So-called designer babies are in the news again, just in time for the 40th anniversary of the birth of Louise Brown, the first test-tube baby (although there was no test tube involved).
The New York Times has an article — Scientists Can Design ‘Better’ Babies. Should They? — that recounts the evolution of reproductive technologies from early IVF procedures in fertility clinics to the latest developments, six years after the discovery of CRISPR as a gene-editing technique.
As the article puts it:
In vitro fertilization, or I.V.F., is by now broadly accepted, though it still has objectors, including the Roman Catholic Church. Worldwide, the procedure has produced an estimated six million babies, and is believed to account for 3 percent of all live births in some developed countries. Designer-baby fears have proved in the main to be “overblown,” said Dr. Paula Amato, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. “We have not seen it with I.V.F. in general,” she told Retro Report. “We have not seen it with P.G.D.”
P.G.D. is shorthand for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, developed more than two decades ago and an offshoot of in vitro fertilization. Couples with family histories of serious diseases — cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs and Down syndrome are among the more common — can have their lab-created embryos tested for the probability of passing the flaws to their offspring. Technology in effect gives them a measure of control over their genetic fate. ...
But what if the issue isn’t averting a dreadful disease? What if would-be parents, rather than leaving the matter to an old-fashioned roll of the genetic dice, resort to embryonic selection to guarantee the child is of a particular sex? It can be done with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg, director of The Fertility Institutes in New York, does it as matter of course. ...
Some ethicists see only good in the prospect of eliminating diseases that condemn families to misery. After all, don’t childhood vaccinations amount to using technology for that very same purpose? Yet few people regard measles or polio shots as unacceptable fiddling with the natural world.
In a different camp are those who invoke slippery slopes, fearing unpredictable genies that may be unleashed. What, they ask, is to prevent gene editing from being used someday not to combat disease but, rather, to design people who are stronger or smarter than everyone else, able themselves to produce children programmed genetically for SAT scores of 1,600 or LeBron James point totals?
I think we're just at the start of the Age of Genetics, which began with the discovery of CRISPR just six years ago. And while the popular press likes to portray potential advances in genetic science in science-fictiony terms, there's a lot to consider. We're just at the start of this thrilling journey, and the public needs to be brought into the conversation right at the outset. Practically every week brings a new advance in uncovering a gene or set of genes responsible for genetic diseases. Beyond that, the landscape becomes much murkier.
In the most recent episode of the DNA Today podcast, I discussed some of these issues with a spokesperson for the Center for Genetics and Society. And on the most recent episode of This Week in Law, I discuss reproductive technologies along with Glenn E. McGee, Professor of Health Policy & Management at the University of New Haven School of Health Sciences.
Here's a rundown of the two podcasts on my blog.
