Designer Babies

In Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein’s life was being damaged since the authority to create life where there was none before obsessed him. The monster that he generated could be witnesses as an account of all those who are aggrieved in the self-centered name of science. Shelley’s book draws parallels in the modern society, and demonstrates that there is a danger in the impersonal relation that science builds between the scientist and his or her work. It appears that Shelley was saying that when science is done, just on the foundation of discovery, with no thought to the impact that the experimentation could have everything held dear is endangered (Mattison 491).

            The future of genetic engineering is seen to have a lot of potential, better things, and enhancements for the society. Today designer baby technology is applied to assure the parents of to be conceived child will not have a child who has terminal illness. Nevertheless, it is just a matter of time before medical practitioners or companies place a price on other elements of the genome of the baby. The technology could even be risky. The question is of what benefit would this be and would it cause harm to the people?

            The Human Genome Project, which was a thirteen-year effort as of 1990 inspired to put the many genes in the gene pool. Nowadays, the knowledge of the genes aids in diagnosing, treating, and preventing several genetic disturbances like diseases and retardation disorders. However, this privilege seems abused. It is suspected that about 25 years from today, future genetic technological progress will make it possible for couples to choose particular genes preferred for their unborn infants, and then implant them on the embryo. This concept of designing a baby sounds fascinating to most of the world, however, it is morally wrong to predetermine the traits of an infant, and lastly it might build further issues than it answers (Gerlach et al. 79). Nearly everybody would support that the thought of designing babies contradicts the basics of nature when it comes to conception.

            For one it entails the process of in-vitro fertilization with no sexual intercourse. The future question is, “Do the parents wish to take the thought of which genes determine which characteristics and apply them to change the genetic makeup of their kids?” This one case holds this that it will be possible to determine the gender of the baby following fertilization. This is helpful as determining the gender can be useful to the parents who have a medical history of certain disease of disorder. This process will provide them a chance to ensure their child if free from the inherited disorders or disease. For instance, genetic illnesses such as Duchene Muscular Dystrophy and hemophilia are only present in male children. On knowing the outcomes, parents can get assistance from the doctor in selecting a healthy female baby with no defective gene and implant it onto the mother’s womb and be born on term. In some nations, selection of sex is only allowed to avoid sex-related illnesses (Glassman 367).

            The PGD is also useful in screening out embryos that have the potential of having a genetic illness. This is vital since concerned parents have the opportunity of choosing a healthy embryo to be implanted in the mother’s womb following professional advice. Today with the advancement of medical technology, mothers are in a position of conceiving healthy kids. This would be useful to families and parents. Not having a sick baby will help in preventing infant deaths (Gerlach et al. 79).

            One of the arguments presented against designer babies is that it could lead to more division of the socioeconomic strata. This is because having a designer baby requires a lot of money invested. This means only the well off would be able to use the services, as they are costly. This could also lead to a generation of flawless children that are not only born rich but also with greater advantage over the poor individuals. This would widen the gap between the rich and the poor since the rich would get richer and powerful whereas the poor become poorer with their natural characteristics and abilities (Glassman 367).

            The designer babies would increase the superficiality within the society. Designer babies would result to the irresistible response of a particular trait believed to be of more value in comparison to other features. The less fortunate, with the natural characteristics would be discriminated by the rich. This would result to the normal children feeling inferior to the designer babies. This would lead to a viscous cycle in the end (Machamer et al. 231)

            Another disadvantage of designer babies is that they are not a guarantee success and this process is not natural. Having all the hope as parents wait in anticipation for a naturally conceived child they may be disappointed if it fails to happen. This is because designer babies are new invention, and having a child with the desirable features is not a guarantee. Parents would not be able to reject and return the child if it does not meet their expectation (Machamer et al. 231)


            Designer babies would be of great benefit in the case of avoiding diseases. However, the fact that technology has allowed other aspects to be selected it may cause more harm than good. It is paramount that science allows the natural order to take place and avoid designing babies that may result in disparity in the society.


Work cited

Gerlach, Neil, and Sheryl N. Hamilton. “From Mad Scientist to Bad Scientist: Richard Seed as Biogovernmental Event.” Communication Theory 15.1 (2005): 78-99. Print.

Glassman, Robert B. “Abundant Nature’s Long-Term Openness to Humane Biocultural Designs.” Zygon 44.2 (2009): 355-388. Print.

Machamer, Peter K, Marcello Pera, and Aristeidēs Baltas. Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

Mattison, J. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 96.2 (1995): 491-2. Print.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s