Designer Gene Blues, part 1
I’ve written before about human genetic engineering – and how it threatens to render us a species that orders ever-more-perfect babies from a “chromosome catalog” instead of letting Mother Nature handle things the old fashioned way
Some of you may have scoffed in the past at the outlandishness of my Huxley-esque prophesizing, but I assure you it’s not the stuff of fiction anymore. The “designer baby” movement is already happening. We’re just not calling it “genetic engineering” – we’re calling it “pre-natal health screening.”
Case in point, the first of many to come, I’m sure: According to a recent UK Daily Mail article, one clinic in Nottingham, England is now offering – for 6000-per-pop – embryonic-level genetic screening for 200 diseases and conditions, including sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Krabbe’s disease, and lots of others
This sounds like a good thing, doesn’t it? Some might think it would be unethical NOT to offer this screening to couples if the technology were available, right?
Well, as with a lot of aspects of the brave new world of genetic engineering (of humans, foods, animals, etc.), there are elements of the discussion I can get behind in theory. But in practice, it’s human nature to distort and controvert even the most noble-minded of technologies or advancements into lowest-common-denominator exercises in vanity, or to make them into engines to drive petty fashion.
Need proof? Look at the modern explosion in plastic surgery – it’s overwhelmingly about enhancement, not about the post-accident (or disease) restoration and rehabilitation these procedures were pioneered to remedy. Also, in parts of India and other male-centric Asian nations, pre-natal screening – and subsequent abortion – has been used for years to select the sex of children (males are considered more desirable in many such cultures). The practice persists to this day, and has resulted in severely skewed sex ratios in some areas, as you’ve read in this very venue
So what makes anyone think that these new “health screenings” won’t lead to selection based on more aesthetic criteria and less strictly health criteria? And where do you draw the line between the two?
Under evolving pre-natal genetic screening guidelines, would minor, perfectly livable and treatable birth defects – like a mild cleft palate, for example – constitute just cause for embryonic or fetal destruction? What about an easily corrected deformity? What about being undersized or simply having an odd-shaped noggin?
See what I mean about the human genetic engineering waters being muddy?
Beyond the ethical issues, there are major political ones. As this kind of genetic screening becomes more widespread and prevalent on both sides of the pond (oh yes, it’s coming), won’t it also necessarily have to be publicly funded? Think about it: This stuff is being sold to us for HEALTH reasons, just like all kinds of other routine pre-natal care
So what happens when the poor people cry “discrimination” or “racism” because they can’t afford the 6000 (about $10,000 US) fee for screening?
You know damn well what will happen: Taxpayers will foot the bills. Already under the fledgling UK program, Britain’s National Health Service has shelled out for around half of the screenings to date
I’m predicting that ultimately, this screening WILL be 100% publicly funded – but the reason why has nothing to do with fairness or equality of health care. No, the real reason is more chilling than anything from The Island of Dr. Moreau.
