On the 25th June 2010, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in collaboration with clinical researchers from around the UK announced the launch of its UK2010 project; one of the largest genome-sequencing programmes ever to be undertaken.

The project, will be mapping the genomes of 10 000 people over the next three years in an attempt to uncover many rare genetic variants that are important in understanding human diseases. The aim is to gain a much deeper picture of genetics that can be applied to other studies, both in the UK and around the world. There are two components to the study, firstly the genomes of 4000 people, who have each been studied for many diseases and traits over many years, will be completely sequenced; and secondly, the gene-containing regions of the genomes of 6000 people with extreme obesity, neurodevelopment disease and other conditions will also be studied. [1]

When I read about this project I immediately began to think about two different areas in which this information could be used – medical research and the fight against genetic disease, and the hotly contested topic, the creation of “designer babies”. What I mean by a designer baby, is one that has been produced via InVitro Fertilisation, and has some, or all of its DNA modified and altered to select only the desired characteristics.

This modification is carried out by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, in which embryos are screened outside the womb to identify only those embryos that carry the desired genes.[2] Although at first glance , this process may seem quite farfetched and  futuristic, the genetic modification of embryos is not as revolutionary as it seems, and is already occurring regularly throughout the world. Currently the UK's independent regulator overseeing the use of gametes and embryos in fertility treatment and research, the HEFA, allows the genetic modification of embryos in order to prevent hereditary genetic conditions, and in rare, exceptional cases, for parents who wish to guarantee the sex of their child [3]

Firstly I will look at the medical impacts of this study, as I feel these benefits stand out rather immediately. As an example Between 6,500 and 8,000 people in the UK currently suffer from, Huntington’s Disease – a progressive neurodegenerative genetic disorder, which affects muscle coordination and leads to cognitive decline and dementia[4]. If the study identifies the exact genetic variants that would lead to a person developing this would be a fantastic achievement. With this knowledge, pre-birth tests could be carried out for the disease, and “designer genes” could be created in an attempt to replace the faulty genetic material of an affected embryo with healthy genetic code. By providing the information to eradicate Huntington’s Disease, the UK2010 project would make heartbreaking stories such as that of Frances Culling [5] a thing of the past.

I think it is fair to say that the use of such techniques in order to prevent diseases is not only morally justifiable, but that any argument against it is wholly unjust. All doctors swear under the Hippocratic Oath, to first do no harm, and I believe that it would contravene this oath to allow a baby to be born with a pre-diagnosed risk of a degenerative genetic disorder. According to the “acts and omissions doctrine” there is no significant moral difference between acts and omissions with the same consequences i.e. it would be as bad for a doctor to fail to perform a procedure that would remove a disabling condition from an embryo, as it would be to deliberately alter the genetic makeup and bring about the disability. [6] What this means, is that even if there is only a small chance of an embryo developing a genetic disorder by allowing the child to be born naturally, by not acting to reduce this chance the doctor would be morally responsible for any resulting harm that would come from this decision. However, although this would be a great achievement, it is not the medical applications of this project, but the future uses and developments of this technology that really piqued my interest in this research.

If the project is successful in identifying and cataloguing the genes responsible for genetic disease, it is possible that it could identify “non-defective” genetic variants, such as hair colour, eye colour or even sexual preference, and this could have huge ramifications.”  For example if the gene for a condition such as hair colour was identified, it would be feasible to screen for this gene pre-birth in order to prevent the birth of “ginger babies”.  Potential parents could identify the ideal characteristics they would want for their child, such as height, hair colour, eye colour – even down to tendency towards violence or addiction. This would allow them to have their “perfect child” rather than leaving it to genetic roulette. Society would be altered to reflect these choices and Parents would be able to create their own “designer babies”

After reading the fantastic, “Enhancing Evolution” by leading bioethicist John Harris, I have been convinced, that genetic modification as, this review by Princeton University Press states , “ is a good thing--good morally, good for individuals, good as social policy, and good for a genetic heritage that needs serious improvement” Harris points out the many benefits of biotechnological interventions that could allow us to live longer, healthier, and even happier lives by, for example, providing us with immunity from cancer and HIV/AIDS.  He also champions the possibility of influencing the very course of evolution to give us increased mental and physical powers-from reasoning, concentration, and memory to strength, stamina, and reaction speed. [7] None of these sound harmful to me, and surely it is the duty of society today to provide the best possible future for the children of tomorrow. Genetic modification is the perfect way to “give a helping hand” (or four!) to our future generations to ensure the continued survival and improvement of the human race.

However, although the potential benefits of this technology are obvious to me, some people hold the attitude that this is “tampering with nature” and the status quo should be maintained. Arguments have been put forth that approving genetic modification could lead to a commercialisation of the child birth process, as biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin states “parents may be going to fertility clinics and picking from a list of options the way car buyers order air conditioning and chrome-alloy wheels.”  [8]

Critics of this technology also often use a kind of “slippery-slope” argument, stating that unchecked use of genetic manipulation will undoubtedly result in a radical and dystopian future. A future in which the genetically selected blonde haired, blue eyed “Super Children”, products of perfect engineering and financial investment by rich parents, are the only ones recognized by society. A future where the poor, who have to settle for the normal “birds-n-bees” approach to child birth are left languishing in ghettos while their children suffer from conditions such as baldness, asthma, obesity and a second class place in society. This public fear is picked up on by Andrew Niccol, who wrote and directed the film Gattaca . In this film society is formed around the use of liberal eugenics and potential children are selected through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived by traditional means are derisively known as "in-valids".  Although these imagined futures are, only conceptual, as molecular biologist Lee M. Silver stated  "Gattaca is a film that all geneticists should see if for no other reason than to understand the perception of our trade held by so many of the public-at-large” [9] This public perception of genetic  modification is often fuelled by misconception and fear, not by knowledge and understanding and by using fallacious logic to project “the worst case scenario” people are ignoring the positive benefits of this technology.

 I accept it is easy to imagine, that if it were to be taken to the extremes this technology could be abused, and could create more harm than good, but that is true of all technology not just genetic modification. In the past, people would have been terrified of letting “robots” do the important work of human beings, for fear of them taking over the world!. However nowadays robots are used regularly to fly planes, diffuse bombs and even carry out complex surgical procedures. Fear of the future is not a reason to prevent progression, and must not be allowed to stop this beneficial advance in technology.

Although there have been several arguments against this genetic modification of embryos [10] In my opinion, I believe that most of the arguments against genetic modification are overly moralistic, out-dated or based on fear of the unknown – and I will gladly raise my head above the parapet and state that I am in support of genetic modification!

References

[1]The Wellcome Trust (Online)
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2010/WTX060061.htm 

[2]Bionet (online)
 http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_cont1.htm

[3] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (online)
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/

[4] Huntington’s Disease Association (online)
http://www.hda.org.uk/

[5]The Daily Mail (online)
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295282/Tragic-mother-watched-husband-4-children-die-Huntingtons-disease.html

[6] Harris, J. “Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case For Making Better People” (2007) Princeton University Press, New Jersey

[7] Princeton University Press (online)
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8480.html

[8]Time (online)
 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987-1,00.html

[9] Gattaca Wiki (online)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

[10] Human Genetics Alert pdf (online)
http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hfeBill/Genetic_Modification_this_time_its_personal.pdf

James Lamb is a second year undergraduate studying for a BA Combined (hons) in Community Leadership & Philosophy. James is currently employed as a young people’s worker for Lancashire County Council and is undertaking a research internship with the Innovation and Society unit at UCLAN.  His main academic interests include environmental ethics, bioethics and philosophical theories around epistemology, personal identity and metaphysics.

Downloads

	Why I Like Designer Genes. pdf