Gene-Modified Babies: Essentials of the Bioethics Subjecting 'Designer-Babies' for Future Parents

The ever-moving technological advancement has led us to the era where maintaining a downed Facebook server has become more important compared to the preservation of our own species, which is now considered as 'optional'.

Human units are relying on the guidance of our mother, the machine, to cope with their everyday tasks. From paying for breakfast to ordering an Uber, or even updating on what time it is, we rely on smart hand-held devices that accompany us through our modern physical existence.

The current social state might be exciting for some of us, while for others it is terrifying at best, considering that some people are still skeptical about whether we're monitored by the machine or not. Even worse, some believe that we are monitored by human units who are secretly controlling the outcome of physical reality as we know it. If that's not foolish to you, I highly suggest you skip this article as of now.

Humans are nothing more complex than organic processors. Sure, they seem 'sophisticated' when compared to a windows 95 operating platform, but they're certainly not universally complex if we'd put our egos aside and think about it objectively.

Recent revelations (note how I am not keen on using the word 'developments') in the biotech sector are now granting us the privilege to shapeshift some of our core attributes as a species on a molecular level.

More specifically, we're publicaly able to genetically modify future human units to be deployed in what we refer to as 'real-life', and in beyond-surgical detail, resulting in biological-precision architectured babies, commonly known as 'designer babies'.

While some could argue that designer-babies as a concept appear as early as ancient civilizations who expressed extraordinary access to physical data recording capabilities, we'll be focusing on the modern aspect of the concept, where the parameters for such an 'unnatural selection' are influenced in their majority by conscious human choices as opposed to unpredictable experiments of the past.

If we put aside ancient Egypt, the middle-age, and the world war era, where nearly-amateur raw genetic experiments often driven by abstract curiosity led to disturbing physical and mental consequences, one could say that the modern history of designer babies begins with the introduction of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) which dates back to 1978, when the first modern 'designer baby' was born.

In a nutshell, a designer baby, formally known as Genetically Modified Baby (GMO or GM Baby) is the result of a pre-planned fertility operation that involves some type of an IVF protocol. In raw data, designer babies are by-products of sophisticated biotechnology that enables parents to access and modify genetic traits, characteristics, and even adjust the levels for each aspect or skill they want to include or exclude from their future baby.

A widespread way to generate a GM embryo would be Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), or simply a concept where embryo-level genetic defects are scanned and identified pre-implantation and only specimens with genetic traits we want to avoid or include in the GM baby's code would be used in the next step of implantation accordingly.

An even edgier method to 'spawn' a designer-baby would be CRISPR/Cas9, which is essentially an updated version of the original CRISPR technology initially introduced back in the '80s.

The modern CRISPR/Cas9 protocol allows for precise genetic modification of living cells, by 'programming' an RNA molecule (or a CRISPR template) to specify a DNA location to be edited by Cas9, which on its own turn acts as a molecular-scale scissors empowered to cut, copy, paste, replace, and delete a DNA enzyme occupying the pre-determined location.

Obviously, this method requires a detailed understanding of the full DNA sequence we're going to 'mess' with, but this is not really an issue in 2020, and CRISPR/Cas9 is considered to be the most precise in terms of accuracy, time-efficient, and relatively easier and cheaper (for a genetic engineer) method to modify a living DNA-oriented organism, especially when compared to previous 'updates' in the still 'ethically-restricted' sector.

The interesting part about CRISPR/Cas9 is the fact that it is proven to be able to alter an embryo after the stage of fertilization, something previously impossible. At the same time, the concept and the process itself should not be considered as something new for the biotech industry.

CRISPR only introduced computer science to molecular biology resulting in an enormous jump when it comes to DNA manipulation capabilities, especially when compared to mice-experiments of the past that could some times take decades before a solid fact was established in the field, hence genomics are labeled by many as the edge that cuts through 'what's possible'.

Eric Lander on DNA structure.

From a bioethical perspective, human gene-editing, especially when performed on embryos is still under intensive debate between philosophers, medical scientists, and sociologists.

In this section, we'll try to address ethical issues subjecting such genetic engineering in the most objective way possible, in order to spherically understand how it affects our species in the short-term, and what might be the implications in the long-run, even if absent from our current comprehensive vicinity field.

In most of the western world, genetic mutations targeting living humans, regardless of their stage of maturity, is strictly prohibited, and analogous acts are perceived equal to 'playing god' which is condemned by the current biomedical regulatory frameworks.

Despite the fact that a Chinese scientist has successfully performed a CRISPR/Cas9 mod on two babies in 2018 to 'silence' a gene that acts as the catalyst for a protein that develops on the surface of cells called CCR5, which basically on its own turn acts as a catalyst for the HIV virus, the young scientist was imprisoned by the People's Republic of China, while the University from where he experimented with the technology for years on other mammals, said that his actions violated the code of conduct disregarding ethical considerations, essentially condemning his research alongside with the majority of the packed international community.

So, on one hand, we have successfully proved that this actually works and it can be done easier than thought, but on the other hand, there are factors that might be not tech-oriented, yet they prohibit us to bet all-in on this particular round.

From a philosophical point of view, one could easily claim that it might all look fun and exciting for now, but there are cosmic relations to our DNA, we're unable to even conceive at the moment, not to mention consider them when performing these nevertheless 'experiments'.

Who knows what might surface when a GM baby makes its own baby, and that baby makes its own baby with another GM baby. Confusing right? Well, imagine that the whole concept of humanity might be altered so much so fast in the infinite tune of time that neither genetic engineering nor humans at all will be relevant in what we refer to as the 'future'.

A less dramatic approach, yet still conservative when it comes to the ethical matter hails from the bio-medical society, where experts believe that genetic mutations might seem beneficial at first glimpse, but they could rapidly evolve in a sinking boat with more holes appearing as we're trying to patch the first one.

Last but not least, sociologists, historians, and psychologists have a slightly more romantic approach, which is still in opposition to the adoption of the technology before it is tested excessively and all possible future outcomes are considered respectively.

From a social pair of lens, a genetically modified baby might never get HIV, but it also might never be the person it was supposed to be. Psychological issues regarding its condition could create emotional and social issues that could be unable to overcome, no matter how healthy, from a physical aspect, the baby grows.

In the end, the most important ethical consideration from our 'terrace' should be the solid fact that no one has chosen how or who we would grow up to be, so we should analogize whether we're ready to be the one 'designer babies' will point at and think "he made me", or "he has chosen this". I think that deep in our root, this could kill the essence of 'being'.

Although there is a huge number of unsuccessful genetic experiments on human embryos that never managed to see neither the light of life nor that of publication, not all successful mutations can be specified either due to the controversy and bioethical aspects surrounding the topic.

The first reported successful 'designer baby' would be Adam Nash, dating back to early 2000 when his parents decided to use the PGD IVF protocol, in order to ensure Adam didn't inherit his older sister's trait 'Fanconi anemia', a rare blood disease of which apparently Molly suffered.

While the media responded with empathy for the parents of the babies, criticism regarding the bioethics of such a mutation was not absent, essentially sparking a new era for the term 'designer baby', and vast speculations on the possibilities future precision biotech could carry, started to grow like grass during the rainy season.

There are supposedly numerous 'under-the-table' designer babies that made their appearance in IVF-related forums and blogs during the next decade, but the defining moment for the widely discussed topic came with He Jankui, the Chinese scientist previously mentioned, who managed to successfully use CRISPR/Cas9 protocol to eliminate the HIV catalyst from twins Lulu and Nana.

The incident is known as the Lulu and Nana controversy nowadays, and even if some supported the act, condemning the HIV virus, the majority of the scientific community condemned the actor behind the engineering himself, claiming that this was too far-fetched even for an expert in the sector.

Now, while this is far from 'baby' history, the US, Russian, and German military among other well-structured organizations have been confirmed to work with genetic mutations, and/or gene-editing protocols for some decades now, in an attempt to create the perfect soldier, treat rare diseases, and eliminate the risk of fatal diseases such as cancer, HIV, etc.

In Vitro Fertilization is not as uncommon as one would think it might be in modern days. As a matter of fact, entering an artificial pregnancy requires an embryo, which is relatively easily donated by a woman to another woman as an act of empathy, and motherhood.

The Procedure for IVF is pretty much standard nowadays and its costs are flattened all over the world, regardless of the 'quality' or genetic characteristics of a specimen. At least this is the internationally accepted legal way to IVF, which suggests how things should be done when considering an artificial pregnancy.

Of course, and as speculations around both Adam Nash and later Lulu and Nana's incidents predicted, there is a growing group of individuals who would gladly pay that extra mile in order to secure their upcoming baby gets its parent's eye-color, or even becomes a Ph.D. candidate later in his life.

This sort of procedure is usually taking place behind closed doors and it can cost as much as several million dollars per genetic mutation. Ethical or not, we can't really stop a bioinformatics engineer from performing a couple of changes in the genetic code of an embryo he already 'edits', and we definitely can't stop a rich guy from wanting a super-baby.

Whether we're ready for this or not, it is undeniably unavoidable, and as time passes to push IVF protocols to reach new technological heights, there is a huge race developing in the yet controversial biotech sector, where private companies are now promising tailored embryos that meet the buyers' criteria.

A delicate search on the dark web can lead you to European, and more specifically Danish biotech firms that offer preset models of a human embryo guaranteed to be at least 1,8m tall, have blond hair, blue eyes, and a genetic tree with several Ph.D.s in the background.

This clearly showcases the fact that we might not be keen on creating monsters with horns and super muscles at the moment, keeping it simple and morally ethical - trying to save lives - it is highly possible that we will see more complex mutations in the near future, starting from the already booming unregulated black market for 'designer babies'.

Robert Sapolsky on Human Behavioral Biology

Gene-editing scenarios will become more standard as time passes, not only to ensure healthier babies with secure futures but also to ensure parenting is not taken lightly.

Currently, there is nothing stopping you from becoming a parent (excepting occasional scenarios like the Chinese birth-law), even if you're at your early 20s, young, amateur, and economically unstable. That can lead to a loop of regular jobs in order to sustain a family, in the end, you never get to see that much. The child then is randomly generated into society through the schooling system, and it may or may not achieve its initial goals.

Personally, I believe that setting a range of prices for gene-edited babies can help cultivate a more mature generation of parents, those who would consider every aspect of being a parent before choosing to have a child. It may sound unfair for most possible parents, especially for those economically underrated, but on the other hand; what kind of parent you are when you are ok with purchasing a random embryo with random parameters just because it was the 'cheapest' on the market? It is like not carrying about your child, not investing in your child's future, and not taking the parenting responsibility seriously.

People who would choose to invest in their children's future will be automatically compensated as they worked hard both physically and mentally to afford to have a child that will have a brighter future.

It's like investing in an ICO; If you throw in a couple dollars, waiting that you'll gonna have that million-dollar kid, you're amateur, and should not be permitted to be a parent. While if you are really serious about bringing a human unit into what we refer to as 'real-life', you would and should investigate all possible scenarios of the future, and commit to generating a child that will be in accordance with it (the future).

Bioethicists shouldn't barter about the fact whether gene-editing is ethical or not, but rather analogize the fact that literally anyone, regardless of his mental, physical, socioeconomic condition can become a parent.

I'll be laconic on this one, citing only that 'designer babies' are not a subject for ethical debate. It's happening while you read this.