Friday, November 26, 2010

Designer Bags, NOT Designer Babies!

Scientists believe they made a breakthrough in embriotic technology, however all they have created is ethical problems and the murdering of embryos. 
The actual dictionary definition states that Designer Babies are "an infant created by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization in order to ensure the absence or presence of a particular gene or characteristic". The two biggest questions raised from the discussion of designer babies is "Is this technology safe enough to use on human embryo?" and "Is this morally correct?".




"'It's naive to think that you can go in there with the traits that deal with higher human powers... without [causing] real changes in other areas' The ripple effects of adding a new gene are unknown". What would our society in 120 years?






For the question "is this techonology safe enough to use on humans?", several scientists think we are ready, such as this fertility doctor that was interviewed for the news channel CBS (the video is shown below). However the truth is, even the in vitro fertilization process isn't completely perfect yet, there have been a large number of mother and infant deaths (either immediately or with age) due to the short term and long term effects of the unnatural birth. Its risky to perform in vitro much more designer babies. Today, even the professionals believe that the technology isn't ready to perform these highly risky experiments, that there still are technical limitations , nevertheless, a handful of fertility doctors fully believe that they'd be able to determine eye colour by next year and make that option available to the public, and in my opinion, that is completely absurd.


The video to the left is an interview performed by a CBS news anchor on what a couple professionals believe on both sides of Designer Babies.


For the question "is this morally correct?", many would argue both sides to this point, depending on what they believe is ethical, moral, and what their religion believes, if they are religious. If the people are unreligious, they base the fact on the how financially unaffordable it is. People believe that, along with refrigerators, televisions and game consoles, the price would start high, and slowly decrease, however for the high-tech equipment and the precise services, that cost doesn't have that much room to decrease especially within years, which most fertility professionals believe. In vitro fertilization alone averages $12,000 per cycle, so if a cycle fails, which has a possibility to happen, it's another $12,000. Adults agree that in the meantime, the people who could afford this altered baby impregnation would be in the higher financial class, and putting people in the lower class who choose this altered baby option into deeper financial depression, making the economic gap between the high, middle and lower class even deeper.   

Another concern is how for the people who are religious believe that this process is "playing God". Only God has the power to choose whether you are a blue or black eyed ginger, so they strongly disagree with designer babies, so their children are basically disadvantaged because all of the other kids would have an upper hand in everything.

Its admitted that it's a big step into the future of technology and genetics, however some things aren't worth the risk.



The idea of Designer Babies could be compared to an expensive luxury such as a Versace handbag or a brand new Mercedes. It's not a necessity, such as if they were getting rid of a cancer gene, it's a selfish "want".

476 words, not including captions and works cited.

I commented on: what-the-bio.blogspot.com                     kyletranbioman.blogspot.com

Check out  thebiologytheory.blogspot.com
                   jaelorenz.blogspot.com
                                 bioblog-erica.blogspot.com
   
Works Cited
Agar, Nicholas. "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations." ActionBioscience. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html>.
"Can We Choose a Baby's Sex?" Bionet. 2002. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_cont2.htm>.
Designer Babies? CBS. Youtube, 03 Mar. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ixEDLa3Jlc>.
"Designer Baby." Def. 2. Dictionary.com, 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/designer+baby>.
Gurevich, Rachel. "How Much Does IVF Cost." Fertility. About.com, 06 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://infertility.about.com/od/ivf/f/ivf_cost.htm>.
Karpasea-Jones, Joanna. "IVF Mother and Baby Deaths." Suite101.com. 27 May 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.suite101.com/content/ivf-mother-and-baby-deaths-a241856>.
Ren, Yin. Designer Babies: The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering. MIT, Spring 2005. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://web.mit.edu/murj/www/v12/v12-Features/v12-f4.pdf>.




1 comment:

  1. Hey Jasmin,

    I really enjoyed reading your blog!
    I love your use of pictures (by the way, we have the same picture! :P ) and videos!

    I like your comment "It's not a necessity, such as if they were getting rid of a cancer gene, it's a selfish "want", it stood out and I couldnt agree with you more. As mentioned in my blog, I hate how parents would wish their children to be "perfect", to be altered, to blend in with what the “cultural norm” is and fit in with society’s perception of what beauty and life should be.

    I love that you had questions from the beginning and started answering them by the end. The only thing I would suggest though is to state your opinion regarding the topic, because I just saw arguements to both sides.

    Nevertheless, amazing blog! :D

    Justin Valmores
    Teacher: Mr. Wong
    Section: 02
    jaelorenz.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete