When we were five years old, we decided what color our teddy bear would be, stuffed it with cotton, and dressed it up in whatever outfit we wanted.
Now, instead of picking out their stuffed animals’ features, our kids may be picking out their kids’ features.
Genetic manipulation of a fetus is a technology that will become a possibility for parents in the next 25 years, according to ABC News.
"What's going to happen over the next 10 to 25 years is that we are going to... understand how all of the genes in the genome effect how tall we are, whether we are likely to be thin or heavy, and then I think scientists are going to probe the brain and understand how people have different personalities and different levels of abilities," said geneticist Lee Silver of Princeton University in an interview with ABC News.
While our automatic assumption is that parents will now want to design babies with flawless skin, beautiful eyes, and shiny hair, scientists first hope to tackle the internal defects a baby may receive through its genes.
With the prospect of choosing the genes that will develop into the “ideal” baby, scientists hope to create a pathway for new parents to medically enhance their child, and, hopefully, eliminate genetic diseases, such as sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis.
Before being able to pilot test the method on humans, researchers must first look at CRISPR, a family of DNA sequences in bacteria that create snippets of virus DNA. To successfully complete the pilot test, they must prevent CRISPR from creating mutations in the embryo.
Over the past year, Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin Madison, says researchers “have made progress in understanding and preventing the ways in which genome-editing techniques, such as CRISPR, cause unintended mutations,” according to Scientific American.
So, the outlook is positive for coming generations, right?
Not necessarily.
According to ABC News, genes aren’t the only factor that determine how a child develops. Factors such as environment and how one is raised can affect the development of a person, in addition to their genetic makeup.
Essentially, talents and traits don’t come from a single gene, but rather complex genetic makeups that can’t exactly be modified just yet.
In fact, according to the New York Times, some scientists estimate height is influenced by as many as 93,000 genetic variations, and most physical diseases and psychiatric disorders follow suit.
Despite the complexity of the practice, some scientists remain hopeful.
"We already perfected [the technology needed to choose genes] in mice so it's already being applied to lots of mammal species – sheep, cows, goats," Silver said to ABC News. "There is absolutely no reason why that same technology couldn't be applied to human embryos."
However, genetic modification of humans raises the question of how ethical the practice would be.
While the goal would be to breed out genetic diseases, geneticists worry that prospective parents would engineer their child to be, more or less, superhuman.
According to Dr. Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a co-author and geneticist at the Salk Institute, the hormone Erythropoietin (EPO), which some athletes have been disciplined for taking, “is produced by a gene, so you could, in theory, engineer yourself to produce more EPO.”
Modifications like these may result in societal inequity, says Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society.
“Allowing any form of human germline modification leaves the way open for all kinds — especially when fertility clinics start offering ‘genetic upgrades’ to those able to afford them,” Darnovsky said in a statement. “We could all too easily find ourselves in a world where some people’s children are considered biologically superior to the rest of us.”
But parents seem to be opposed to the idea of their future baby possibly ruling the world.
"I think the world will be a little bit more competitive. If everyone programmed their own kids, then everyone would be 'super smart' or 'super athletes.' And everyone would be the same. There would be a lot of the same type of people. There wouldn't be as much diversity or variety," expectant mother Risa Goldberg said in an interview with ABC News.
More importantly, some parents say they would opt out of genetic selection out of fear of harming their unborn child.
"We didn't [genetically modify the sex] because if something ever went wrong with the child, I would never be able to forgive myself, and I'd always be looking back on it and saying, 'Is it because I did this? And is the reason [something went wrong] because I decided to do pre-gender selection?'" Janice Chabkin, another expectant mother said to ABC News.
For others, like Tara Dezham, a senior, genetic selection could be a possibility in her future. Dezham lives with Celiac disease, a genetic disease that could someday affect her children.
“When I was a kid, I would go to parties and not be able to eat pizza and cake, and now I’ll smell food and really want to eat them, but it’s hard because there are still some foods that don’t have gluten free versions,” she said. “I would probably choose to have the gene removed because it’s hard for me to deal with [Celiac disease], so I wouldn’t want it for my kids.”
So, for now, genetic selection seems to be at a standstill while parents and ethicists alike struggle to find the balance between helping and hurting the upcoming generations.
If we want options, I guess we’ll have to stick to Build-A-Bear for now.
Now, instead of picking out their stuffed animals’ features, our kids may be picking out their kids’ features.
Genetic manipulation of a fetus is a technology that will become a possibility for parents in the next 25 years, according to ABC News.
"What's going to happen over the next 10 to 25 years is that we are going to... understand how all of the genes in the genome effect how tall we are, whether we are likely to be thin or heavy, and then I think scientists are going to probe the brain and understand how people have different personalities and different levels of abilities," said geneticist Lee Silver of Princeton University in an interview with ABC News.
While our automatic assumption is that parents will now want to design babies with flawless skin, beautiful eyes, and shiny hair, scientists first hope to tackle the internal defects a baby may receive through its genes.
With the prospect of choosing the genes that will develop into the “ideal” baby, scientists hope to create a pathway for new parents to medically enhance their child, and, hopefully, eliminate genetic diseases, such as sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis.
Before being able to pilot test the method on humans, researchers must first look at CRISPR, a family of DNA sequences in bacteria that create snippets of virus DNA. To successfully complete the pilot test, they must prevent CRISPR from creating mutations in the embryo.
Over the past year, Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin Madison, says researchers “have made progress in understanding and preventing the ways in which genome-editing techniques, such as CRISPR, cause unintended mutations,” according to Scientific American.
So, the outlook is positive for coming generations, right?
Not necessarily.
According to ABC News, genes aren’t the only factor that determine how a child develops. Factors such as environment and how one is raised can affect the development of a person, in addition to their genetic makeup.
Essentially, talents and traits don’t come from a single gene, but rather complex genetic makeups that can’t exactly be modified just yet.
In fact, according to the New York Times, some scientists estimate height is influenced by as many as 93,000 genetic variations, and most physical diseases and psychiatric disorders follow suit.
Despite the complexity of the practice, some scientists remain hopeful.
"We already perfected [the technology needed to choose genes] in mice so it's already being applied to lots of mammal species – sheep, cows, goats," Silver said to ABC News. "There is absolutely no reason why that same technology couldn't be applied to human embryos."
However, genetic modification of humans raises the question of how ethical the practice would be.
While the goal would be to breed out genetic diseases, geneticists worry that prospective parents would engineer their child to be, more or less, superhuman.
According to Dr. Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a co-author and geneticist at the Salk Institute, the hormone Erythropoietin (EPO), which some athletes have been disciplined for taking, “is produced by a gene, so you could, in theory, engineer yourself to produce more EPO.”
Modifications like these may result in societal inequity, says Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society.
“Allowing any form of human germline modification leaves the way open for all kinds — especially when fertility clinics start offering ‘genetic upgrades’ to those able to afford them,” Darnovsky said in a statement. “We could all too easily find ourselves in a world where some people’s children are considered biologically superior to the rest of us.”
But parents seem to be opposed to the idea of their future baby possibly ruling the world.
"I think the world will be a little bit more competitive. If everyone programmed their own kids, then everyone would be 'super smart' or 'super athletes.' And everyone would be the same. There would be a lot of the same type of people. There wouldn't be as much diversity or variety," expectant mother Risa Goldberg said in an interview with ABC News.
More importantly, some parents say they would opt out of genetic selection out of fear of harming their unborn child.
"We didn't [genetically modify the sex] because if something ever went wrong with the child, I would never be able to forgive myself, and I'd always be looking back on it and saying, 'Is it because I did this? And is the reason [something went wrong] because I decided to do pre-gender selection?'" Janice Chabkin, another expectant mother said to ABC News.
For others, like Tara Dezham, a senior, genetic selection could be a possibility in her future. Dezham lives with Celiac disease, a genetic disease that could someday affect her children.
“When I was a kid, I would go to parties and not be able to eat pizza and cake, and now I’ll smell food and really want to eat them, but it’s hard because there are still some foods that don’t have gluten free versions,” she said. “I would probably choose to have the gene removed because it’s hard for me to deal with [Celiac disease], so I wouldn’t want it for my kids.”
So, for now, genetic selection seems to be at a standstill while parents and ethicists alike struggle to find the balance between helping and hurting the upcoming generations.
If we want options, I guess we’ll have to stick to Build-A-Bear for now.