What are the present views on genetic selection and modification of humans?

Question

A medical ethicist recently proposed that selecting (and possibly engineering) certain traits into our children is not just morally permissible but desirable:

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".

The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and others".

I am curious what schools of thought there are in the philosophical community (or individual viewpoints) regarding this issue.

Is any sort of interference morally problematic? (Many would think so intuitively, especially within religious communities, but intuition can be wrong.)

If selection and screening are okay, is introducing new genes okay/desirable also--assuming that we know what the impact will be--or is there a fundamental difference between selecting between possibilities that already were going to occur, and creating people with a new genetic composition that they couldn't have acquired "naturally"?

Answer 1

Let me ask you this. Do you think the Cystic Fibrosis gene should be removed from human beings? It would sound reasonable to say yes. It turns out however that the Cystic Fibrosis gene could provide protection from Typhoid Fever. The disease Sickle Cell Anemia also provides protection against Malaria.

Suppose Malaria strikes a population in which Sickle Cell Anemia has been eradicated thanks to gene manipulation. This population will then have lower survival rates than a population of people who possess Sickle Cell Anemia, and have the extra protection against Malaria.

The point is that by selecting favorable traits, our population looses its diversity. But the more diverse a population is, the more likely the population will survive unexpected environmental changes. Because we cannot predict the future, we can't know what traits may be desirable in the future, and therefore we need encourage diversity to enhance the probability of survival.

Designer babies discourages diversity, and encourages parents to choose babies which conform to the social standards of the present time period only, to the detriment of the future of mankind.

Answer 2

Mew has given a very pragmatic answer, but doesn't raise the thorny philosophical problem. I'd like to add my two cents..

There a few problems with the genetic selection and modification of human beings. The biggest problem is the desacralizing of life. I have a small observation that I will probably develop more fully somewhere else, and that is this: With the desacralizing of life, death, sex, marriage, not only do we lose out on living meaningful lives, but we also lose out on the ability to know God, because ultimately the questions of objective meaning and purpose of life are inextricably intertwined with questions of the nature and existence of God. I think that this spiritual dulling of the senses, if I can put it that way, is already in progress across much of the "developed" world.

There are other problems too. For example, suppose we were to be able to design offspring who wouldn't suffer from any adverse health conditions. Would they be as empathetic to another person's suffering? I have to be clear, I don't want to sound glib about suffering (I myself have had more than my fair share of it). But we may have to admit that the elimination of suffering of all kinds cannot be the ultimate purpose of life, because if successful, it could change the very nature of life itself.

As for the article linked to above, again there are pragmatic reasons why it is unwise to screen embryos for potential personality flaws. But I'll just mention a more philosophical reason: Within the Christian view, an individual has free will. I have no doubt that people have different proclivities and weaknesses, but learning how to deal with these is a part of our human experience. It is what makes us unlike robots. In short, people who choose to turn their back on a religiously based arguments against these kinds of modifications merely because they are religiously based are showing a dangerous kind of cultural bias which is myopic and foolish. Humanity as we know it can morph into something less glorious in the blink of an eye.

Answer 3

The Dao De Jing 57 (Lin Yutang translation) says:

The more prohibitions there are,
   The poorer the people become.
The more sharp weapons there are,
   The greater the chaos in the state.
The more skills of technique,
   The more cunning things are produced.
The greater the number of statutes,
   The greater the number of thieves and brigands.

Therefore the sage says:
   I do nothing and the people are reformed of themselves.
   I love quietude and the people are righteous of themselves.
   I deal in no business and the people grow rich by themselves.
   I have no desires and the people are simple
      and honest by themselves.

That's before the "magical taoism", so it may be interpreted in materialistic (scientific) terms.

Biology shows that most social species have come to ritualize violence inside the group, reducing its destructive power. We, as social animals, also have the instinct for peace naturally stronger then our instinct for war.

But most of the Western philosophy is rooted in monotheistic religion, where human beings are "evil" since Eve, and thus in need of "correction". This chapter of the Dao De Jing shows the opposite, the farther we go away from our true Nature, the poorer we become.

That's why laws in excess ruin a country, and too much "wisdom" and technology usually end up having deleterious consequences.

But massive propaganda is there to show us that the industrial world have "improved" us.

One needs to get out of the comfort of his home to see some of the last primitive people who still show our natural wisdom, health and beauty. But one needs to do this fast, because these people and their way of life are being destroyed day by day.

So, to put it shortly:

Technology used to alter Nature may easily develop against ourselves (or at least against the poor, who make up the majority).

Chapter 29 of the Dao De Jing (Giafu Feng and Jane English translation) pretty well sums it up:

Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.

The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.