Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford

professor
Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just 'responsible parenting',
claims an eminent Oxford academic.

Peter Illingworth, an IVF clinician who worked on the study, said the death rate among babies born after single embryo
transfer was just a fraction above the rate of 10 per 1000 for all births Photo: Ben Birchall/PA
By Richard Alleyne
16 Aug 2012
Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a
"moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".
The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out
personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and
others".

The academic, who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in
an article in the latest edition of Reader's Digest.

He explained that we are now in the middle of a genetic revolution and that although screening,
for all but a few conditions, remained illegal it should be welcomed.

He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on
personality with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.
By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to
influence how a child turns out.
In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less
violent society in the future.

"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a
great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical
ethics.

"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society,
we should allow parents the choice.

"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our
squeamishness and irrationality.

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism,
psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to
select ethically better children.

"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."

"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring rather than consigning them to
the natural lottery then we should."

He said that we already routinely screen embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic
fibrosis and Downs syndrome and couples can test embryos for inherited bowel and breast
cancer genes. Rational design is just a natural extension of this, he said.

He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the
Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their
children.

"Were routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and
Downs syndrome, and theres little public outcry," he said.

"Whats more, few people protested at the decisions in the mid- 2000s to allow couples to test
embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes, and this pushes us a lot close to creating
designer humans."

"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing
genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance."






QUESTIONS Please answer in detail.

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using genetic engineering to
alter the characteristics of an unborn child? Name at least three of each:

Advantages Disadvantages
- Being able to genetically
enhance the nature of your
child
- Reduces the chances of
hereditary diseases in unborn
babies
- Removing personality flaws
- Economic benefit to society






- Cutting out all the interest in
the world if babies were to be
genetically enhanced
- Discrimination and prejudice
- No medical advancement could
be made without any diseases
- Economic disadvantage from
those who are not genetically
modified


2. "Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism,
psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral
obligation to select ethically better children.
a. What is a moral obligation?

Moral obligation is something that a person is entitled to, based on the belief of
basic human rights.

b. Do you agree with this professor that people have a moral obligation to get rid of
certain personality flaws? Why/why not?

No because personality flaws are what shapes a human and a society without
personality flaws would have no structure and a perfect society is not ideal. No
personality flaws would mean that everyone in our world would be uniform and
have no other unique differences.

c. If genetic engineering like this became available, but only at a high financial cost,
could that create any problems in society? Why/why not?

Yes it would create problems in society because it would create social
segregation between different classes of people and contribute to discrimination
of the poor who were perhaps unable to afford the genetic engineering.



3. If you were having a child and were able to genetically alter it, would you? Why/why not?
No I wouldnt because I believe that you shouldnt be able to genetically alter an unborn
child because it should be a natural process and if people were to have the power to
shape their child into the perfect human being then it would mean that they cannot
accept their child for everything that they are.