The Fight to Leave Something to Change

One of the issues brought up in my last blog was the issue of having the ability to design ones own offspring to the a parents specifications. I was recently flipping through the February 23-39th issue of the New Scientist magazine when I came across an article entitled "Leaving Nothing to Change." The article, written by a man named Arthur Caplan is a critique of a book written by a Yale University Professor of ethics, Ronald M. Green, called "Babies by Design." The intent of the book according to this article was to discuss the abilities of parents to change the genetic characteristics of their offspring for future generations.

There are many key points made by Caplan in critiquing this book. His main argument reviews and debates the question of wether or not a parent should be able to engineer their unborn child. His argument is basically that the genetic engineering of an unborn child, and the genetic engineering of a child in general, is an unsound idea ethically when the human race is already facing current issues of disease and suffering in our children. Caplan also critques that fact that the only issue that Green adresses in his book is the process of genetic engineering and what it means for future generations. Caplan makes the point that rather than attempting to adress and fix our current problems, Greens only concern is of the power and ability to fix the future generations, rather than fix our current generations. It responce to this point it is only natural for one to question why our society would rather spend time fixing what is not yet "broken" than focusing on the current issues of our society at hand. Would it not be more efficient for human beings to make advancements towards improving the health and well being of our children now, and perhaps later attempting to "improve" upon our species?

This brings up another key point of Caplans, which states that the actual improvement of the genetics of our future children will most likely only be available to those who are "economically advantaged" and able to afford to be able to prevent defects and disabilities in their offspring. He says also that in being economically advantaged, one would be able to endow their children with enhanced traits and capabilities. This would prove to cause even more problems within our society (as an unfair advantage), by creating a heirarchy of people where the rich and their genetically engineered offspring sit at the top tier of the pyramid, while those who cannot afford to improve their offspring sit at the bottom of the pyramid, in disease, and without enhanced capabilities.

He also makes another sound critique about the book when he says that it is too risky to select a childs genes, and that they should not be treated as objects of manufature. He also says that they should be able to live their lives without feeling the need to complete their parents genetically enhanced expectations. The only thing that Green appears to be interested in when it comes to risks associated with engineering our children, is that it will go slowly rather than not at all. He believes that Green focauses too heavily on science in geonomics, stem cell research, gene therapy, preimplantation, and genetic diagnosis and does not contemplate the ethics that come with the creation of genetically enhanced children, including a genetically engineered childs worth.

In defence of Greens outlook, it is advantageous to move forward and attempt to perfect our species and wipe out disease in our offspring, but as Caplan points out there are too many current problems that are not adressed. You cannot advance into the future without at least adressing that there are in fact problems with our offspring at hand. It is now reasonable to wonder what dignity a human would posses if they were nothing more than an object of creation (almost a toy with which its creators are able to play with and use as they see fit). Green states that parents would still love their children regardless of how much they have invested into their creation, and regardless of wether or not they have lived up to their intended purpose. But one has to wonder how it would feel to have the weight of such expectations on ones shoulders, and having to bear the burden of anothers dissapointment when those expectations are not fufilled as planned. Would a person still feel loved if they had such a burden placed upon their shoulders, only to fail in the end. Would it also not feel like a burden to excell in something, but not have the desire to continue pursuing it other than having to because someone has invested so much into you being able to excell in something.

Another Good point is made by Caplan when he says that Green did not adress the fact that perhaps parents would begin to have no control over the creation of their children. He says that Green did not include the possiblity that governments may begin to impose standards of design on parents as well. Would this also not weigh heavily on a person, because they were created according to a specific mold, and are therfore only able to be what they have been designed to be?

I thought that this article brought up some excellent points. I, myself, am not here to impose my own certain opinion upon anyone. I will leave you all now to ponder what this article is saying and form your own opinions from some of mine, and Caplans observations.