"Designer Babies" Ethical?

L.A.'s Fertility Institute Says Prospective Parents Can Choose Physical Traits, Not Just Gender

(CBS)  For years, reproductive specialists have been helping people become parents, even enabling them to choose the sex of their baby.

One fertility doctor is taking things a step further, offering what some are calling "designer babies," as Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports.

If you could design your baby's features, would you? According to L.A.'s Fertility Institute, prospective parents can select eye color, hair color and more.

The technology is called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. It was created to screen for disease, then used for gender selection. Now this clinic plans to allow parents to select physical traits.

"I would predict that by next year, we will have determined sex with 100 percent certainty on a baby, and we will have determined eye color with about an 80 percent accuracy rate," said fertility specialist Dr. Jeff Steinberg, director of Fertility Institute.

Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg is a pioneer in in-vitro fertilization.

"I think it's very important that we not bury our head in the sand and pretend these advances are not happening," Dr. Steinberg said.

Kirsten and Matt Landon used his clinic to select the sex of their daughter. Choosing other genetic traits intrigues them.

"I would have considered trait selection as an option, but not necessarily have gone with it," Matt Landon said.

A recent U.S. survey suggests most people support the notion of building a better baby when it comes to eliminating serious diseases. But Dr. Steinberg says using technology for cosmetic reasons shouldn't scare people away.

"Of course, once I've got this science, am I not to provide this to my patients? I'm a physician. I want to provide everything science gives me to my patients," Dr. Steinberg said.

"But is that a good thing?" Early Show co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Let me quote Dr. Steinberg. He just said he predicts we will have determined sex with 100 percent accuracy and eye color with 80 percent accuracy in the next year. Does that give you pause at all?" Rodriguez asked.

"It does. I think he's wrong. I don't think we're going to get to eye color and hair color and freckles for a couple more years. But he's right in principle. We're headed that way. It is going to be possible to pick traits, not because of diseases or avoiding dysfunction, but because somebody has a taste for a particular child or a preference for a particular child," Dr. Caplan said.

"He says that if it is available, why not offer it to his patients? He says he has the obligation as a doctor to do so. Do you agree with that?" Rodriguez asked.

"I disagree completely. There are really three things to think about. One is, when you move away from diseases, who's to say what's the better trait? Is it better to be red-headed than it is to be brown-haired? Is it better to have freckles or not? Those sorts of things are subjective and in some ways driven by our culture," Caplan said.

"Secondly, you're going to have the rich using these technologies, and that's going to advantage them further. It's not going to be something the poor get to do. Lastly, you've got a problem here, why are doctors in this business at all? He said (Dr. Jeff Steinberg), 'I have to serve my patients,' but is this just a cash business where you'd say, you know, 'I want a child with short arms. I want a kid with athletic ability.' Okay. Well, we'll do that. Is everything and anything for sale at the fertility clinic?" Dr. Caplan asked.

The case of Nadya Suleman, who had octuplets, has raised so many debates like this. The doctor who implanted six embryos is being criticized. A lot of people say there should be a law prohibiting that, Rodriguez pointed out.

"Do you think there should be laws prohibiting this?" she asked.

"Absolutely. And the time to start this discussion is right now. For example, I don't think you should get any of these traits offered to you without some counseling so you can think about, is that important to me? Is this really going to make that much difference?" Caplan said.

This can lead to false expectations on children, he explained. The parents may pick a child to be smart, and he or she doesn't succeed, then they become upset because they invested money and didn't get what they want.

"We need more oversight of this industry, and I think this will turn out to be one of the biggest issues in the next 10, 15 years, the extent to which we design our babies and who's going to be able to call the shots, if you will, on whether the technology gets used to do it," Caplan said.

[artsyy]

Who are we to decide what our babies look like though? That might cause the parents to have higher expectations & what if then things turned out differently after paying all that money to make sure your child looked like this or acted like that?! I think the PGD used to detect genetic diseases is a great technological advance, but choosing traits may be taking it too far. I disagree about this being the same as choosing a life partner. Looks are definately a big factor when choosing a mate...and everyone likes different kinds of people. But looks are not All that matters when choosing a partner by any means. Obviously, that partner will not look the same forever, but we dont sit around wondering if they will not be as attractive when they are 90!? Because we love them anyways- for who they are. As far as a child goes... we should accept them for who they are UNIQUELY created to be & not try to make them be something that WE want them to be. Also, we have yet to see this, but in 20 or so years from now, what are those "designer babies" going to think of this process that their parents took part in before they were born? It just raises a lot of issues.

I am currently writing an Ethics paper on this for nursing school. So thank you to those who have submitted opinions.. this has helped me see both sides of the issue.

[senioritam]

It's private reproductive rights, in my opinion. Many people have been saying that it will lead to another wave of eugenics, but that's not the case. This is individual people making choices, and at most world hair color populations that are already very rare, like blonde or red or green eyes, will rise by at most 1-2%, which is not even like anything. Also, cosmetic appearances don't affect inner attributes, like innate quickness at learning, or muscle development, so the child will have no advantages for being of a certain look. So, it really doesn't matter int he end. Most importantly, people are allowed to choose spouses who look very different from themselves, which means their children will also do so, so what is wrong with a technology that essentially does the same cosmetic thing, but just with more certainty? In other words, isn't it people's choice what looks they're attracted to? Same with the children, we might see choosing some more recessive genes, but as they are not linked to bad traits (like you can't say that all redheads lack intelligence or something), so it doesn't matter. Like choosing a partner, choosing the child's hair or eye color is the same, just with a little more, not even 100% for sure, certainness, so it's fine as it's always been happening.

[willfrehley]

Some people make more money, because their innate character traits allow them to get better jobs. If you're born resilient, able to defer gratification, energetic, charismatic, ambitious, and intelligent, chances are you'll earn a lot more money than people without those traits. Fewer than 30% of adults over age 25 have a college degree. So let's be careful what precedent we set. Once the genes are known for the traits I just mentioned, parents will want to select their children's genes, so they too can complete college and find a lucrative career. (As I describe in my book, "Leadership is Innate")

[rorosmomo]

Designer babies?and they think abortion should be illegal? Not only is this wrong but it?s very selfish. There are thousands of beautiful and smart babies you can choose from at your local orphanages.

[hairclippy]

Yeah, we can buy [b][url=http://www.hairclippy.com/]baby hair bands[/url][/b] already if we know that the baby is a girl but it is dangerous. Babies are god's gift, so like a gift we don't know what it is until we finally receive and open it. The thrill of anticipating the baby's gender will be gone.

[hairclippy]

Yeah, we can buy <a href="http://www.hairclippy.com/" title="baby hair bands">baby hair bands</a> already if we know that the baby is a girl but isn't the procedure dangerous? Babies are god's gift, so like a gift we don't know what it is until we finally receive and open it. The thrill of anticipating the baby's gender will be gone.

[mariner88]

Isn't it one thing for your government to choose your child's characteristics and you choosing them yourself? Yes, the Nazis followed up on some ideas of selecting officially desirable traits, and this would be bad, I believe. But why not allow parents -albeit those who have the money, as it would be a private choice - to do this? They already do anyway; when choosing a partner, surely the outcome of a pregnancy enters their minds. How would our child look? You cannot tell me people don't consider this when dating. It goes one step further. And other traits like intelligence would be most welcome in this world.

[mariner88]

It's a welcome option. I mean when you consider that attractive people are treated better from Day One of their lives, I'd want this for my children. It opens up doors. As for the argument that only monied people could access it, this is true of everything in life and is illogical argument. God not only grants you life, but the ability to create and change and thrive. At least, that's how I see it. If we MUST accept our babies as they are, why then are we not so open to partners? Why don't we accept people for who they are but gossip about faults? It is natural to want to seek the best, even if we don't want to admit it. We just have different ideas about what's best.

[vhhsrebs]

I have to say, that as a person suffering from a sex-linked disease, I know, without fail I will pass my disease on to my children, male or female, and there is no way I could choose to use this sort of technology. My disease can be life threatening, fortunately for me, it is not, but it has made me into the person I am today. I have struggled and fought and been tried to the point of breaking down, but I couldn't imagine my life differently. Through having a disease, I have learned who I am. And I don't want to deny my children the experience of learning their limits, of learning who they really are, what they truly value in life by "making the perfect". I understand wanting to ensure your children the best life possible, and in some cases, that would mean genetically altering them so they are not born with a life threatening disease, but to decide how smart or how tall or how attractive they are-- that takes the fun out of life. If you know what you're going to get why even bother?

[sushshaf]

i like the old fashioned way of making babies!!

all that aside, i wanted my kids to look like my husband that is why i married him.i wanted them to be smart like him and have a great personality like him.

my husband wanted our kids to look like me to be smart like me and to have my personality.

what did we get? well they don't look like the milk man. one of my daughters has my husband's long slim legs and the other daughter has my heavier thighs. what i hated in myself i love in my daughter and i cannot for the life of me work out why i have hated my legs for all this time.

having kids puts things into perspective. if some men don't love my daughters and see them for the wonderful creatures that they are then there is something wrong with the men.

so the point is i can understand not wanting your child to suffer serious disease states.i can understand wanting to balance the sex ratio in a family.

what i don't understand is a parent not accepting their child for who it is. how will the child feel if they know that their parent is disappointed in how they look?

[isisarchist]

renonv5,
Everyone of us carries within us genes that make us prone to certain diseases, some dormant some active and in the future we will be able to ensure all of these genes are dormant. I love science and technology and our future is bright bcuz of it. I understand your fear, lots of people have it based on age and religion. It's ok that you want to roll the dice and only have children the "natural" way, but it is also ok that I choose to do things the new way.
With this technology and that of stem cells the future generations will have a much higher quality of life and it will end the needless suffering and expense of medical problems.
We can agree to disagree.

[renonv5]

isisarchist Is there something genetically wrong with you that you think having a baby the natural way would be a problem for you? There isn't enough intellect in your family so you have a need to ensure that your child will be super intelligent? I feel sorry for that child already, success doesn't come out of a test tube and it certainly does not guarantee it will have the best life.

[jamcracker]

I've often wondered why humans didn't breed out undesirable features a long time ago. I guess there were enough ugly rich guys to keep the big noses, weak chins and bulgy eyes in the gene pool. A lot of these captains of industry with trophy wives have kids that inherit the mother's pea brain and the father's looks. I'm guessing attractiveness is recessive.

[isisarchist]

Well I guess I am the lone poster who is excited by these technological advances. I am a 29 yr old female w/no children yet and although I don't care so much about eye and hair color superior intellect and resistance to disease etc sounds fabulous to me.
Why wouldn't I or anyone else do this? I just don't have the fear of technology that most people have but that's what makes this country great, choice. No one is going to force people to "design" their children so how can there be an issue.
I on the other hand will be first in line doing everything I can to insure any children I have will have the best life and chance of sucess possible.

[renonv5]

Isnt this what the Nazis were doing?
Posted by brigantine9

Yes, wasn't it Hitler's Aryan Nation? All blonde haired, blue eyed gods and goddesses....

[IAMANIKOLAS]

But unlike the Nazis we're not directly slaughtering people who isn't blond haired with blue eyes, also it's a choice, not something you're forced to do.

That means, if you don't want to design your kid, then don't do it. If you on the other hand want to design your kid, go ahead, spend some money and make it black haired with green eyes and curles or something.
It's your choice, and this is nothing like the nazis plans of the "perfect human"

[mdalerwill]

Most importantly, can I get a baby that will match my couch?

[kdarwish]

Ethics! No way, those seem to have gone out of fashion with Spinoza. Let us not forget the sorts of ethics that got us into the current global financial crisis, and it was not just greedy and unscrupulous brokers and bankers that caused it, but a general malaise in values. A universal sentiment amongst developed peoples that if you are offered a chance to have something you want, take it! Without thoughtful consideration to possible consequences, seen or unseen, now or in the future. Poor Darwin, must be spinning in his grave, that we have come to this on the bicentennial of his birthday!

[jamesguy]

Gattaca is here.

[woodydoggie]

Franken babies, I like that. Sounds accurate to me and this is exactly what the Nazis wanted. I would wage that those who choose this route, end up with much more than they bargained for. And who's to say that the offspring these kids create aren't riddled with disease or birth defects. Seems to me that someone is jumping the gun here. Shouldn't there be a considerable amount of testing and retesting before this is allowed. Where the hell is the AMA in this? Only the most vain, shallow people would go for this.

[credibility2]

...so, if you want a kid to have blue eyes, but there's no blue eye dna in either the male or female, how exactly are these doctor's going to fabricate blue eye dna? This is as despicable as IFV and surrogacy. It's not nice to fool with nature. Are we going to call these so-called hybrid babies "franken-kids"?