Article Genetic Engineering is a Moral Obligation 2

8/11/2019 Article Genetic Engineering is a Moral Obligation 2

1/4

Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxfordprofessor

Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just 'responsible parenting',

claims an eminent Oxford academic.

Peter Illingworth, an IVF clinician who worked on the study, said the death rate among babies born after single embryotransfer was just a fraction above the rate of 10 per 1000 for all birthsPhoto: Ben Birchall/PA

ByRichard Alleyne

16 Aug 2012

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a

"moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".

The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out

personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and

others".

The academic, who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in

an article in the latest edition of Reader's Digest.

He explained that we are now in the middle of a genetic revolution and that although screening,

for all but a few conditions, remained illegal it should be welcomed.

He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on

personalitywith certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.

By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible toinfluence how a child turns out.

In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less

violent society in the future.

"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a

great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical

ethics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-alleyne/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-alleyne/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-alleyne/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-alleyne/


2/4

"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society,

we should allow parents the choice.

"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our

squeamishness and irrationality.

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism,

psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to

select ethically better children.

"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."

"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring rather than consigning them to

the natural lottery then we should."

He said that we already routinely screen embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic

fibrosis and Downs syndrome and couples can test embryos for inherited bowel andbreast

cancer genes. Rational design is just a natural extension of this, he said.

He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the

Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their

children.

"Were routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and

Downs syndrome, and theres little public outcry," he said.

"Whats more, few people protested at the decisions in the mid- 2000s to allow couples to test

embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes, and this pushes us a lot close to creating

designer humans."

"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing

genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance."


3/4

QUESTIONSPlease answer in detail.

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using genetic engineering to

alter the characteristics of an unborn child? Name at least three of each:

Advantages Disadvantages

- Being able to genetically

enhance the nature of your

child

- Reduces the chances of

hereditary diseases in unborn

babies

- Removing personality flaws

- Economic benefit to society

- Cutting out all the interest in

the world if babies were to be

genetically enhanced

- Discrimination and prejudice

- No medical advancement could

be made without any diseases

- Economic disadvantage from

those who are not genetically

modified

2. "Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism,

psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral

obligation to select ethically better children.

a. What is a moral obligation?

Moral obligation is something that a person is entitled to, based on the belief of

basic human rights.

b. Do you agree with this professor that people have a moral obligation to get rid of

certain personality flaws? Why/why not?

No because personality flaws are what shapes a human and a society without

personality flaws would have no structure and a perfect society is not ideal. No

personality flaws would mean that everyone in our world would be uniform and

have no other unique differences.


4/4

c. If genetic engineering like this became available, but only at a high financial cost,

could that create any problems in society? Why/why not?

Yes it would create problems in society because it would create social

segregation between different classes of people and contribute to discrimination

of the poor who were perhaps unable to afford the genetic engineering.

3. If you were having a child and were able to genetically alter it, would you? Why/why not?

No I wouldnt because I believe that you shouldnt be able to genetically alter an unborn

child because it should be a natural process and if people were to have the power to

shape their child into the perfect human being then it would mean that they cannot

accept their child for everything that they are.

Documents

Article Genetic Engineering is a Moral Obligation 2