Designer Babies Committee
Welcome to the Bioethics Designer Babies Committee. We are a panel of High Tech High students from Point Loma that are representing Callahan/Wade-Robinson/Jana 11th grade class. Our task was to find case studies, philosophies and scientific facts to help answer the question, "Is screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics just?"
Process:
The designer babies committee includes a variety of jobs such as the case study expert, case study expert assistant, scientist, scientist assistant, philosopher, philosopher assistant, moderator, and web-master. The case study experts and their assistant are in charge of finding two case study stories related to our question "Is screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics just and/or fair?". The scientists job is to introduce the topic, and question to the class. The philosopher and the philosopher's assistant are responsible for presenting an overview of philosophical questions raised by the technology and is in charge of presenting any larger issues involved with the technology. They are also in charge of providing two pro and con arguments. Lastly we have the webmaster who is in charge of posting all information about the project on a website.
Decision:
Our committee came to a decision that screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics is not just. The technology we chose to research was Matchright Computer Technology by the company GenePeeks and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) used for gender selection. When the panel went into voting, the moderator asked each committee member their original thought on the question. One person voted yes, four committee members voted no, and three members voted yes with restrictions. After we had the audience share out their opinions, some of the designer babies panel members had a change of heart. The result was five members voting no, two members voting yes with restrictions, and one member voting yes.
The case studies that were chosen showed real life examples of when Matchright and IVF were used. Matchright case study gave context to how the Genepeeks website was created and what it’s purpose was. Through researching the case study it was found that Matchright could be used to guarantee certain traits depending on what sperm donor you chose. For the IVF case study, it was used with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos to choose the sex of the baby. We found that it was rare to use IVF to select traits but it was much more common for parents to go through IVF to guarantee their desired traits. We concluded that these technologies can be used ethically for medical purposes, but they also have the potential to be misused for superficial reasons.
The designer babies’ committee decided that allowing parents to screen embryonic cells for physical characteristics was not just because it takes away the child’s autonomy. It also goes against the rule of giftedness, disturbing the telos of a gift. In this case the word “gift” means the life of a child. Allowing parents to screen embryonic cells for physical characteristics goes against the concept of nature because the procedure is not done naturally. Allowing parents to screen embryonic cells for physical characteristics goes against the child’s autonomy because it takes away its capacity to decide for itself and to pursue a course of action in one's life, often regardless of any particular moral content. Screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics could benefit the child as well. If the child is engineered to be tall, they have a good chance of becoming a successful basketball player and has a good reason to pursue that sport. You can give your child characteristics that will help them become successful and accomplish things they wouldn’t have been able to without genetic engineering.
In conclusion, we believe screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics is not just. While going against the laws of nature and rule of giftedness, it violates the baby’s autonomy. This type of technology takes away the opportunity for a child to decide for themselves what they want to accomplish with what they were given naturally. Although they may be able to do great things when they have been genetically altered, it is not natural and therefore is not fair or just.
Sincerely,
Audrey Sutton
Audrey Ensworth
Carleigh Smith
Nick Warren
Taylor Clark
Darcy Murillo
Holly Alvarez
Morgan Haymen
Sidney Simons
Process:
The designer babies committee includes a variety of jobs such as the case study expert, case study expert assistant, scientist, scientist assistant, philosopher, philosopher assistant, moderator, and web-master. The case study experts and their assistant are in charge of finding two case study stories related to our question "Is screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics just and/or fair?". The scientists job is to introduce the topic, and question to the class. The philosopher and the philosopher's assistant are responsible for presenting an overview of philosophical questions raised by the technology and is in charge of presenting any larger issues involved with the technology. They are also in charge of providing two pro and con arguments. Lastly we have the webmaster who is in charge of posting all information about the project on a website.
Decision:
Our committee came to a decision that screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics is not just. The technology we chose to research was Matchright Computer Technology by the company GenePeeks and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) used for gender selection. When the panel went into voting, the moderator asked each committee member their original thought on the question. One person voted yes, four committee members voted no, and three members voted yes with restrictions. After we had the audience share out their opinions, some of the designer babies panel members had a change of heart. The result was five members voting no, two members voting yes with restrictions, and one member voting yes.
The case studies that were chosen showed real life examples of when Matchright and IVF were used. Matchright case study gave context to how the Genepeeks website was created and what it’s purpose was. Through researching the case study it was found that Matchright could be used to guarantee certain traits depending on what sperm donor you chose. For the IVF case study, it was used with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos to choose the sex of the baby. We found that it was rare to use IVF to select traits but it was much more common for parents to go through IVF to guarantee their desired traits. We concluded that these technologies can be used ethically for medical purposes, but they also have the potential to be misused for superficial reasons.
The designer babies’ committee decided that allowing parents to screen embryonic cells for physical characteristics was not just because it takes away the child’s autonomy. It also goes against the rule of giftedness, disturbing the telos of a gift. In this case the word “gift” means the life of a child. Allowing parents to screen embryonic cells for physical characteristics goes against the concept of nature because the procedure is not done naturally. Allowing parents to screen embryonic cells for physical characteristics goes against the child’s autonomy because it takes away its capacity to decide for itself and to pursue a course of action in one's life, often regardless of any particular moral content. Screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics could benefit the child as well. If the child is engineered to be tall, they have a good chance of becoming a successful basketball player and has a good reason to pursue that sport. You can give your child characteristics that will help them become successful and accomplish things they wouldn’t have been able to without genetic engineering.
In conclusion, we believe screening embryonic cells for physical characteristics is not just. While going against the laws of nature and rule of giftedness, it violates the baby’s autonomy. This type of technology takes away the opportunity for a child to decide for themselves what they want to accomplish with what they were given naturally. Although they may be able to do great things when they have been genetically altered, it is not natural and therefore is not fair or just.
Sincerely,
Audrey Sutton
Audrey Ensworth
Carleigh Smith
Nick Warren
Taylor Clark
Darcy Murillo
Holly Alvarez
Morgan Haymen
Sidney Simons