Gallau 1

Jake Gallau

English 2H/ CTW II

4/10/11

Techno-Eugenics, Pregnant Women, Designer Children, and Nazis

For the first time in history, technology is consistently being stalled by a human sense of

morality. Issues of genetics, including the use of stem cells, cloning, in-vitro fertilization (IVF),

and gene therapy are all advancing faster than many are comfortable with; human life is

neither a commodity nor ours to toy with they say. There is also however a powerful universal

appeal to such practices, even if we’re less willing to admit it. You may believe that there isn’t a

simple answer to such complicated and involved questions, and you would be correct. You may

also believe that there isn’t any answer at all, but on that claim both Marcy Darnovsky and I

would have to disagree.

Modern gene therapy is defined as the insertion or manipulation of genes in an

individual’s cells or tissues. The question of which cells and tissues is determined by the type of

gene therapy, with somatic therapy affecting only a single patient and germ line therapy

altering the sperm or eggs of a patient, passing changes on to future generations. Somatic gene

therapy has been used for over 20 years now, while germ line therapy has seen very little use

due to the aforementioned ethics objections, and even then has only even been considered in

the past 5-10 years due to technological restrictions.

 Gallau 2

Across the years, prominent scientists and commoners alike have poured out of the

woodworks in vehement support or opposition to gene therapy. One such prominent, though

woefully short-sighted, scientist is Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society— an

organization that seeks to put a stake in the ground and destroy forward momentum in the

modern genetics movement. In her essay “The Case Against Designer Babies” takes her best

crack at explaining moral and technological challenges that germ line gene therapy faces.

Darnovsky first takes a pass at somatic therapy by claiming that it has not had any

success to speak of—an interesting argument considering somatic gene therapy was successful

(albeit only temporarily) in its very first trail in 1990, and later was responsible for saving the

lives of two babies who were treated for severe combined immuno deficiency (SCID) over a 10

month period (GeneWatch UK).

Next it is germ line gene therapy that finds itself under the gaze of Darnovsky’s

begrimed spectacles. Germ line therapy she says is completely unnecessary as genetic disorders

can already be weeded out through pre-implantation screening—yours for only $3,000 in

addition to the base $12,000 IVF fee (Preimplantation)—or, in her own words, “prenatal

screening, with the option of abortion” (Darnovsky, Marcy). So, for those who are carriers of

genetic diseases, rather than fix the problem, Darnovsky would ask that you either cough up

$15,000 dollars to guarantee a healthy child, or just keep getting pregnant and aborting until

you beat the odds.

Both of Darnovsky’s previously cited options for bearing a healthy child are particularly

interesting given her diatribe on the ethical effects of germ line therapy. She asserts that such
 Gallau 3

therapy is not only unethical as it could hypothetically lead to “intolerance for anyone

perceived as having a gene-associated imperfection”, but also would almost certainly lead to

eugenics, a phrase made famous by the Nazi Party’s racial cleansing practices. To this end she

cites a major proponent of germ line therapy, Lee Silver, who’s since debunked vision of the

year 2350 has the human race separated into two separate species of human. I must admit, I

have no direct refutation for the argument that the genetic enhancement caused by germ line

therapy could lead to an even larger gap between the upper and lower classes; however, it is

difficult to believe that the rate at which that gap grows will be significantly different than the

rate caused her proposed alternative $15,000 dollar genetic screening practices, and

completely impossible to believe that the harm from such a minute acceleration would be more

dangerous than, say, cystic fibrosis or cancer.

Regardless of Darnovsky’s ineffective attempt at pushing her organization’s anti-genetics

agenda, germ line therapy is not out of the woods just yet. To start with, and perhaps the

biggest reason that it has not received greater attention until now, our technology and

understanding of DNA is only now getting to the point where we can successfully alter human

genes. Additionally, questions on the morality and ethics are cropping up in cases such as

Jayson and Michelle Whitaker, who were forced to travel from Great Britain to Chicago to have

a genetically altered child. Conventional medical wisdom says that medicine should only be

practiced on a patient for the benefit of that patient—wisdom that is reflected by the laws of

Britain. In the Whitaker’s case however, it was their seriously ill 4-year old son who stood to

benefit from stem cells that were to be harmlessly taken from the “designer child” (The

Independent).
 Gallau 4

From IVF to Rock’n’Roll and miniskirts, there has always been a crowd ready to label

anything new as evil, and it is simply unfortunate that someone with as much clout as Marcy

Darnovsky has chosen to join the crowd of naysayers that has incomprehensibly attacked a

technology with so much potential for good. I am confident however that society with think for

themselves and see that germ line gene therapy will not only represent the future of genetics,

but the history of genetic disease.