Build-a-Baby: The Ethics of Scientific Progress

Science is controversial. Look no further than 2010's Nobel Prize in medicine for in-vitro fertilization, a long-controversial technology that is still condemned by the Vatican.

A post at Science Not Fiction raises a great question -- "Does Technology Help Us Be More Ethical?" Or are we growing less ethical as science opens up a world of new possibilities? I found one of the examples they brought up to be particularly intriguing....

Let’s imagine a new example: designer babies. We first hear about a brand new technology and everybody from religious leaders to scientific experts to your grandmother stands up and denounces it—“Yuck!” says Grandma; “Eugenics will bring back Hitler armies!” says the politician who has no grasp of science (a redundant statement, I know); “God doesn’t approve!” says the Vatican; “all people will all be the same!” says the worried science philosopher. “The genetic engineering of people could have lots of things go wrong with it, and it’s just unnatural, so we probably shouldn’t do it,” says the general consensus.

The prospect of "designer babies" is definitely not far off. Certainly it comes with a host of potentially unethical applications -- selecting babies on the basis of height, hair color, or even intelligence, as demonstrated fantastically by the movie Gattaca (often cited as one of the most accurate portrayals of science by Hollywood). But what about the vast array of genetic disorders we couldprevent using "designer-baby" technology? Cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sach's, diabetes, heart disease, sickle-cell anemia, some cancers (including breast and colon), severe alcoholism, Huntington's, some forms of Alzheimer's, obesity, ALS, Turner's -- all these, and hundreds more, are sometimes or always caused by genetic factors, and therefore theoretically preventable.

So, if (not yet, but soon) we have it in our power to safely prevent these diseases, are we morally obligated to? As the SNF post puts it:

In a world where one can easily prevent a litany of genetic diseases and disorders, how would you look back on a society that paid no attention to the genetic health of the child? Would you consider it moral to leave a child’s genetic outlook to chance? 

Medical Anomolies

I saw this clip on YouTube a few months ago about the "Tree Man of Java" (superpowers sold separately):

For those with slow connections (or for those who need motivation to wait for the video to load), here's a shot of his "hands":


I ran into a recent article about his condition (a random combination of the HPV virus plus an incredibly rare genetic immune disorder) and the treatment he's been getting... which led me to an article on the man without a face....



....which, in turn, led to an article about a girl with two faces....


...which, of course, pointed me to an article about an 11-pound, 23-inch-tall 15-year-old. Here, she's pictured with a 13-month old, and her classmates:


It's interesting to note the role of religion in some of these stories. The guy with the facial tumor has firmly refused medical treatment until recently, since (until recently) the medical procedures involved would have required a blood transfusion, something he won't consider as a staunch Jehovah's Witness. Meanwhile, the girl is being hailed as a reincarnation of the Hindu god Ganesha. Her parents certainly don't mind... everyone who comes to pay their respects to the baby include a nice monetary gift.