The technology to deselect embryos with genetic determinants of certain diseases has been known for at least two decades. The ability to select for certain traits (along with “engineering” children with desired characteristics) is more recent. While the promises of this technology are expanding and gaining proponents, the ramifications have hardly been considered.
Selecting for a trait is more complex than selecting against certain diseases, especially those caused by a single gene or chromosome. Unless a single gene or chromosome causes the disease, both processes involve assessing the embryo’s genome (i.e., its genetic library) and assigning the embryo a Polygenic Risk Score (PGS) or a ranking. Since many traits involve the expression of multiple genes, algorithms are constructed to predict the combination best suited to produce the desired characteristics.
Initially, some bioethicists thought this designer-child technology was a fabulous idea. Parents could design a kid to maximize brawn, brains, or beauty and eliminate disease in the process – justifying their decisions on the premise it was for the kid’s benefit. More than twenty years ago, bioethicist Julian Savulescu went so far as creating an affirmative requirement for parents to utilize this technology, a principle he called “Procreative Beneficence.” This philosophy obligates parents to select the embryo that will likely have the “best” life at its birth.
Savelescu doesn’t define what he means by “best,” nor does he acknowledge that his views of “best” might be at odds with those of others- or society as a whole – or even the continued biological existence of humankind. He readily admits this is a form of eugenics, albeit, in his view, a praiseworthy one.
“I … also argue that we should allow selection for non-disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality. I … focus on genes for intelligence and sex selection. … a principle which I call Procreative Beneficence: couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have….”
Julian Savulescu, Oxford.
This technology now exists. At least three American companies (one primarily operating in the UK) are marketing their algorithms, which ostensibly can select for intelligence (increasing it by up to six points), height, or risk of obesity. Presumably, more design options will be available in the future. Since designer child creation is available only via IVF, which involves its own dangers, Savelescu has now backtracked a bit, arguing that it be used only for infertile couples who must use the laboratory to foster conception.
Questionable Objections
In a recent article exposing the use of the UK Biobank data by the Heliospect Company to construct their algorithms, most objections centered on focusing on genetics as opposed to social causes as a determinant of intelligence, “reinforcing the belief that inequality comes from biology rather than social causes.” That the cost ($50,000) would foster social inequality, i.e., enabling rich people to enhance their children – further widening the economic gap between the two classes, was given short shrift.
Simple extra-genetic or extra-environmental influential factors such as birth order or motivation (drive) aren’t mentioned. As Malcolm Gladwell took pains to describe in his book Outliers, a simple intelligence quotient is a predictor of -- nothing. (Even if a six-point increase is considered significant, which many people would deny). But there’s more to the skewed focus. That the birth of any child, even those without high intellectual capacity, should be an occasion for rejoicing rather than complaint was never mentioned. Selecting for the “best,” based on IQ and health, would have resulted in the non-birth of Stephen Hawking, Charles Steinmetz, Sylvia Plath, and others who’ve made great contributions to society. And then there are children, not intellectually well-endowed, who are growing up in the best social milieu, just wonderful and happy. Their beauty may not be transferrable to genetic prediction – but it shines from their souls.
Worse, of course, is technology’s dark side, including uses imagined by Heliospect’s CEO, where the advent of lab-grown eggs “would allow couples to create embryos on an industrial scale- a thousand or even a million – from which an elite selection could be handpicked.” And what constitutes elite selection? The iconoclast, the highly original thinker or designer, wouldn’t have a huge fan base. If beauty were a criterion, parents would select what society says is the most beautiful – producing a society of Barbies. Would we allow this to be used by ideologues on the right or the left? Shades of Brave New World.
Champions of child choice by PGS are not reticent in calling this practice “liberal eugenics.” Their views derive from the belief that algorithms can accurately predict the advertised traits and diseases. Not so. At best, they can indicate susceptibility to a trait or disease risk. However, proponents still cling to the idea that a parent’s selection would guarantee their child the “best life.”
What Constitutes the “Best Interests” of the Child?
According to one expert who has treated the offspring of PGS selection based on parental preference, the children are not happy. What was “best” for the parent was not necessarily “best” for the child. These children often feel they are “walking science experiments,” and even worse - the parents are disappointed in the results, feeling they didn’t get what they ordered. Should the child not live up to the parents’ expectations, as is often the case when the parents don’t lavish the same attention on environmental stimulation as they did in selection, the kids are blamed. In these families, a high value is placed on achievement, and those who don’t measure up are given the message “you’re not good enough.” Then, there are cases when trait selection is done by selecting a gamete donor with the desired characteristics. Where an egg (or sperm) donor has psychiatric problems, “the kids get viewed through that lens, which can be pretty devastating or traumatic. ‘Your donor is nuts, so you must be too.”
The problems don’t end with Polygenic Scores. Genetically engineered children once considered an anathema to the scientific community, are now getting a second look, this time by investors, and sufficient legal strictures don’t exist to prevent this work – at least on a private basis.
Basic Ethics and Justice
Great philosophers, like Kant, whose views underlie the entire field of bioethics, oppose objectifying humans, which is precisely what happens with technology involving the specification of parental preferences to be delivered in their progeny. As one commentator noted: “Selecting a child is not the same as choosing a piece of furniture for a room. People are “someone,” not “something.” The child- any child warrants our moral and ethical response, translating into recognition of a fundamental human dignity, no matter with what genetic library the child is equipped.
The Hubris of the Human
The debate over whether eugenics should be allowed is a serious symptom of society’s moral sloth.
While advocates of the technology do so ostensibly in the child's best interest (now known to be wishful thinking in practice), consideration of what’s best for society also eludes their consciousness. The entire success of humankind (indeed all living things) is predicated on biological diversity. Allowing parents to deselect from the entire panoply traits they might find objectionable may well deselect the very trait that turns out to be necessary for the survival of the species, e.g., immunity to a newly emerging pathogen.
Utilizing new technologies without carefully thought-out analyses of consequences is beyond dangerous. One facility in Australia is now using algorithms to select the implanted embryo. These algorithms created by humans, with unaccounted for biases, based on data derived primarily from a European population, may not be accurate or suitable for groups with different racial or ethnic genotypes. That’s the present danger. But conjure a very likely future, given the ease of hacking. Imagine a rogue group hacking the algorithms to select an “industrial cadre” of embryos with warrior or malevolent tendencies. It may not work- but then it may.
Humankind’s capacity to manipulate genetic destinies has overtaken our collective ability—or willingness—to reason deeply about its ethical and social ramifications. History and literature warn that intentionally crafting our children’s genes for “ideal” traits yields outcomes that can be as dystopian as they are seductive. While advocates of designer-child technology herald its capacity to eliminate disease and optimize intelligence or beauty, the reality is far more fraught. We risk objectifying children, who—far from being personalized consumer goods—deserve an inherent dignity untouched by parental preference. We owe future generations a balanced appraisal that transcends narrow, utilitarian aims and champions the richness of genetic variation, the primacy of the child’s well-being, and the intrinsic worth of human life in all its unpredictable forms. Anything less would be a dangerous surrender to hubris
