Designer Babies: If people can afford it, give it to them!

Recently, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a patent to the firm 23andMe for a process called gamete (egg or sperm) donor selection. This essentially means that this would allow paren

By: Dr Aniruddha Malpani | | Updated: October 7, 2013 2:25 pm

Recently, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a patent to the firm 23andMe for a process called gamete (egg or sperm) donor selection. This essentially means that this would allow parents to choose genetic traits like eye colour in children born from donor eggs or sperm. This set the alarm bells ringing with medical ethicists pointing out this could actually be like shopping for characteristics from the colour of the eyes to susceptibility to diseases. Dr Aniruddha Malpani, an IVF and reproductive specialist shares his thoughts on the ramifications of such a patent: Also Read - ART helping millions of infertile couples become parents: How does it work?

Also Read - IVF-born children at risk of cardiovascular diseases, finds a study

I think it’s perfectly natural and normal for parents to want their children to be more intelligent, more beautiful and more accomplished than they are. After all, this is why we spend so, much time and energy in finding the right spouse so that our children will inherit their desirable traits. In fact, this is hard-wired in our genes. Evolution has designed the ‘selfish gene’ to ensure that the mate who is selected has desirable characteristics, so that the chances of the gene surviving in the next generation are better. Also Read - Union Cabinet approves amendment of Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016

In one sense, this advance is a logical extension of our basic desires and our biological imperative to always evolve and improve. After all, if we can select children who have desirable traits by using biological sciences to do so, then doesn’t it make sense to do this, rather than use old-fashioned, outdated random hit-and-miss techniques which depend upon chance and are not as effective? We seem to be better at breeding horses than we are at breeding children.

The problem is that eugenics has acquired a bad reputation; and because this is such an emotionally charged issue, a discussion always sheds more heat than light. Let’s not forget that the reason we send our children to school is so that they will do well in life. If we lavish so much care of them after birth, then if we can improve their chances of success by selecting their genes and giving them a head start even before they are born , then it’s quite logical and rational to do so . (If you could choose your baby, what characteristics would you choose?)

The God Question

If everyone started doing it, then our next generation will be cleverer, fitter, and better looking than us – and isn’t this a desirable goal? I don’t understand this ‘playing God’ argument that so many experts spout. When we treat diabetic patients with insulin, aren’t we playing God? Is it better that we do nothing and that we not give them insulin and allow these patients to die, because that is what God intended? God gave us brains so we could use them to improve and evolve and it would be a shame if we refused to do so because of some imaginary line we should not be transgressing.

If it’s acceptable to use science to prevent and treat problems, then why isn’t it acceptable to use science to enhance and improve as well? All procedures are expensive in the beginning but they will become more affordable over time. Just because kidney transplants are expensive and unaffordable for poor patients, does this mean that we should not offer them to the rich?

There are three pillars of medical ethics: autonomy; beneficence and non-maleficence. If the technique can be shown to be helpful; and if does not harm anyone, then parents should be free to choose for themselves if they want to use it or not. I don’t think we should interfere in their personal decision.

In reality, most people will continue having babies in their bedroom it’s much more fun the old-fashioned way. What the long term societal impact will be if a few people use this method today is hard to predict. However, the fear of a ‘slippery slope’ does not allow us to prevent people from exploring their options using state of the art technology.

The sad truth is that our technology is still not mature enough to be able to offer these options in real life. While these words in a patent application may sound alluring to some and alarming to others, we still have a long way to go before we can actually provide these traits to unborn children. Our knowledge is still too rudimentary and primitive. Parents have their children’s best interests at heart. I think we should treat citizens as intelligent adults, who can decide for themselves, and empower them with the tools and information, so they can make the best decisions for themselves.

For more articles on pregnancy, visit our Pregnancy Section and for videos check out our YouTube Channel.

Published : October 7, 2013 2:18 pm | Updated:October 7, 2013 2:25 pm

Read Disclaimer