Custom-made Children

[Yoyti]

In Michio Kaku's book Physics of the Future, he discusses in one chapter how, in the future, people will be able to get custom made genes. Scientists will be able to physically alter chromosomes, so as to lengthen the average human lifespan, height, mental capacity and whatnot. Cloning, of course, will also be available.

This leads to the next thing. He also mentions how people will actually be able to get custom made children. They could decide every aspect of their child. No DNA would even be necessary, nor would there be a need for a host womb, as children will be grow-able in labs. Alternatively, someone could get a clone made of themselves. Children will become a factory item.

He also mentions that most people will probably still take their chances with children of their own. Probably clones will occur very rarely, probably mostly in old rich people with no heirs. Because of the lack of demand, the baby-making business will be rare, and thus getting a custom baby will be inconvenient. Cloning and custom genes will probably be reserved for farm animals and pets.

What do you think of this? Honestly, this sort of freaked me out at first, but I was put at ease when Kaku mentioned that the custom baby service would be rarely used. I would never get a custom baby, myself. I'd prefer to see a bit of two parents in any given child. Although it does get annoying when I here "aren't you [my sister's] brother?" or "hey! You're [my dad's] son!" it's nice to know there's a family resemblance.

[Deleted]

I don't support this. I think we should celebrate the fact of uniqueness. And besides, such a child would probably have a rough life around peers, who might mock them for being sooo much like their mom/dad.

Here's how I visualize it: the child is just another of the parent. I'm trying to imagine such an existence right now and here's what's coming to me - on the inside, I'm who I am. Unfortunately, I'm possessed - yes, possessed by this driven force to be someone else. Eventually, my soul just dies and I wander around like a mindless robot. That's not what a kid is supposed to be.

People shouldn't be treated like items. Ever.

[Dju]

Actually, that's already possible. My parents told me about it (they're doctors) that artificial insemination gives the option of choosing your child's gender, but it's illegal and clearly not ethical since you'd be killing the other half of children that could be born.

SO yeah, even though it is possible, it's wrong in many ways. It's basically murder.

[Avery]

It's certainly an interesting concept. I can see it being controversial, and yes, the gut reaction is not quite a positive one. I think the entire hypothesis may be a little far reaching, though I haven't read the book. XD

I also think it may sound a little more drastic than it truly is. If it's only available to the extremely rich, use of it will be limited; and even then, I imagine this would be hyper-regulated so it's not abused. And even lab-grown is not an entirely new concept, if you think about it. Test tube babies, anyone? It's not an astronomical leap.

I'd say calling kids "created" this way robots is slightly ah, dramatic? They would still be individuals; simply their creation/conception/birth would be unique. Even clones aren't parasitic. XD In that, they have a mind of their own, they're not connected to the original, it's just the DNA that's the same. I don't see how you could make the logical leap that being artificially created means you're forced to be someone else? It just... doesn't make much sense to me. Nor do I see how it would cause a soul to die. They would still be people. Not mechanized lifeforms. o-0

[Deleted]

But what about the option of removing 'bad' genes... like, the ones who carry illnesses/disorders?

If I could prevent my child from inheriting my heart disorder, or the Alzheimer that seems to run in my family, I might consider it.
Mind, I would never consider to aim for the 'perfect child'. Every person has and should have its flaws.

[Huntress]

Oct 23, 2011 14:07:19 GMT -5 RilahFalco said:

But what about the option of removing 'bad' genes... like, the ones who carry illnesses/disorders?

If I could prevent my child from inheriting my heart disorder, or the Alzheimer that seems to run in my family, I might consider it.
Mind, I would never consider to aim for the 'perfect child'. Every person has and should have its flaws.

I immediately thought of that one myself. Removing unwanted genetic illnesses would also fall under that same custom-made logic, right? I'd probably aim to remove those and leave everything else up to fate/genes/upbringing/whatever else shapes a person (and I doubt genetic engineering would even produce an ideal outcome anyway, considering how much the environment affects us all).

If I went and custom-built a kid, the rest of my life would be plagued by woulda-coulda-shouldas and questions about how the "natural" kid would've turned out, but ruling out a potential illness could only be an improvement for its future life IMO.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2011 14:39:32 GMT -5 Huntress said:

Oct 23, 2011 14:07:19 GMT -5 RilahFalco said:

But what about the option of removing 'bad' genes... like, the ones who carry illnesses/disorders?

If I could prevent my child from inheriting my heart disorder, or the Alzheimer that seems to run in my family, I might consider it.
Mind, I would never consider to aim for the 'perfect child'. Every person has and should have its flaws.

I immediately thought of that one myself. Removing unwanted genetic illnesses would also fall under that same custom-made logic, right? I'd probably aim to remove those and leave everything else up to fate/genes/upbringing/whatever else shapes a person (and I doubt genetic engineering would even produce an ideal outcome anyway, considering how much the environment affects us all).

If I went and custom-built a kid, the rest of my life would be plagued by woulda-coulda-shouldas and questions about how the "natural" kid would've turned out, but ruling out a potential illness could only be an improvement for its future life IMO.

Yeah, I think this stuff would be good for curing genetic diseases, especially since some of those can be devestating.

That's the only time I would use it.

[Deleted]

I dunno, I can't see this as a good thing even if it could remove those sorts of genes. I'd be okay with giving people the power to remove things like Hemophilia, ALS and their likes, but there are already some awfully stupid parents out there, and giving them any sort of power over their child's genetics, I feel, would be moronic.

Please don't think I'm not all for curing/preventing awful diseases and conditions, I just think the way we go about it is important. I have lived with my own disability since birth and I've found that it has, in part, shaped who I am. When people around me talk to me about their own troubles with disability and illness, I find myself feeling empathy and compassion and a willingness to help them in any way I can, and that's something I really wouldn't want to lose. I feel almost as if I wouldn't have that if I was "normal", y'know?

I understand that some people don't cope as well as I do. I wouldn't actually choose to be cured if I could be (or at least not at this point in time) but there are others whose lives have been made very difficult. What I'm trying to say is, for some people it isn't a disability so much as an alternative way of life with an equal number of, but different obstacles, and taking away those things might well turn the person that could have been into someone else.

I'm not wholly against it, nor am I wholly for it. I guess I need more time to think and solidify my fledgling opinions.

[Breakingchains]

Think about, say, the sort of parents who give their kids terrible puns for names, put them in obscene t-shirts, and otherwise treat taking care of a baby sort of like owning a dog.

Now picture those parents ordering a child with frizzy hair, bushy eyebrows, a huge nose, heterochromatic eyes and glow-in-the-dark toenails, so they can post pictures online and then watch people declare them photoshopped.

You know it would happen. *cough*

In all seriousness, though, I don't like the idea of genetic tinkering for cosmetic reasons. I can see way too many people making their kids to look like celebrities, or anime characters, or just mindlessly conforming to narrow beauty standards until every kid in school looks like s/he just stepped out of a Mary-Sue fanfic. It seems shallow - and for the child, it might raise uncomfortable questions about whether their parents would have loved them as much if they'd been anything less than physically perfect.

That's not even touching on the sheer amount of experimentation we'd need to get there, which, being the uninformed internet poster I am, I find frightening and am tempted to run screaming from.

[Gelquie]

I can see the use of this thing for putting away the combinations that would cause all sorts of diseases. If I were to hypothetically have a custom-made kid, I wouldn't want a kid to have heart disease, Alzheimer's, or Huntington's disease. They're all pretty unfortunate things to happen that I wouldn't mind getting rid of. And I'm with others that I would leave the rest of the genes up to fate.

But... It can also easily go too far. Some diseases like the ones listed above, yes. But hypothetically, could the agencies running this also do the same for things like ADD? Autism? 6 fingers? Left-handedness? Oh-no-they're-abnormal-ism? There's a sort of genetic diversity movement for people with things like that; disorders that are more seen as differences. I'm sure there would be parents that would probably want to stamp out those things in an attempt to have "normal" kids. But is that right? Is it the right thing to have "perfect" children who all never have anything wrong with them? Nothing for other people to at least consider? Some people may even go ahead and eliminate those things without asking, thinking "oh, of course they don't want it". And to prevent that, they'd have to be given an extremely long list of unwanted diseases. Sure, there'd be given things like "breast cancer", but what if they also go for borderline things?

It just seems like such a slippery slope to me. And I'm not positive that heavy regulation can go on forever. When the technology is out there, it's easy for other places to use and abuse it eventually, like other countries that may not have the same ideas on regulation.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of some of the things, but... I would still not like where it would be going.

[Crystal]

I would also like to point out that sometimes 'tinkering' is not as great an idea as all that. Yeah... in an ideal world, you could get rid of the gene that causes Alzheimer's. That sounds amazing. But there would have to be a lot of experimentation to get that far, and a lot of potential errors made. I'm wary of it in the same way I'm wary of introducing/exterminating a species of animal into an ecosystem order to modify it to our needs.

However, I won't deny it's an interesting thing to think about.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2011 16:05:34 GMT -5 Breakingchains said:

Think about, say, the sort of parents who give their kids terrible puns for names, put them in obscene t-shirts, and otherwise treat taking care of a baby sort of like owning a dog.

Now picture those parents ordering a child with frizzy hair, bushy eyebrows, a huge nose, heterochromatic eyes and glow-in-the-dark toenails, so they can post pictures online and then watch people declare them photoshopped.

You know it would happen. *cough*

In all seriousness, though, I don't like the idea of genetic tinkering for cosmetic reasons. I can see way too many people making their kids to look like celebrities, or anime characters, or just mindlessly conforming to narrow beauty standards until every kid in school looks like s/he just stepped out of a Mary-Sue fanfic. It seems shallow - and for the child, it might raise uncomfortable questions about whether their parents would have loved them as much if they'd been anything less than physically perfect.

That's not even touching on the sheer amount of experimentation we'd need to get there, which, being the uninformed internet poster I am, I find frightening and am tempted to run screaming from.

Yeah, I don't want that either. That sort of looks tinkering is just wrong.i674.photobucket.com/albums/vv103/prophetesszealitys/Character Smilies/xandra_what.gif[/img]

So, if this ever comes to be, here's the rules I would set: it can only be used to get rid of genetic diseases that would seriously cause the child in question harm at some point in their life. I wouldn't use it to get rid of things like Asperger's, which I don't think is an illness, it's just a different sector of personalities.

About the poor photoship kid mentioned above: should not at all be allowed.

[Ian Wolf-Park]

My main concern is how far people would go just to have a child that may or may not be realistic, just like with the fashion magazines with their photoshopped pictures. Say, the parents wants a child that they want to grow up to be an actor, but ends up with a football (soccer) player. Would they be happy with that or not? What about parents who want their child to grow up to unrealistic body proportions (like Barbie)?

Even though this sounds promising, there are still are lot of gray areas with this type of project, along with ethical issues.

[Stephanie (swordlilly)]

This debate reminds me of a film that I encountered at some point in my past. I think that works of fiction like this can enable us to consider some of the possible consequences of custom-made children before actually having to do the tinkering to get there.

The film is Gattaca, and it's about a world where parents are able to choose their best traits for their child to inherit.

SPOILER: Click to show

In "the not-too-distant future", liberal eugenics is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) is conceived and born without the aid of this technology. He has a high probability of developing mental disorders, is myopic, has a heart defect, and his projected life expectancy is only 30.2 years. His parents initially placed their faith in natural birth and now regret it; Vincent's younger brother, Anton, is conceived with the aid of genetic selection. Anton surpasses his older brother in many aspects including a game that they call "chicken" — both swim out to sea, and the first to give up and swim back to shore is the loser. Anton always wins due to his superior physical stamina. Vincent dreams of a career in space, but is constantly reminded of his genetic inferiority. Vincent challenges Anton with a game of chicken when they are both older. This time, Vincent swims farther out than his brother, while Anton runs into trouble and begins to drown. Vincent saves him, then leaves home shortly thereafter.

Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a "borrowed ladder", a person who impersonates a "valid" with appropriate genetic profile.[2] He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow (Jude Law), a former swimming star with a genetic profile "second to none", who was involved in a car crash that left him paralyzed from the waist down. Vincent "buys" Jerome's identity and uses his "valid" DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening. In order for his status to remain hidden, he has to be meticulous about cleaning up his own genetic material and replacing it with Jerome's daily. Vincent gets accepted into Gattaca, with a DNA test being the entire interview process. With Jerome's genetic profile Vincent gains access to the Gattaca Aerospace Corporation, the most prestigious space-flight conglomerate. He becomes Gattaca's top celestial navigator and is selected for a manned spaceflight to Saturn's moon Titan. A week before Vincent is to leave on the one-year mission, one of Gattaca's managing directors is found bludgeoned to death in his office. Police discover evidence of Vincent's own "in-valid" DNA (his eyelash), making him the prime suspect.

Vincent must evade increasing security measures as his launch date approaches. Simultaneously, he becomes close to one of his co-workers, Irene Cassini (Uma Thurman). Although she is a "valid", Irene is resigned to her less favorable treatment within Gattaca due to her high probability of heart failure; her initial attraction to Vincent is largely due to his perceived "second to none" superiority, causing her to be slightly jealous. Jerome (generally known as Eugene) also suffers from the burden of his genetic perfection; when he won only a silver medal in a high-profile competition, he became increasingly depressed. While intoxicated, Jerome confesses that he did not have a car accident. Rather, he attempted suicide by jumping in front of a car, but only paralyzed himself from the waist down.

After numerous close calls, Vincent's identity is revealed to Irene. Irene finally sees Vincent for who he is and accepts him, in no small part because by living longer than society's projections, he proves anything is possible. The investigation unexpectedly comes to a close as Director Josef (Gore Vidal) is arrested for the murder. The Director reveals that he murdered the mission director because the victim was trying to cancel the Titan mission. As Vincent appears to be in the clear he is confronted by the youthful chief detective, who is revealed to be Anton (Loren Dean). Anton accuses Vincent of fraud and asserts that Vincent is unworthy of his place at Gattaca. Vincent offers to prove his worthiness by challenging Anton to "chicken". As he did before, Vincent beats Anton who once again must be rescued by his brother. When Anton asks him how he did it, Vincent reveals that he never saved any strength for the swim back.

As the day of the launch arrives, Jerome bids Vincent farewell. He reveals that he has stored enough genetic samples to last Vincent two lifetimes. Overwhelmed and grateful, Vincent thanks Jerome, but Jerome replies that it is he who should be grateful, since Vincent lent Jerome his dreams. Jerome gives Vincent a card but asks him not to open it until he reaches space. As Vincent moves through the Gattaca complex to the launch site, he is stopped for an unexpected last urine test. Vincent has not brought Jerome's urine to hide his identity as he assumed there would not be any more tests. The test result uncovers Vincent's identity, but Lamar, the doctor conducting the test (and who also conducted Vincent's initial interview at Gattaca) reveals he has known Vincent's identity for some time. Lamar reminds Vincent that he has wanted to tell Vincent about his son who admires Vincent and wants to be an astronaut despite a genetic defect that would rule him out. Lamar switches the test result, allowing Vincent to proceed.

The rocket lifts off with Vincent, and he opens the card from Jerome to find no words - just a hair sample. Back on Earth, Jerome climbs inside his home incinerator, puts on his silver medal and incinerates himself. Suddenly, Vincent is sad to leave Earth, despite never being meant for it. He further muses that "they say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star," and wonders, "Maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

Critical reception:

Gattaca has received very positive reviews from critics. The film received a "fresh" rating from Rotten Tomatoes with 82% of the 55 critics cited giving the film a favorable review. The average rating for the film was 7.1/10.[12] On Metacritic the film received "generally favorable reviews" with a score of 64 out of 100.[13] Roger Ebert stated, "This is one of the smartest and most provocative of science fiction films, a thriller with ideas."[14] James Berardinelli praised it for "energy and tautness" and its "thought-provoking script and thematic richness."[15]

Despite critical acclaim, Gattaca was not a box office success but it is said to have crystallized the debate over tampering with human genetics.[16][17][18] The film's dystopian depiction of "genoism" has been cited by many bioethicists and laymen in support of their hesitancy about, or opposition to, liberal eugenics and the societal acceptance of the genetic-determinist ideology that may frame it.[19] In a 1997 review of the film for the journal Nature Genetics, molecular biologist Lee M. Silver stated that "Gattaca is a film that all geneticists should see if for no other reason than to understand the perception of our trade held by so many of the public-at-large".[20]

In 2004, bioethicist James Hughes criticized the premise and influence of the film Gattaca,[21] arguing that:

1. Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons;
2. In the United States, people are already discriminated against by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease despite the fact that genetic enhancement is not yet available;
3. Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society needs genetic information privacy laws that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination (such as the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act signed into law on May 21, 2008.). Citizens should then be able to make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they believe they have been discriminated against because of their genotype.

I highly recommend this film for anyone who is interested in genetic engineering.

[Dju]

I think we shouldn't mess with nature. Changing DNA is serious buisness, it could get in the way of species' natural mutation or be used like some of you said, in bad ways. I am sure there would be tons of children being born with neko ears, owl eyes, mermaid tail or even butterfly wings, ugh. No. We're not ready for this kind of thing, and probably never will.

Transgenic kittens prove it. Poor kittens are destined to live in a lab now, yay.

www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v8/n10/fig_tab/nmeth.1703_F2.html