Designer Babies: The Problem with Genetic Engineering

40 T I K K U N W W W. T I K K U N . O R G S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7 TheProblemwith Genetic Engineering by Michael Sandel T here’s a growing debate about what limits, if any, should be put on genetic engineering. We are on a path in which in the not-too-distant future scientists and technicians will be able to select genes and may be able to shape characteristics of your children. Some people already argue that using that to select the sex of your child is fine, or perhaps for medical reasons. But what about other features? What if we could choose their hair color and type, their eye colors, their sexual orientation, their level of intelligence, their musical or writing ability or sports, dance, or artistic aptitude? There is a long tradition that defends eugenics in the name of “lifting up.” Now we knowthattheeugenicsmovementhasaverydarkhistory,thoughitwasaveryrespectable movement in the early part of the twentieth century. Eugenics was discredited by the Nazis,bygenocide,theNuremburgLaws,bytheforcedsterilizationlawsthatwereenacted by the majority of American states in the 1920s and 1930s. Yet, in its earlier days, eugenics was endorsed and embraced by social reformers, by American progressives: Theodore Roosevelt was a great supporter of eugenics, Margaret Sanger, who began Planned Parenthood, was a defender of eugenics. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a famous Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, upheld a forced sterilization law, with the notorious line that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Oliver Wendell Holmes! So eugenics has averyrespectablelineageifyoulookatthepeoplewhosupportedit,andyetitledtoforced sterilization. It ultimately leads to genocide, even though it was first done in the name of those who have been burdened or disadvantaged. What’s the moral of the story of the dark history of eugenics? Some say it’s that eugenics , in its earlier version, was coercive. State laws mandated sterilization in the so-called “feeble-minded,” or in the criminal classes, and, of course, in Hitler’s genocide. There are many today who say the only thing wrong with eugenics was its coerciveness, and if we could imagine a eugenic program that was not mandated by the State, that was not coercive ,butwaschosenbytheindividualparentstryingtohelpandliftuptheirchildren,then there’s nothing wrong with eugenics. ButIthinkthat’samistake.Ithinkthatcoercionwasnottheonlythingwrongwitheugenics . What we have today with designer children is privatized eugenics, free market eugenics , individualistic eugenics. Without the broad social ambitions for everyone, it’s really now an instrument for privileged parents to give their kids a competitive edge. Privatizedeugenicsreflectadeflationoftheidealofeugenics ,perverseasthatidealwasinits enactment,becauseit’snolongertryingtouplifthumanity,orentiresocieties,butjusttrying to get a competitive edge. I think what’s wrong with eugenics, beyond coercion, is the factofitsambitiontotrytocontrolorexercisedominionoverthegenetictraitsofthenext generation. That’s morally troubling, whether done on a society-wide basis or done by inNEWSART /PEDRO MOLINA Michael Sandel, professor of government at Harvard University, is one of America’s foremost political and moral thinkers. In his new book, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, Sandel argues that the pursuit of perfection through genetic enhancement represents a bid for mastery and domination that could profoundly undermine values of equality, democracy , and community. The first part of this article is taken from a recording of a talk he gave on the subject in Berkeley, California in May 2007. Designer Babies 6.Politics_3:Politics 8/7/07 10:23 AM Page 40 S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7 W W W. T I K K U N . O R G T I K K U N 41 dividual parents trying to give their kids a competitive edge. Of course, there are objections about whether doing this can be made safe and predictable . And there is another question about making it available in a fair way, so that it would not only be an option for rich people. But what would be your objection if the designer child were an equal option for all, publicly subsidized as part of a universal health care system, and it could be done in a way that was safe and predictable? Is there a moral objection to this genetic engineering, beyond...