Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook



 

How worried should we be about the 'slippery slope to designer babies'?

22 July 2013

By Professor Stephen Wilkinson

Professor of Bioethics in the Department of Politics, Philosophy, and Religion at Lancaster University and co-author of 'Eugenics and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction'

Appeared in BioNews 714

Two recent news stories have provoked talk of 'designer babies': the government's decision to move towards allowing mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT); and the announcement, at this month's ESHRE conference, that the first child has been born following the use of 'next-generation sequencing' (NGS). Both techniques have therapeutic goals. MRT aims to enable patients to have children free from mitochondrial disorders, many of which are fatal. NGS aims to increase success rates for IVF. So why are potentially positive developments like this greeted with talk of 'designer babies', and is such language justified?

The expression 'designer babies' is rarely defined with clarity. It evokes thoughts of parents unhealthily obsessed with their child's appearance or who want to enhance their children to create, as Heather Long puts it, 'a kind of demi-god race that will be taller, healthier [and] better-looking'. But 'designer babies' is at the same time applied much more widely to cases that have nothing to do with enhancement or with the way children look. Given this ambiguity, we should approach claims about 'designer babies' with considerable caution.

One of the main arguments lying behind people's concerns about 'designer babies' is the slippery slope. David King, talking about MRT, says: 'Once we've crossed this crucial ethical line, which says that we shouldn't create babies that have been genetically altered, it becomes very difficult to then stop when the next step is wanted and then the next step after that and we will eventually get to this future that everyone wants to avoid of designer babies.'

While Heather Long, reacting to NGS, says: 'It will likely be a progression from just wanting a child, to wanting one less likely to get certain diseases, to wanting one more likely to have traits associated with being taller or more artistic or athletic. From there, it's not too hard to imagine something akin to the Subway sandwich line where you select different traits a la carte.'

The basic idea behind the slippery slope argument is that even if X isn't itself wrong, we shouldn't accept or allow X because that would be to step onto the 'slippery slope' to Y – and Y really is wrong. Not all slippery slope arguments are defective. Some work; some don't. Whether they work depends on two questions. Is the slope as slippery as is claimed – will X inevitably lead to Y? And is Y as bad as it's made out to be?

Take MRT. The slippery slope argument is that anything short of a categorical prohibition on the genetic modification of human embryos will lead us 'down the slope' to unfettered modification ('designer babies'). Why? Because, so it's claimed, once the principle of 'no genetic modification' has been abandoned then we won't have any basis on which to object to genetic modification of any kind.

This, however, supposes that there aren't ethical principles that would allow us to draw a line between MRT and unfettered genetic modification – but there are some such principles. One is the idea that human genetic modification is permissible only when its purpose is to prevent illness. This seems plausible to many, such as those who regard using reproductive biology to avoid disease as good, but have reservations about its use for some other purposes. And a parallel principle can be found in existing UK law on embryo selection and testing, which is permitted only for a limited range of purposes, mostly to do with the health of the resultant child, or with increasing the chances of a live birth. So the possibility of operating with a principle like this, and of embedding it in law, casts doubt on this slippery slope argument. (There are of course other possible responses to this slippery slope argument. For example, it might be suggested that the distinction between mitochondrial and nucleur DNA is important, or that MRT is not really an instance of 'modification' in the relevant sense of the word.)

Then there's the question of just how bad a world containing 'designer babies' would be. Heather Long's worry seems in large part about NGS's effects on socio-economic inequality. Inequality is something we should all be concerned about, but whether it constitutes an objection specifically to MRT or NGS is far from clear.

First, concerns about unfair distribution can be raised about most new (and many old) technologies. Anything which gives the owner/user an advantage and can only be afforded by the rich can be objected to on this ground – be it smart phones, hospitals, motorways, refrigeration, or school books. Second, Long's worry about inequality seems only to apply to human enhancement, rather than 'designer babies' more widely, for parents who merely choose their children's eye and hair colours are unlikely to give them much of an advantage, especially in an age where contact lenses and dyes can achieve similar effects. Third, we can't just assume that new technologies have negative effects on social inequality. Indeed, one of the claims made for NGS is that it could make infertility treatment much cheaper by increasing success rates; it could therefore increase access to IVF for the less well-off.

How worried then should we be about the 'slippery slope to designer babies'? As I've said, we shouldn't automatically reject slippery slope arguments; some of them do work. But the ones presented so far in relation to MRT and NGS are unconvincing. This is partly because we need a clearer idea of what exactly a 'designer baby' is and what would be wrong with creating one; we need to know what's at the bottom of the 'slope' and why we should be afraid of it. And it's partly because there's reason to believe, based on other areas of policy and practice, that we're capable of distinguishing (albeit imperfectly) interventions that are genuine treatments for patients from those which merely satisfy people's trivial cosmetic preferences. Provided that we can make such distinctions then the 'slope' may not be anything like as 'slippery' as is sometimes supposed.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

11 August 2014 - by James Storm 
Nicholas Agar has endeared himself to the enhancement debate by being a little bit afraid of 'post humans' – the real life supermen who could very well use their powers for evil and enslave the rest of humanity. It may come as no surprise then that Agar's latest venture into the debate continues in much the same vein....
02 December 2013 - by Dr John Appleby, Professor Rosamund Scott and Professor Stephen Wilkinson 
A group of European parliamentarians from the Council of Europe recently issued a declaration objecting to the HFEA's policy advice on experimental mitochondrial replacement therapy claiming that MRT is eugenic and inconsistent with human dignity. These are substantial moral claims, ones that deserve closer scrutiny, and it is an interesting and important exercise to consider how successful such arguments are...
21 October 2013 - by Dr Ruth Stirton 
23andMe describes its Inheritance Calculator as an engaging way for their clients to 'dip their toes into genetics' providing an opportunity to explore the 'fun traits like eye colour and muscle performance'[2] that their offspring might inherit....
07 October 2013 - by Dr Sophie Pryor 
A US genetics company has been awarded a patent that relates to a DNA analysis service that predicts a baby's traits on the basis of its parents' genes....

08 July 2013 - by Siobhan Chan 
A 'powerful' form of genome analysis could improve embryo selection for IVF, according to scientists who report that the first baby has been born from this method...
01 July 2013 - by Dr Rosie Gilchrist 
The UK Government is to support the introduction of mitochondrial replacement therapy. The IVF-based procedure could allow women with mitochondrial disease the opportunity to have healthy children, by replacing their own, faulty, mitochondria with healthy mitochondria from a donor....
07 January 2013 - by Dr Peter Mills 
How valuable are emerging biotechnologies? Of all the questions about the prospects of the life sciences, this is the one that UK policy makers seem most eager to answer...
03 May 2011 - by Professor Alison Murdoch 
Medicine has faced many controversial milestones, none more so than those involving reproduction. The UK Government must now decide whether we can use IVF technology to reduce the risk of transmission of mitochondrial DNA abnormalities. Will they accept it or reject it?...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Ethical principles for drawing a line (maynard - Updated on 27/07/2013)
I wouldn't worry about designer babies so much if we had principles for defining health and illness more clearly....

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
FROZEN ASSETS?
Preserving Sperm, Eggs and Embryos

FREE event
Edinburgh
25 October 2016

BOOK HERE


RETHINKING THE ETHICS OF EMBRYO RESEARCH
Genome Editing, 14 Days and Beyond

Public Conference
London
7 December 2016

Speakers include

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

Dr Kathy Niakan

Professor Sir Ian Wilmut

Lord George Carey

Baroness Mary Warnock

Dr Simon Fishel

Professor Bruce Whitelaw

Professor Alison Murdoch

Professor David Jones

Professor Sarah Franklin

Professor Stephen Wilkinson

BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code
 
Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation