Designer Babies to Order

1 / 1 In the year of 2018, Cecile Janssens wrote an article named “Designer Babies to Order” about designer babies. Molly Nash had a disease named Fanconi Anemia; therefore, their parents needed a donor match. Their brother Adam Nash was an embryo in a lab, after they got DNA tested and vitro fertilized, this process did bring a lot of concerns. Designer baby relates to the change of the traits in the baby, however, it never happened, and scientists are not even close make it happen. It will not ever be possible to design and predict the DNA. In 1978, the first IVF baby has born, and the “designer baby” idea got popular. Years after, a clinic offered sex selection. In year 2013, a genomic company granted a patent that predicts likely traits of a baby based on the DNAs of the parents. 3 years later, a women donated her mitochondria to a couple using IVF, it triggered the fear of “unnatural children”. However, no one is questioning is only genes determines diseases and it led to a misunderstanding of how DNA and genome works. DNA usually differs in two ways: with mutations which causes rare diseases with a single cell -without mutations women can still develop breast cancer-; or/and with variations which are changes in the genetic code and they are more common than mutations, however, it only increases the risk of developing a disease, it is not what causing it. “Designer babies” needs so many DNA changes in multiple genes. In addition, “desirable” genes may cause bad consequences because a gene may bring a vulnerability to other diseases. I totally disagree with the statement of “Every parent should have the right to select their child’s gender and traits. As the article reports, it is highly unethical and concerning to intervene the DNA in many ways. To illustrate He Jiankui’s gene edited babies were resistant to HIV, however, they might have increased the risk of West Nile virus and Influenza. Moreover, some genes such as MC1R comes with multiple possibilities. This gene is called “red hair” gene, it increases of the skin cancer risk. Red hair should not be a reason to give children a risk of cancer. Not only in traits, but also gender selection comes with its own risks. For instance, every gender has a different risk profile, women have a higher risk of breast cancer than man. Just because a parent wants to raise a girl, it doesn’t give them a right to add a severe risk to an individual’s life. I believe it is highly unethical.