Thinking about designer babies

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs; it's not a question of if but when.

You and I remember Dr. Jiankui He’s announcement of the world’s first gene-edited babies in 2018, as well as his following 2-year prison sentence. What has the average person heard about the issue since then?

Crickets.

Bioethicists and journalists exiled the idea from the zeitgeist, made it too taboo to even consider. If “should we” questions were asked, they almost always led to “no” answers.

Seven years later, Silicon Valley startups are already selecting human embryos and investors are hungry for startups that CRISPR them.

Nucleus Genomics and Orchid Bioscience offer whole genome embryo sequencing to select your embryo based on their genetics. Manhattan Genomics and Dr. He himself say to be building embryo editing services, and tech investors like Brian Armstrong (CEO of Coinbase) have publicly shown interest in funding human embryo editing companies.

Who is discussing these topics in public? Who is asking different questions or providing different answers, given the times? Where are all the biotech philosophers?

My prayers were finally heard, and last month, The Free Press organized a debate with Jamie Metzl, Allyson Berent, Carter Snead, and Lydia Dugdale. The question: Is designing babies unethical — Or a moral imperative?

As a biotechnologist, I need to study this subject a LOT more deeply. Personally, I need to think a LOT more about it. This discussion, however, sparked some preliminary thoughts…

First, I don’t think we are scared of designer babies, we’re scared of the socioeconomic inequalities they may enlarge.

“If their babies are enhanced and mine isn’t, mine will be at a greater disadvantage than ever”. It’s true.

This is not a problem of biotechnology, but of economics. We do not live in egalitarian societies, but in meritocratic ones.

So here’s another teaser: having babies, “wild type” ones through this old tech called sex, is already a luxury to many. Period.

Global birth rates have declined so drastically in the last few years. While having children is now a status symbol of the elites, and middle class GenZ are having less sex, low income countries will be those with the youngest population.

That means those who can afford to have babies will also be the only ones enhancing them.

Second, biology is (indeed) very complex.

This means two things: that we may not know how seemingly simple edits will impact babies as they grow, or their offspring. It also means that optimizing for “traits” like high intelligence may be farther away than most people fear.

“Once we allow medical edits, we will move on with enhancement” is an argument I completely agree with. Biology finds a way, and so do consumers, especially when something desired is legally restricted.

Yet again, the enhancements may not concern aesthetics or intelligence, since we don’t know enough about many of those complex traits yet.

As the graveyard of biotech shows, the fact that silicon valley is ready to commercialize certain technological promises doesn’t mean it’s ready to make them real.

Finally, I think too many people have been concerned about the technology being restricted to elites. However, if it is in the best interest of companies, governments, and individuals to make it as cheap and accessible as possible, and knowing this is technologically possible indeed, I have a final question:

Would it be more ethical to pass on messy genes, and preserve the right not to be edited, than to pass on healthy ones?

Would it be ethical for governments or insurance companies, at some point, make of gene therapies and germline editing a requirement to reduce healthcare costs?

I’m not sure it’s morally correct, but I think they will.

That leads to my conclusion: I think that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

It would be foolish to assume that gene editing, including germline editing, will not bring any negative repercussions, including those suggested by those against, and some other still unforeseen consequences.

At the same time, it is true that under free markets, and given the great suffering that some parents and patients go through, we will inevitably take the risk.

Thank you for paying attention to some of these preliminary thoughts. I’m eager to know how my arguments grow stronger as I read more philosophy, transhumanism, and economics books.