Get designer bags, NOT babies.

  Have you ever heard of the phrase “designer babies”? I’m not referring to the infant section at the clothing store—I’m referring to genetically modified embryos. One of science’s recent developments with the most potential to be an ethical disaster. For those who are unfamiliar, a ‘Designer Baby’ is a newly appointed nickname for a baby whose genetic makeup has been altered in vitro---most times to remove the genes associated with and responsible for certain diseases. Genome editing essentially alters the organisms initial DNA, with the potential for certain genes to be added, altered or even removed all together. There is even a technology that aids the development of genome editing, called CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats -- this technology is one of the systems that can be used to target genetic code, and to edit DNA. In simpler terms, CRISPR is a technology that essentially serves as the 'scissors' when editing genetic code in DNA. For example, if two soon-to-be parents presented with having carriers of the gene that causes cystic fibrosis, genome editing and CRISPR technology would make it possible for the faulty gene in the embryo to be removed, and consequently replaced with a healthy version. This would allow the embryo or baby to develop without the disease.

On the first glance this genetic engineering seems to be serving an actual purpose by allowing doctors and scientists to prevent the devastation that comes with certain diseases. However the entire idea of genetically modifying babies has the potential to be very ethically concerning. In today's world where so much division exists, how can we introduce a type of biomedical engineering that gives people the ability to pick and chose what they do and don't want in a child? I'm sure you can guess what kind of doomsday scenarios my mind flashes to. Among the moral and ethical implications of genome editing in babies, one of the biggest potential issues is the power of "playing god".

We are no strangers to the notion that evil is very prevalent in our world today--- and with our current social climate of strife and division, what's to say that genome editing couldn't be used for the wrong reasons by the wrong people? A quick hypothetical that comes to mind is a set of new parents who wish to genetically modify their child to fit their predisposed notion of how their child should look. Brown eyes are "boring" so they choose blue, blonde hair is too original so they choose red --- what are the consequences of choosing features for your child, as if they're a build a bear?

When we think of GOOD parents, we think of parents who love their kids no matter what; Parents whose love transcends their child's hair texture, disability or even their level of intelligence. When we think of "bad" parents our brain is more likely to associate bad parenting with conditional love --- love based on one's qualities and abilities to please the person that expects of them. This begs the question of, what will the child feel when they're old enough to realize they're a product of genome editing? Currently, the laws and regulations on genome editing differ around the world --- in the U.S specifically, there are no federal laws banning genetic modification in humans however congress have passed a multitude of laws preventing it. Similarly, the FDA and NIH have taken their own stances against the technology, banning it from being researched on pregnant women or humans.

Even with IVF, a widely hailed and recognized fertility treatment --- there have been some implications of negative side affects in the actual children. In a fairly recent article for Wired, a psychologist from the west coast is interviewed on the topic of designer babies, and what the actual BABIES feel when they grow up. The consensus for this woman was that when babies who have had their genetic traits chosen or planned out in some way by their parents, they often grow up with largely negative feelings about the matter. The psychologist interviewed by Wired, notes that many of these teens feel like a walking science experiment. She works with kids and parents, and often notices that the common theme amongst the attitude of the parents is usually very cookie cutter. The parents have an idea of how their family or their child, is going to look and be --- leading the child to feel the weight of this expectation.

The article thoroughly explores the dynamics of parents who want to sire kids, and parents who want to RAISE kids. A great example that the psychologist draws from is the culture of parenting in Silicon Valley. She notes that in Silicon Valley theres a behavioral trend of absentee fathers. Usually these fathers are successful men who want their lives a certain way, leading them to have kids as a mean of furthering a plan. Similarly, the mothers are often absent, leaving the child to psychologically fend for itself. Due to the fact that achievement is highly placed in these homes, there is an added pressure of high achievement for these kids. Not to mention the messy family dynamics of having a child through a surrogate or egg donor. Overall, if used the wrong way the entire process becomes unfair mostly to the child.

In the article the psychologist notes something very interesting --- most of the families and parents who come in for IVF or surrogacy don't have fertility issues at all. Now this information is not to say that IVF or surrogacy aren't needed. Fertility issues in women account for roughly 17.5% of the world's population, making it an EXTREMELY important issue. However, things start getting muddy once people start taking advantage of fertility services and treatment, for their own personal agenda---one that does not involve simply trying to get pregnant.

Aside from the concept of "designer babies" being ethically and morally wrong --- the idea just doesn't work very well. Genetically you might be able to control what your child is like but you will never be able to control what your child likes or wants, or the different bits and pieces that make up their personality. Picking a sperm donor who is 6'7 won't ensure your son's chance in the NBA --- it might make him 6'6 and genetically predisposed to being good at basketball, but it can't make him a good collaborator/team member, it can't make him have good hand-eye coordination, and it can't even make him like the sport. If a child is not at risk for genetic defect or disease that will reduce their quality of life, why opt to change them? The best parents know better than anyone that you can't control who your kid is, and this makes them good parents because they know they will love their child unconditionally; Regardless of what they achieve or what sports they play.

In considering all this, we have to beg the question of what the future implications are for "designer babies". Will this trend trigger a domino effect that endangers a whole new generation of children? Will "designer babies" face higher risks of mental health struggles? I'm all for the concept of helping preliminarily cure and get rid of diseases, however the people who have absolutely no need for fertility treatments are likely ruining it for those who do need it, mother AND child. One of the biggest issues within fertility is the cost of treatments and the inequity between women who can and cannot receive infertility treatment. The act of receiving treatment when you do not have fertility issues, only widens the gap of economic hardship for those who need it.

There are some incredibly negative drawbacks to "designer babies", specifically for women who have fertility issues and for the children themselves--- which is exactly why we should be designing bags, not babies.