In the 1997 biological movie GATTACA, parents are given the opportunity to genetically select traits for their unborn baby to ensure that the child has a successful future. Today in our world, this is the unpopular reality. Contrary to what people think, the technology we have today has greatly improved since the 1997 science fiction flick came out in theaters. Advanced fertility centers are now widely dispersed throughout the US, providing medical intervention services in preimplantation genetic screening, in vitro embryonic transfers, and providing statistical results that signify their growth in success rates (live births) over the past few years. In this day and age, parents are given the unique opportunity to rid their unborn baby of predetermined flaws based on the genes from its parents. The movie, GATTACA (the title is composed entirely of letters used to label the nitrogenous bases in DNA) puts this ethical issue into perspective. Today, parents are considering using this technique to choose their baby’s gender, appearance, intelligence level, and even personality. They can also choose to have their baby be born without any diseases, which brings about the assumption that perfect designer babies go against natural selection and human development.
“Consider God’s handiwork; who can straighten what He hath made crooked?” This biblical quote was taken from GATTACA. It brings into question if it is right for us as humans to medically intervene with the natural process of cell determination and differentiation in birth. Should we be selecting for certain features in our offspring? For what purpose does it make it okay to do something like this? Many people believe we are headed for trouble with reproductive technologies. The positive aspects for in vitro fertilization include the elimination of genetic diseases, reducing the risk of inherited medical conditions, the better understanding of genetics, and increased life span. A negative aspect is that it could create the loss of individuality and uniqueness among our population. With our new technology, we can screen for chromosomal disorders, genetic diseases, and even heart conditions. With our new technology, we could run a fetus’ genetic codes in utero without harming them or killing them. In 1995, sonograms usually presented a bad image, leading to doctors harming, or even killing the unborn child. Today in 2016, 3D imaging is capable of providing high quality images that doctors can use without penetrating the human’s body.
A negative aspect that is usually associated with this ethical argument is that because some countries are more developed economically than others, this biotechnology would create socioeconomic divisions among nations and create superiority and inferiority between them. Within a country, the consistent incorporation of these medical procedures could create social divisions among those who can afford the procedures and those who cannot. If only the rich can afford to have their babies be perfect, that would create a new status that others cannot achieve. As a result, the economic divisions could grow into genetic divisions, providing social distinctions among the enhanced vs the unenhanced individuals.
One of the oldest philosophical arguments in the history of science is the debate on nature vs nurture. It is incredibly hard to decide whether a person’s development is predisposed in his genetic code, or if it is influenced by its environment. With a baby who has been pre genetically selected for traits like blue eyes, blond hair, and always to be happy, the environmental impacts on the baby far outweigh the genetics the baby has received. It would not so much create a gap in our gene pool, because our surroundings are what codes for our behavior, the lifestyle we choose, and our overall physicality.
100 years ago, technology we have today would have been obscene. 200 years ago, the technology we used 100 years ago would have been just as shocking. Now we can cure your diseases before you’re even born. As a human population, our goal as a race is to develop and figure out ways to better our understanding of life and how to better our physical selves. Many people think PGD, or pre genetic determination is unethical because this involves meddling with living humans, which could lead to loss of a potential life. To further understand the ethics of this technology, it is important to understand at which point we become alive. It is very debatable at what point a fetus is considered to be alive. When does a fertilized egg become a living human entity? In my opinion, a fetus should be considered alive when it develops all of its vital organs in utero: a nervous system, a heart, lungs, etc…. Before a fetus acquires these major organs, it is dependant upon its mother for survival. As someone who stands for the progression of mankind, I believe that this technology is what science has led to. For centuries, we’ve been work tirelessly to cure diseases, we’ve developed open heart surgeries to save people’s lives, and now, we can do just that before a baby is even born. I think, with the right approach, we can use this technology to better our species but only for the purpose of saving lives and not eliminating individuality. As an advocate for science and human progression, I stand strong with the statement that we, as a human race, are headed in the right direction in medicine and biotechnology. We have reached the frontiers of genetic improvement for human beings, now let's advance. “I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature. I think Mother wants us to.” – Willard Gaylin.