a designer baby advocate and nobel prize winner James Watson. The quote from Watson is as follows: “the fears over the creation of “designer babies” is misplaced and that the potential benefits of controlling the ultimate engine of human evolution far outweighs the risks.” (Wilhoit 572). McGhie then disagrees with Watson stating that because parents do not own their children, and an action of a parent will have consequences on the child’s life as well, parents do not have the fundamental right to design their future offspring. Steinbock uses a series of analogies to state that a parent should have the right to predetermine their child’s genetic makeup. The analogy asks if a child has musically talented parents, does this mean the child is predetermined to be a musician themselves? She continues on by saying every person on earth has their genes chosen for them, no one person can chose their own genes. By this logic arguing that parents do not have the right to genetically predetermined what possible skills their children could have is invalid.
A specifically designed baby could not have been bred for a special skill, but instead a special set of genes. On February 14 2002 in Leeds England, a baby was born to save his five year old brother. The infants stem cells from his umbilical cord would be used for his older brothers bone marrow transplant, in case the need of it ever arose. This was done through the permission of the HFEA (Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority). HFEA is responsible for the licensing and monitoring of all United Kingdom fertility clinics and research involving human embryos. Likewise the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine has laid down guidelines when it comes to biotechnology for over 41 countries. It establishes that genetic testing must only be used for health related scenarios, and gender selection must only be performed to avoid heredity sex-linked diseases (i.e. hemophilia). McGhie then brings up the issue of cost. The cost of pre determining a baby's sex can cost over 20,000 dollars. This means a poor couple with a history of hemophilia, could not make sure their biological child could live without fear of bleeding out because of a paper cut. In her article Steinbock believes that the gap between rich and poor would not become larger when the rich can genetically modify their children. “I seriously doubt that genetic interventions would have more of an influence than existing causes of inequality, such as rotten neighborhoods and lousy schools.” (Wilhoit 566)
By then end of her article Steinbock becomes a broken record of repeated reasonings through analogies.

Overall Steinbock’s paper doesn’t read like that of a renowned professor, it resembles something akin to a soccer mom’s Facebook ramblings. Her essay has a personal narrative while McGhie’s writing stays scientifically oriented. Although Steinbock and McGhie are arguing for the same side, Steinbock's points are less intensive and lack depth while McGhie’s remain positive but also realistic. The opening statement from Steinbock is “The interesting question is, assuming genetic enhancement of the embryo is safe and effective, may such techniques ethically be used by parents?” (Wilhoit 563). Conversely, the closing statement from McGhie is “without intense review and regard for the ethical and moral issues surrounding it [designer babies], it’s potential may be thwarted.” (Wilhoit

575).