Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on 24 March 2017

Unbeknownst to many (but not all) of us, gene-editing technology is growing by leaps and bounds, and becoming cheaper and more accessible with every passing year, in particular thanks to the gene-editing tool called CRISPR. While you and I may not be fully cognizant of the progress being made in this field, this progress has not gone unnoticed by bioethicists and moralizers.

While we’re not there yet, we are at most a few decades away from having the widely available ability to alter the genetics of human embryos. Such alterations would be permanent and inheritable.

The ethical debate about doing this follows a forked road. On the one side are inherited diseases and conditions, such as “monogenetic” ones like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, et al, “multifactoral” ones like heart disease, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s, arthritis and various forms of cancer, and chromosomal abnormalities like Down syndrome. On the other side are the more cosmetic aspects of the genetic blueprint, such as eye color, hair color, height, physical build, et al. Looking further down the road, we might imagine that, once the techniques are mastered, parents might contemplate stuff we consider unusual or even scary, like hair and skin colors and bodily features that don’t currently exist.

We can easily see how such would make many uncomfortable, in particular people who are averse to meddling with “the natural order,” people with certain religious beliefs, people who fear that messing with DNA will lead to monstrosities and lab-concocted “super-diseases,” and people who are simply uneasy with the idea of actively tinkering with that which has been honed by billions of years of evolution.

Lets take up that last point first, since it covers much of what underlies the other concerns. Evolution created humans – an achievement of almost inconceivable magnificence. The power of natural selection over time must not be under-appreciated… BUT… we must also remember that evolution is not perfect. Evolution is driven by one motive – the probability of passing on of genes. Evolution is a trial-and-error process, and it doesn’t care about the errors. Evolution also doesn’t clear away benign junk or tidy up the genetic code except when doing so improves the probability of passing on that code. A portion of our genome (20% by some reports, much more by others) doesn’t serve any purpose, there are both genes and aspects of our anatomy and physiology that are either vestigial or residual, there are aspects of our biological design that could certainly be better, and there are things that would improve our “pursuit of happiness” that don’t matter to evolution’s goals and thus have not impetus to entering our genome.

And, there are the aforementioned genetic diseases.

Mother Nature doesn’t care about children born with those genes. Evolution, if given free rein, would over time select away those genes. Mother Nature is like ancient Sparta, disposing of the weak and malformed without a gram of empathy, because doing so strengthens the species. First-world society, overwhelmingly, is not. It places a far, FAR greater value on individual life than the natural order does.

The people born with those diseases, their parents, siblings and other family members don’t put much stock in the strengthening of the species. People go to extraordinary lengths to make life better for those unfortunate enough to be born with such diseases, just as modern medicine continually pursues ways of healing the sick and extending the life of the elderly. None of this is the “natural order,” all of it is humans actively fighting against that natural order. How, then, could anyone object to gene editing to reduce or eliminate the chances of a person suffering such afflictions? Why, then, would anyone object to fixing up an embryo’s genome so that the individual’s life is healthier, longer and better. Such fixes would not only benefit the individual and his family, but would curtail the resources that would need to be expended to sustain, support or cure that individual should the genome “not” be adjusted in early development.

Barring certain religious arguments (some of which, frankly, mortify me), the only moral argument against embryonic genetic correction might be the risk of error or unknown corollary effect. This argument is one that will diminish over time, as science and technology improve understanding of the process. After all, who’d think twice today about taking an antibiotic for an infection? Our understanding of microbiology is mature enough to wave away all doubts (other than overprescribing, but that’s a different matter) all but the most blindered zealots have.

Thus, regarding quality-of-life improvements, we can conclude that, once the technology is there, it would be immoral not to correct problems.

What of the other fork in that road, the “designer baby” stuff? Is it OK for parents to decide they want their child to have brown eyes and long, straight brown hair? Is it OK for short parents to want a tall child, or for clumsy parents to want athletic child? What’s the beef there? Do people object because they might then feel pressure to “fix” their own children so they can compete? Is there a moral basis for such an objection? Is keeping up with the Joneses grounds for interfering with the Joneses?

If we object based on the “unnatural” alteration of the gene pool, aren’t we “unnaturally” altering the gene pool when we allow things like height, eye color and hair color to affect to whom we’re attracted? Or, is the latter considered “natural selection” while the former is “frankenscience?” But, if parents believe that certain physical traits are more likely to ensure success in life, doesn’t that help to propagate their genes (presuming they are right)?

If we argue that designer babies will reduce the diversity of the gene pool, aren’t we asserting that the collective is more important than the individual? Hasn’t that been the path to the ruin of so many societies, even as it was extolled as their salvation? Besides, wouldn’t a gene pool that holds a greater concentration of what is deemed desirable be a better gene pool? Or, is the argument about maintaining diverse traits, even unfavorable ones, simply for the sake of diversity?

As a source of point-counterpoint, consider an example from the deaf community. There are people who believe that enabling those born deaf to hear via modern medicine or technology is not always a good thing. Certainly, most of us who’ve never been deaf cannot fathom why someone wouldn’t want one one of the basic senses that are part of the “natural order” restored, but nevertheless there are advocates out there who argue against such corrections.

And, certainly, there are lessons and cautions to be found in the eugenics movement of the early part of the 20th century.

But – do these viewpoints and cautions actually provide substantial arguments against designer babies?

The key to all this (and it should not come as a surprise, given the nature of this blog) is in the primacy of individuals over the collective. Eugenics was about people imposing their ideas on others, as are all the arguments against designer babies. When people argue that parents shouldn’t mess with their kids’ genetic codes, they assert that they have a say in others’ lives. This may not be a big deal when it comes to eye color, but it certainly is a big deal when it comes to cystic fibrosis. Are those people who argue against removing the bad genes going to raise the disease-inflicted child? Are they going to take responsibility for making that person’s life shorter, more difficult and more painful? What is the burden they bear for interfering with the lives of others?

Even in the case of eye color, if some object based on their belief that the parents of designer babies are superficial and trivial, aren’t they simply imposing their own preferences? Why would those who object have greater standing or a stronger moral position than the parents?

As is so often the case, objections to designer babies are rooted in a blend of ignorance, fear of the unknown, and cognitive bias. There is a heap of logical fallacies mixed in that stew as well. We see it all the time: some ideas simply make us uncomfortable, because they clash with our own preferences and biases. We often drawn into what’s called a false consensus effect, where we presume that which troubles us troubles others, and that this consensus makes our beliefs more valid and more important. This effect is magnified by the typical reality that the imposition of our beliefs and opinions doesn’t burden or cost us much or at all. When we object to parents excising their unborn child’s sickle-cell gene, we don’t assume the burden of that child’s future suffering or the parents’ anguish, do we? What, then, gives us a shred of moral right to make that objection?

And, if we have no right to make such an objection, why would we presume we might for superficial things like eye color?

There is one gray area here: decisions that might be considered abusive or detrimental to the child’s future. We’re not there yet, but there may come a day when some parents might think it would be absolutely darling to have a teeny tiny child, or one with zebra skin, or fur. Or, perhaps, deaf parents might want to ensure that their child is deaf as well. This is the difficult question to answer, and it is one as old as the idea of individual liberty itself. Even in a libertarian society, the State has the obligation to defend the fundamental rights of individuals, and when parents abandon their responsibilities and act in an abusive manner towards their children, the state has an obligation to intervene. Where that line is drawn is where the real debate lies.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.