Introduction
The advances in technology have presented human beings with possibilities that were unfathomable a few years ago. The pursuit of new means of achieving efficiencies and solutions to problems that have plagued the human race for millennia is never-ending. Today, it can be argued that health and well-being is one area where ultimate solutions are yet to be found. For instance, the current Covid-19 pandemic has helped to illustrate the extent to which people are vulnerable to illnesses. Therefore, it can be argued that the field of medicine should be allowed to utilize new technologies to find solutions. The development of genetic editing has become a controversial subject with critical ethical concerns. The main question asked is whether people should be allowed to design babies. The opinion presented in this paper is that if designing babies help to achieve the overall wellbeing of the children then they should be allowed to do so.
The Need to Design Babies
The need to design babies stems from the fact that people remain extremely vulnerable to diseases and disorders that can ruin their lives and overall well-being. However, much of the current commentary regarding this issue majorly expresses skepticism and fails to appreciate the possibilities and the potentially positive use of gene editing and related technological advances. For instance, the news of the Chinese scientist who claimed to have created the first gene-edited babies with natural immunity to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was not well-received globally (Li et al. 32; Normile 978). Some believe it was too early and irresponsible to start editing genes, and others started to explore what is currently wrong and what could go wrong (Ma et al. 2; Wang and Yang 1). From this response, it can be argued that society is generally appalled by the idea that humans can be created with better resistance to diseases that have caused massive deaths and suffering.
One can easily understand the dangers of designing babies, including the creation of rogue humans, which could risk the lives of others. Other disadvantages may include unethical applications, including developing immortal beings or war machines for selfish gains. However, these negatives should not stand in the way of the potential benefits to the human race when babies are designed to resist diseases and plagues. The most critical observation of the opposing commentaries is that they largely emanate from scientific scholars and experts, which makes it even more interesting to explore the opposition to the practice.
The criticism against the Chinese scientist and his breakthrough is not because he succeeded, but rather because of how he conducted his affairs. According to Wang and Yang, the scientist was irresponsible because he did his experiments in secrecy and he had not published noteworthy scientific documents on gene editing (1). Many have expressed that he had bypassed the normal scientific and clinical practices (Lovell-Badge 3). Therefore, it can be argued that society is ready to ignore the success story and focus on the negative side of the story. Such a negative response begs the question of why people cannot see the potential benefits of babies, especially if such practices are geared towards giving them the possibility of a better life. Even with the criticism, some authors express that it can be beneficial to design babies, but their approach makes it seem a distant possibility rather than a current and pressing need (Lovell-Badge 4). Therefore, it is time that a more pragmatic approach to the debate is adopted and people start to seriously reconsider their opinion.
The literature showing the benefits of designing babies is not scant, which leads to further questioning of the skepticism surrounding the subject. According to Gómez-Tatay et al., mitochondrial modifications have become possible as a means of improving morbidity and mortality (2). Mitochondrial techniques have been developed and clinical trials have proven successful. Therefore, all related illnesses from the mutant mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) have simply found a cure. Despite this success, ethical concerns still emerge because they involve genetic modification. Such scholars as Hashmi explain that the development of genetic editing technologies can speed up the elimination of hereditary diseases from bloodlines (35). For a rational human being, such information should be regarded as good news and be welcomed with enthusiasm. However, Hashmi explains that even these possibilities do not alter people’s opinions regarding editing human genes (37). An article in The New York Times explains that there is a breakthrough in editing dangerous mutations from genes in human embryos (Belluck 1). Therefore, all evidence points toward the fact that designing babies can be a way of eliminating all diseases that plague the human race.
As mentioned earlier, the methods used in the development of gene-edited babies may be questionable. According to Li et al., the Chinese government has banned all germline genome editing on human embryos as a result of ethical and scientific concerns (32). The scientist, Jian-Kui, can be seen as having breached the regulations, in which case his success cannot be accepted without criticism. The issues raised against him include invalid informed consent, unreasonable risk-benefit ratio, regulatory misconduct, and illegitimate ethics review. Therefore, Jian-Kui breached the ethical guidelines in the pursuit of a better life for the human race. Such conduct cannot be acceptable, because good governance is often intended to protect human interests.
However, scientists and policy-makers should reconsider their regulations because they are hindering progress. The fact that the scientist achieved success after breaking a few rules means that the rules themselves are not founded on any verifiable evidence that preventing certain practices protects human life and wellbeing. The success should be a reminder that the level of skepticism in society, including scientists and practitioners, is based on moral and ethical affiliation as opposed to scientific and empirical evidence. Therefore, the practice should adopt better policies that make it possible to acknowledge and embrace the potential benefits of designing babies. Most importantly, the policymakers should be more concerned with preventing the wrongful use of these scientific developments as opposed to banning all practices even when society is in dire need of solutions.
Jian-Kui can be perceived to be one of the people desperate to prove that gene editing is possible without any negative consequences. The question posed by Hashmi is whether genetic modifications are a necessity or vanity, and expresses that the process required to achieve success is arduous and complex (36). Additionally, such adverse effects as the eruption of childhood leukemia should be a reminder of the dangers involved. The desperation of some scientists is perhaps the result of the regulatory bottlenecks, which make it hard for them to find real solutions to the remaining hurdles. The main argument here is that there should be rules guiding the practice rather than hindering it. The new technologies and breakthroughs in medicine are an indication that even the most complex problems can be solved when time and resources, as well as an enabling environment, are allocated to scientists.
The bottom line is that while the dangers of designing babies are apparent, scientists should be given time, support, and resources to develop solutions. The current Covid-19 has caused many deaths within a short period. Such an epidemic should be a reminder that making people less vulnerable and more resistant to such diseases and health risks could reduce deaths and suffering. HIV has been a major problem for decades with no real solution found. However, if Jian-Kui proves that it is possible to develop humans resistant to the virus then such an approach should be embraced to protect future generations. It is good to revoke bad practices in gene editing, but it is wrong to revoke the entire practice at a time when there are no better alternatives.
Conclusion
Designing babies should be allowed, especially when such a practice is intended to achieve the overall well-being of children and the entire human race. The current evidence shows that genetic editing has made it possible to design babies with resistance to particular diseases. However, the ethical concerns raised against these initiatives can be considered as hindering human progress. It can be opined that the dangers exist in such practices, but the skepticism is largely misleading. Designing babies can be controlled and regulated to eliminate all the fears raised against the practice.
Works Cited
Belluck, Pam. “In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos.” The New York Times, 2017, Web.
GĂłmez-Tatay, LucĂa, et al. “Mitochondrial Modification Techniques and Ethical Issues.” Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 6, no. 3, 2017, pp. 1-16, Web.
Hashmi, Fawzaan. “Necessity or Vanity: Designer Babies, CRISPR, and the Future of Genetic Modifications.” International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, vol. 7, no. 11, 2018, pp. 35-41, Web.
Li, Jing-ru, et al. “Experiments that Led to the First Gene-Edited Babies: The Ethical Failings and the Urgent Need for Better Governance.” Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, pp. 32-38, Web.
Lovell-Badge, Robin. “CRISPR Babies: A View from the Centre of the Storm.” Development, vol. 146, no. 3, 2019, pp. 1-5, Web.
Ma, Yuanwu, et al. “The First Genetically Gene-Edited Babies: It’s “Irresponsible and Too Early”.” Animal Models and Experimental Medicine, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-4, Web.
Normile, Dennis. “Shock Greets Claim of CRISPR-Edited Babies.” Science, vol. 362, no. 6418, 2018, pp. 978-979, Web.
Wang, Haoyi, and Hui Yang. “Gene-Edited Babies: What Went Wrong and What Could Go Wrong.” PLoS Biology, vol. 17, no. 4, 2019, pp. 1-5, Web.
Analysis of Essay
Purpose, Thesis, and Audience
The purpose of the essay is to critically explore a controversial subject with the hope of getting the experts to agree or disagree with my opinions. The topic selected is whether people should be allowed to design babies. The position taken is that genetic editing of human embryos offers a plethora of possibilities for improving human life and controlling major diseases. The thesis statement posits that if designing babies help to achieve the overall well-being of the children then they should be allowed to do so. The targeted audience includes experts on the subject and policy-makers.
Developmental Strategies
The essay follows a mix of developmental strategies, mainly problem-solution and narrative strategies. The problem discussed is the inability of society to accept the practice of designing babies despite current successes showing that it is possible. The solution offered is that greater support for scientists should be offered in terms of an enabling environment and resources. In the narrative development strategy, the essay describes the scenario and skepticism surrounding the subject and offers an opinion on why the current perceptions and policies are a hindrance to progress in the field of gene editing.
Major Reasons Supporting the Thesis
The major reasons supporting the thesis include the success story of Juan-Kui, and why have successfully designed babies with immunity to HIV. For this reason, it is argued that all ethical concerns should be disregarded. Additionally, it is reasoned that the skepticism and current policies are not backed by adequate empirical evidence and that they are merely ethical and moral inclinations. Lastly, scientific evidence is presented to reason that several serious health issues can be solved using genetic editing. With such possibilities, it is argued that designing babies to alleviate illnesses is a feasible practice.
Opposing Viewpoints
The main opposing viewpoint is that the success story of Jian-Kui was marred by malpractices and gross disregard for practice and ethical standards. Additionally, his activities were not backed by published materials, which makes it impossible to study the true ramifications of such an undertaking. Another opposing viewpoint is that current literature shows that there can be serious detriments of gene editing, which means that further research should be undertaken before approving the practice of designing babies.
Logos, ethos, and Pathos
The essay appeals to the literary elements of logos, ethos, and pathos. In terms of logos, logical reasoning has been applied, especially in arguing that the current opposition to gene editing is not wed. Ethos appeal to ethics and the essay uses scientific evidence to back the opinions and to persuade the audience that the writer has the credibility to address the subject. Lastly, pathos appeal to emotions, which has been achieved in the essay through the act of provoking the emotions of sadness and empathy towards people and children suffering from serious illnesses.
Tone and Grammatical Style
The essay generally used the tone of optimism and seriousness to evoke the necessary emotions among the audience. Optimism is achieved by attempting to support a subject that has been rejected even by experts. Seriousness is achieved by constant reference to the extent to which real solutions are needed to certain problems facing society. The grammatical style is generally formal, which helps appeal to the targeted audience.
Essay #3 Tentative Topic Proposal
General Topic for Essay #4
The general topic for the essay is the ethical issues surrounding the practice of designing children. Today, scientists have achieved incredible feats in the alteration of human genomes, which leaves many people contemplating new applications for the practice. Designing babies is a controversial subject because many people cannot comprehend why some individuals would want to alter the natural creation. However, the topic for the essay deviates from the aesthetic applications of gene editing to the practical purposes of developing babies immune to many damaging illnesses. The topic is subjective because it does not condemn the practice, but acknowledges that the practice can have many useful purposes. The main concern is that many hereditary and other types of disease can be prevented or treated through the alteration of DNAs. Therefore, the main focus is on the positive use of the practice. Most importantly, the essay is developed under the assumption that those seeking the approval of the practice only mean to do good to the human race.
Tentative Research Question
The tentative research question is should people be allowed to design babies? To answer this question, the essay explores what is meant by editing babies, how babies can be edited, and why babies should be edited. Scientific and other evidence is used to support the position taken in the essay.
Points to be Discussed
- The practice of editing babies and how it can be successfully achieved
- The arguments supporting the position that people should be allowed to design babies
- Arguments against the position that people should be allowed to design babies.
- The ethical implications of the practice and how attitudes and perceptions can be changed.