Alliance for Humane Biotechnology

A designer baby is an infant whose genes or other cellular components were constructed or altered by practitioners at the embryo or pre-embryo stage.

In 2015, scientists for the first time reported altering the DNA of human embryos in lab experiments. In 2018, a woman gave birth to twin infant girls whose DNA had been edited in a lab. In 2019, a third genetically modified (GM) child was born. People are talking about designer babies more and more because the biotechnology now exists to make them.

Designer babies are not science fiction.

Some say it might help parents avoid passing on a genetic disease (although there are other ways to do this that don’t involve reproductive genetic engineering). Some say it might be possible to make babies that will be smarter, taller, stronger, etc. But genes interact in complex ways, and genetic engineering technology is imperfect (some believe inescapably so). So, it can’t be known until after genetically altered infants grow and develop what will happen to them. If a gene-edited embryo is implanted, it would be an experiment. It can’t be known ahead of time whether the baby will have the desired characteristics or, for that matter, what “mistakes” may have been made.

Yes. Children born could not have consented to being experimented on. Also, the customs and laws that normally permit parents to act on behalf of their infirm children are irrelevant and unethical when used to justify experiments with uncertain outcomes on babies that do not yet exist.

No. In 2019, the President of the Washington D.C. patient advocacy group, Genetic Alliance, said that demand was not high on the part of prospective parents. Many families at risk of having children with genetic diseases just wanted to be able to screen their embryos for potential disease.

Not all scientists want to genetically redesign babies. Those that do, offer a variety of reasons. Some genetic engineers want to see if they can eliminate disease (although there is no good medical reason to try this at the reproductive stage (see next FAQ)). Some want to see if they can make “better babies” with enhanced capabilities. Some want to learn more about how genes interact with each other. These goals may be unobtainable. But in the attempt, much damage can be done to un-consenting human beings. In the meantime, researchers will be advancing their careers, securing patents on the technologies they develop, and gaining financially. These researchers do not represent the science community as a whole -- many scientists around the world oppose the creation of GM babies for the same reasons we do.

No. There are many kinds of medical research that do not involve genetically modifying human embryos. Genetic manipulations of patients’ somatic (non reproductive) cells, for example, may pose risks and need to be performed carefully, but they would only affect targeted organs, and because it is possible to get consent from patients whose cells are modified, these procedures can proceed ethically.

Eugenics refers to the desire to “improve” the human race by controlling reproduction, that is to say deciding who deserves to be born or not, and who deserves to reproduce or not. Historically, eugenic advocates promoted selective breeding (that is, only the “worthy” should be permitted or encouraged to reproduce) and the elimination of those considered to be imperfect or different. The most terrifying example of eugenics in recent history was the extermination of millions of Jews, Roma, disabled people and others during the Holocaust of World War Two. “Techno-eugenics” refers to the use of genetic technologies to create supposedly improved individuals (i. e. designer babies.) What counts as “improved” inevitably would be determined by socially dominant groups.

Many people with disabilities feel whole and compete in their lives and do not accept the premise that the world would be better off without them. While finding treatments or cures for those with disease is a good idea, eliminating the genes of people considered disabled from the gene pool creates a narrow, un-diverse, human population. From this viewpoint, disability is not within the bodies of individuals, it is in the attitudes of a dominant, uniform, society with little variety and limited creativity. It is the desire for perfection and the drive to eradicate “the imperfect” and “the different” that dis-ables people. Society, in this view, should instead think more expansively of what it means to be an “able” human being.

Biologically, it's possible that this could happen, in principle and over much time. But in the shorter term, what’s more imaginable is the creation of subclasses: the Genetic Haves and the Have Nots. In this scenario, even the perception of being enhanced could lead to social benefits denied to “natural” humans, and those with enhancements may choose not to reproduce with the unenhanced.

Yes! Many scientists have themselves called for a moratorium on GM Human research. Also, there are national and international accords, declarations, treaties, and other instruments that seek to halt it. The Oviedo Convention, for example, permits modification of the human genome only if it does not “introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants.”

A first step is to sign the International Declaration Against Human Genetic Modification:

https://coalitionstopdesignerbabies.net

For more information, see the Alliance for Humane Biotechnology white paper,

“Opposing Human Genetic Engineering”