51–60 of 189 posts
Notably, this prevents transmission of a disease that is "fatal to any baby conceived", which makes this as uncontroversial a case of a "designer baby" as I can imagine. After this, the ethics get much more complicated.
It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?
It's new technology. There are bound to be mistakes. There is so much we don't know about how genes work.
Those mistakes will affect a human being's life permanently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This book did a great job, but it might be outdated: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meanin...
In another of Nick Lane's books he mentions compatibility between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA as a possible reason for variation in fertility in different species. If that's true I'd expect the 3-parent process to produce fewer pregnancies per fertilized egg than the normal 2-parent method which runs at around 50%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?
In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...
I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge).
I mean, computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?
In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you use state sponsored designs and everyone has access to it.
Just like state sponsored designs have guaranteed access to health care and education.
There was a time in which only rich people had toilets and in-house showers, now many extremely poor people have access to those; the same thing will happen with "design babies", there will be a time where only rich people can do it, but as time goes it will become a commodity and making sure you are as healthy as possible even before born will be a human rights issue.
Sounds like mother & father's nuclear DNA, injected into the nucleus of a 3rd party's donor's egg cell, which contains its own mitochondrial DNA. Since mtDNA is normally inherited 100% from the mother (since the mother's egg cell supplies the mitochondria to the embryo), if the mother has a mitochondrial genetic disease, 100% of her children would normally inherit it.
Here are some references:
Lightowlers, R. N., Taylor, R. W., & Turnbull, D. M. (2015). Mutations causing mitochondrial disease: What is new and what challenges remain? Science, 349(6255), 1494–1499. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7516
Taylor, R. W., & Turnbull, D. M. (2005). Mitochondrial DNA mutations in human disease. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(5), 389–402. http://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1606
Smeets, H. J. M., Sallevelt, S. C. E. H., Dreesen, J. C. F. M., Die Smulders, C. E. M., & Coo, I. F. M. (2015). Preventing the transmission of mitochondrial DNA disorders using prenatal or preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1350(1), 29–36. http://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12866
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca Sometimes here in HN you will hear about how things like name,age, etc are bias for who gets hired, and people being rejected based on those things. So just add "method of conception" to that.
So perhaps they were not so much genetically superior? Maybe motivation can be passed through DNA?
In reality, what I think might happen is some people would choose the genes they want, but others won't. At the end, people will mix, so the whole population will benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but that seems to assume effectively no genetic material from the parents. What if the design starts with the parents' DNA, but makes one change to prevent a disease? Seems like that parent wouldn't be adopting a genetic orphan, and would have the right to take the newborn home. What about two changes? 50? It's one of those "where do we draw the line?" issues.
I think the natural dividing line is "is the baby the unmodified result of combining sperm and egg?" People already have the right to do that without additional government interference -- anything past that should arguably be regulated.
That'd probably get you 60% of the way to full on designer babies anyway, unless you're going for a trait that's not at all in your gene pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...
So the more powerful a technology is in changing our capabilities as human beings, the more unethical it inherently is, because poor people will have less access to it (assuming it costs money)? I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge). I mean, computers and internet access also costs money…
some folks argue yes, that internet access should be a basic human right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca Sometimes here in HN you will hear about how things like name,age, etc are bias for who gets hired, and people being rejected based on those things. So just add "method of conception" to that.
I was very much annoyed by the movie when I saw it. Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. So perhaps they were not so much genetically superior? Maybe motivation can be passed through DNA? In reality, what I think might happen is some people would choose the genes they want, but others won't. At the end, people will mix, so the…
But this has nothing to do with the moral issue. Maybe it was the fact that "in-valids" had to struggle and deal with discrimination which caused the character to give his most, given that he knew where he standed while the 'valids' are in a place of comfort.