Skip to navigationSkip to content

Even the strictest gene editing regulations won’t stop “designer babies”

By Quartz Membership

In November, a Chinese scientist named He Jiankui made an announcement that many in the gene-editing community had been expecting—albeit dreading—for years: He’d secretly edited the genes of embryos that were now living, breathing humans, crossing ethical boundaries to prove that Crispr, the buzzy technology that promises to transform medicine and agriculture, can also easilyRead full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • Imagine a menu like this:

    Eye color: $13,000

    Skin color: $14,000

    Gender: $25,000

    Disease Minimization: $150,000

    This is the future of baby peddling the “perfect” human. I can’t wait for the first Black Mirror episode.

    Or even worse, the government decides the gender of all babies born for those who

    Imagine a menu like this:

    Eye color: $13,000

    Skin color: $14,000

    Gender: $25,000

    Disease Minimization: $150,000

    This is the future of baby peddling the “perfect” human. I can’t wait for the first Black Mirror episode.

    Or even worse, the government decides the gender of all babies born for those who cannot pay, and baby becomes part of army reserve.

  • I'm not a fan of using metaphors to win arguments, and as a society we've allowed them to carry too much weight in our policy discussions. My favorite example is phrase "you can't put the genie back in the bottle" simply uttering these 9 magic words makes all progress same inevitable and any further

    I'm not a fan of using metaphors to win arguments, and as a society we've allowed them to carry too much weight in our policy discussions. My favorite example is phrase "you can't put the genie back in the bottle" simply uttering these 9 magic words makes all progress same inevitable and any further discussion irrelevant.

    All that being said, on this one - it appears we're probably already on the wrong side of our (baby) bottle moment when it comes to "designer babies"

  • I understand why gene editing is wrong from the western world prospective; however, it’s all about optics in Asia. The early adopters will probably be the people who had plastic surgeries or botox injections.

  • Culture changes before the law. As same sex couples are having more children and women are waiting longer to have babies, fertility treatments such as egg freezing, IVF, and the use of egg and spent donors are quickly becoming mainstream. Over time, designer babies are inevitable - it’s just a matter

    Culture changes before the law. As same sex couples are having more children and women are waiting longer to have babies, fertility treatments such as egg freezing, IVF, and the use of egg and spent donors are quickly becoming mainstream. Over time, designer babies are inevitable - it’s just a matter of time.

    The ethical lines are clear when you’re debating this as “someone else’s dilemma”, but it is a different game when it’s your own potential child.

  • Why not start by educating people about the potential dangers of designer babies in a similar manner as with drugs and STD's. At the same time, there could be developments for tools and stratagies to to become effective in meeting the goals of Thwarting said behavior. Many people's point of view on such

    Why not start by educating people about the potential dangers of designer babies in a similar manner as with drugs and STD's. At the same time, there could be developments for tools and stratagies to to become effective in meeting the goals of Thwarting said behavior. Many people's point of view on such topics are often decided without proper analysis. Soon enough, there could be new ways of thwarting the idea and or the means of doing so.

    There could even be a cultivation of the mindset that they may only be used as a last resort or possibly cultivate the fear. However, I bealve that the most effective means of doing so, is educating them by means of psycology and logical arguments. I suppose it is a bit like indoctrination but more like a persuasive argument(in my opinion, public schools tend to indoctrinate, but that is beside the point). You have to show them that you are on their side, as an ingreadient to convince them that the use of designer babies is not in their best interest.

    All the while, there should be a strict controle of both technological and known methods of doing so, by creating a means of thwarting government use or even thought of using them. (The governments will do what they want to any way)The next logical progression could possibly be super soliders mass marketed to the right people, and hidden using the right companies. Assuming there have not aleady been experiments in such ideas already. I think that sums up the general fear of designer babies.

    On the other hand if the right people. know what they are doing when they are manipulating DNA etc.., (not just looking at the parts that they think are the complete picture even though it very well could be that they are not) they could more than solve a few problems in the world, but the faster people mature the better for everyone. It's only logical in my point of view, that governments are like people, under the conditions of their structure, they tend to behaive like individuals do. My only other concern that currently comes to mind, is how do people mitigate the risk even though you could be very succeaful at thwarting and or possibly repressing the behavior, they would put in things like ectogenesis into the mix, and our view of reality would be enven futher difficult to interpret. It's already difficult enough to process with the mass use of electronics and blind trust and mistrust, and the lack of true education.

    People may be able to come to to the right conclusion by them selves, but sometime it takes an extra nudge or two. I suppose it all depends on the vast majority of people's response, and the generalho use of it. Things are the way they are for a reason, however that's not to say that there should not be change, just responsible change. I don't know what that looks like, as I can only decide what my values are for my self. But I do know that people respond according to their experience, and mode of thinking, weather it be broad or otherwise. I also belive that boundries are usful in their existance when it comes to interacions of any kind. The main reason why people would be so quick to addopt it is the same reason for mass consumerism and the emptyness of the consuming effects. People are overall not happy. If they where truley happy with them selves and had structure that they developed them selves, people would not be so quick to adopt it. I think that we should respect the technology, like we respect nuclear armaments. And I would fear also the potential effect of population wars.

    Not to put a negative spin on it. I could be completely wrong, I just have to have evidence of long deliberation before I fully trust the wide spread use of such technologies. I will also say that we have complete controle of our actions and thoughts as I have foud out to be true in my own life. How about you?

    Should Personal development be a part of perfectionism in asia, or what is their line of thinking? I am curious about that. I am also just as curious about what other people would think on this topic both short term and long term.

  • The collateral benefits of this type of work will help many people in the future, and not when it comes to “designing” their babies.

  • If we have the tools to do it, there's no one to really stop people from doing it. I think it would be much better to meet the issue head on and create regulations to manage it in a safe and ethical manner, than to ban it outright and let it turn into the wildwest. The other issue was another topic talking

    If we have the tools to do it, there's no one to really stop people from doing it. I think it would be much better to meet the issue head on and create regulations to manage it in a safe and ethical manner, than to ban it outright and let it turn into the wildwest. The other issue was another topic talking about the the big fight on who owns the patent rights. If we are truly trying to make this a tool that serves humanity, we should avoid having someone own it outright.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.