Ajla Mehic

Period 3

Dr. Spaulding

Should Babies Be Genetically Modified?

This world is full of people who are made up of unique features. These features come from the

genes they inherit from their parents, giving each child distinctive characteristics; however, genetically

modifying these babies could potentially get rid of those unique features, especially if the feature is seen

as imperfect. When babies are genetically modified, also called designer babies, certain parts of their

genetic makeup is altered in order to change their genes or get rid of genes. Babies shouldn’t be

genetically modified because it can emphasize the differences in social classes instead of making it equal,

it’s dangerous, and some parents may take advantage of it to create a perfect baby instead of treating

life-threatening diseases.

The first reason why babies shouldn’t be genetically modified is because it could possibly

highlight the differences between the social classes instead of achieving equality for everyone. Creating

designer babies is incredibly expensive, so there would be a clear gap between the babies that were

designed and the babies that weren’t designed. This would further create a problem with social classes

rather than closing the gap and making opportunities more equal for everyone. This problem would

become very evident worldwide, especially in countries that are still developing and have a large gap

between the rich and poor (Das, Dey & Banerjee, 2017, p. 1349). The next reason why babies shouldn’t

be genetically modified is because of the dangers and risks that come from it. Designing babies means

you rearrange the genes either by adding in a gene or getting rid of a gene. It’s possible that a gene that is

added turns into a bad gene in the long run, or a gene that is taken out turns out to be a gene that helps

individuals avoid certain diseases. Genes often work together, and disrupting one gene will most likely

disrupt another, potentially causing cell damage that could lead to further diseases (Das, Dey & Banerjee,

2017, p. 1349). Since genome editing hasn’t been perfected yet and it hasn’t been around long enough, we

still don’t know what life-long changes can occur in an individual’s DNA. Last, but not least, making
genetically modified babies an option to society could potentially lead to parents being determined to

create a perfect baby, even though this engineering technique is supposed to be used solely to treat

life-threatening diseases. As the possible uses for genome editing advances, more individuals will begin

using genome editing as a way to select a certain trait they want their child to exhibit than to get rid of

diseases. Soon, our technology will be able to advance enough to the point where parents will be able to

select appearance, personality, and IQ for their child. By letting parents pick and choose which traits they

want their child to have, it raises many social, ethical, and legal concerns (Turriziani, 2014, p. 10). This

could also possibly limit the amount of diversity in the world if parents try to create babies based on the

image of perfection, such as blue eyes, blonde hair, being the perfect height, etc; however, our perception

of perfection is always changing throughout the years. The way we see what is perfect and not perfect will

change drastically in the future, which raises more questions regarding the ethical concerns of creating a

perfect baby.

On the opposing side, people say that babies should be genetically modified because it can help a

baby live a healthier life, it can lead to medical and scientific advances, and it can get rid of diseases that

are carried through genes. To begin, genetically modifying babies can lead to life-extension. Currently,

there are groups researching how to use stem cells to regenerate aging and diseased tissue, while also

switching off the aging process in cells (Harris, 2010, p. 32). Next, genetically modifying babies can lead

to significant medical and scientific advancements in the future. While we learn more about genetically

modifying babies, it can lead us to learn more things in the future, such as how to completely get rid of a

diseased gene from an entire population. Lastly, the diseases that are present in our world today can be

wiped out from our genes. Diseases like cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy can be diseases of the

past, and the genes associated with these diseases can be corrected in attempt to get rid of them

completely (Parrington, 2016, p. 1). Genome editing could possibly have the biggest impact when it

comes to getting rid of diseases, especially diseases of the blood (Parrington, 2016, p. 231).

Despite the benefits, many people forget to take into the account the risks that come with all those

good things. Firstly, genetically modifying babies could potentially lead to life-extension, but there are
several risks to that, and the baby might end up with more problems than intended. This procedure is still

very experimental, and although you may be able to give your baby a longer life, the long-term effects are

still unknown. Next, genetically modifying babies isn't the only way we can make significant medical and

scientific advancements. Yes, changing genes can lead to more advancements in the future, but there are

also several other ways to get to those advancements. Instead of experimenting on babies, we should first

take the time to experiment on other animals, like rats, which will still lead us to those same future

advancements. Lastly, there’s too much risk with messing with genome editing, even if it does help get rid

of diseases. Several scientists themselves even worry that messing with these genes could lead to

generations of unforeseen and irreversible damage, like removing someone’s protective gene for cancer.

There’s also worry that altering these genes could lead to negative long-term effects on the gene pool

(Boston College Law Review Staff, 2018, p. 329). Even if we’re able to get rid of one disease, we’re still

at risk of creating a new one.

In conclusion, being able to genetically modify your child should not be used, at least not

currently, because it can lead to more dangerous risks in the future, it might further emphasize the gap in

the social classes, and some parents will want to use this procedure to change their child’s appearance in

hopes of creating a perfect baby. As we advance in our research and learn more about the risks that come

with genome editing, we could potentially begin doing this procedure safely in the future. As of right

now, genome editing isn’t the safest solution because the risks are still unknown. Isaac Asimov once said,

“The dangers of this world can, every one of them, be traced back to science. The salvation that may save

the world will, every one of them, be traced back to science.” The science of genetically modifying babies

can be a great thing, but it can also be a danger if not used correctly.
 Works Cited

Jayashree Das, Pritha Dey, & Pradipta Banerjee. (2017). Redesigning nature: to be or not to be? Current

Science, 112(7), 1346–1350.

John Harris. (2010). Enhancing Evolution : The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton

University Press.

John Parrington. (2016). Redesigning Life : How Genome Editing Will Transform the World. OUP Oxford.

The Price Tag on Designer Babies: Market Share Liability. (2018). Boston College Law Review, 59(1),

319–353.

Turriziani, Jenifer V. (2014). Designer Babies: The Need for Regulation on the Quest for Perfection. Law

School Student Scholarship. 595.