Summary Of Building Baby From The Genes Up By Ronald M Green

In the essays, “Building Baby from the Genes Up” by Ronald M. Green, and “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks” by Richard Hayes, take opposing sides on the issue of altering human genetics. Green argues that, “Knowing more about our genes may actually increase our freedom by helping us understand the biological obstacles-and opportunities- we have to work with” (497). In other words, we can better ourselves and our children if we alter our genetics in order to become a more “perfect” being (496). On the other hand, Hayes says that altering human genetics has no limits. If we were to misuse this technology, we could “exacerbate existing inequalities,” “reinforce existing forms of discrimination,” “undermine the foundation of civil and human rights” and more (500). Overall, if the majority of

the population doesn’t agree with genetic mutations and enhancements, then it is for the best that we follow these logical ideals rather than chase our dreams till we lead to our own suffering.

The authors use many different examples and counter arguments in order to prove their point in the essay. To begin, Ronald Green uses a real life example of a British family who wanted to genetically modify their embryo and use artificial ways of fertilization in order to get rid of breast cancer in the family tree (495). This example shows that genetic engineering has a wide scope and can solve many problems, and has lots of potential if we use it to our advantage. For example, Green says, “If we understand the genetic causes of obesity, for example, we can intervene by means of embryo selection to produce a child with a reduced genetic likelihood of getting fat” (496). He then talks about the fears that people have about genetic engineering, such as religion, the self worth of a genetically enhanced child, the widening of social division, and if parents would still love their kids as humans and not as a product. However, to all of these cases, Green says, “The fact is that a child is already remarkably influenced by the genes she inherits. The difference is that we haven’t taken control of the process.

Yet” (497). That is to say, if we already are affected by our genetics, then there should be no ethical change if we alter them, just a benefit for all of humanity. On the contrast, in Richard Hayes article, talks about the different things that Green had proposed, and why they are incorrect. Although Hayes agrees that there is medical potential in genetic engineering, there also lies ethical, moral and political and social issues (500). Hayes questions that, “Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop?” (500). He then says that, “Given what we know about human nature, the development and commercial marketing of human genetic modification would likely spark a techno-eugenic rat-race” (500). The author also uses some methods of counter arguing, such as when he says, “Green proposes that eugenic technologies could be used to educe the class divide. But nowhere in his essay does he suggest how such a proposal might ever be made practicable in the real world” (500). Not only that, but Hayes proposes a hypothetical, realistic situation in which “some rogue country announces an ambitious program to improve the genetic stock” (500). At the end of the day, Hayes advises that the best course of action is to use genetic engineering for strict medical use, as “80% of the medical school students he surveyed said they were against such forms of human genetic-engineering,” and that “nearly forty countries have adopted socially responsible policies regulating the new human genetic technologies and prohibit its use for heritable genetic modification” (501).